3 ms·

We just post the actual compensation, not a range, and we stick to it. It’s worked pretty well, you discuss it in the first steps of the process to make sure t

by CPLX 3y ago

We just post the actual compensation, not a range, and we stick to it. It’s worked pretty well, you discuss it in the first steps of the process to make sure they get that’s actually how it’s going to work and then you spend your time interviewing people who are OK with the comp. If the candidate pool isn’t any good then change the comp. And sure if you want to recruit a hotshot candidate or something nothing is stopping you from taking an individualized approach with that person. I think people tend to overestimate their ability to game the process. Why not just say what you want.

xur17 3y ago
What happens if you interview a candidate, and they're a great fit (team, enthusiasm, etc), but they're a bit more junior than you were originally hiring for? Would it be possible to adjust the role for the candidate in that case (my normal approach), or would you be forced to pass on them?
- CPLX 3y ago
  Part of the strategy is you have a lot of job postings going at once. So if someone applies for one and there's a more junior position that's a match you just tell them that. That happens all the time by the way and it's fine. People often come to one job via keywords and don't see the various options. I just think the whole premise is that we need this like ninja ability to react on the fly, and optimize the process to perfectly get the comp into this exact number that's the best possible deal for the company or something. But it's not. It just makes the experience disorienting and confusing for applicants, the same way it does when they have to deal with some insane process to buy cars and mattresses and enterprise SaaS contracts, which they also hate. Explain the job and then say what it pays. It makes the process so much simpler that the burden should be on people who don't do that to really prove why it needs to be more opaque and confusing for all involved.

by CPLX 3y ago

xur17 3y ago

What happens if you interview a candidate, and they're a great fit (team, enthusiasm, etc), but they're a bit more junior than you were originally hiring for? Would it be possible to adjust the role for the candidate in that case (my normal approach), or would you be forced to pass on them?

CPLX 3y ago
Part of the strategy is you have a lot of job postings going at once. So if someone applies for one and there's a more junior position that's a match you just tell them that. That happens all the time by the way and it's fine. People often come to one job via keywords and don't see the various options. I just think the whole premise is that we need this like ninja ability to react on the fly, and optimize the process to perfectly get the comp into this exact number that's the best possible deal for the company or something. But it's not. It just makes the experience disorienting and confusing for applicants, the same way it does when they have to deal with some insane process to buy cars and mattresses and enterprise SaaS contracts, which they also hate. Explain the job and then say what it pays. It makes the process so much simpler that the burden should be on people who don't do that to really prove why it needs to be more opaque and confusing for all involved.