12 ms·
In my experience: (1) just isn't true. It's at best a mixed bag. (2) is somewhat true. Team fit is pretty hard to figure out without interactions, and ag
by ska 3y ago
In my experience:
(1) just isn't true. It's at best a mixed bag.
(2) is somewhat true. Team fit is pretty hard to figure out without interactions, and agree sometimes managers just want to get their oar in.
(3) is oversimplification. There are definitely people who are better a getting hired than doing the job, and they are hard to weed out early in their career. If you aren't able to identify good candidates in front of you though (e.g. the FN, not FP) there are problems in your process, not the candidates.
- indymike 3y ago1. I'm pretty sure that background checks work beyond doubt. I'm pretty sure that skills tests work beyond doubt. I'm less confident in AI resume/profile analysis and skills matching tools - both are getting better. 3. Agree, it's simplified, but for most companies, field and "hiring" managers are barely able to do an effective interview, let alone smoke out someone lacking interview skills from one lacking communication skills.
- ska 3y agoAgree both background checks and skill tests can work very well in an ideal form, but it's expensive (in time, mostly). As practised, they are very much a mixed bag. The latter is a problem past early career stuff anyway, as you aren't going to learn much in a couple hours.