4 ms·
It is obvious, but it’s also very time-consuming. You can’t solve ambiguous open ended problems in a set amount of time while being watched closely.
by solarmist 2y ago
It is obvious, but it’s also very time-consuming. You can’t solve ambiguous open ended problems in a set amount of time while being watched closely.
- codr7 2y agoI'm not talking about being watched closely, I'm talking about regular work and then making a decision. You have to leave people space to do their thing if you want to see what they're capable of.
- solarmist 2y agoSure, that would be even better. But how would that even look? In the best case applicants needs to apply multiple companies. Companies need to interview multiple applicants and have a way to compare those applicants. Those are the most basic constraints I can think of. How do you make that cost tens of hours for each round?
- codr7 2y agoYou would have to stop optimizing people to hell and back and start committing to a few at a time. Sounds like a really good idea to me.
- solarmist 2y agoThat doesn’t answer the question. For me as a job applicant even in the best case I would need to do 3 to 5 interview interviews. The same is true for companies in the best case it will take at least 3 to 5 interviews to find somebody. Are they supposed to have 3 to 5 temporary staff for weeks at a time? How much time should that take per interview? How would somebody that currently has a job manage that kind of time commitment?
- codr7 2y agoYeah, you would need to change your expectations, I figured that much was obvious.
- solarmist 2y agoI felt like I was doing that with what I described. What changes to expectations are you talking about?
- codr7 2y agoYou seem stuck on the idea that you need to verify an employee to hell and back before investing anything, that's not what I mean by committing. If they look like they might be a reasonable fit, give them a month to prove it, then you'll know for sure. One interview per person should be enough to make that decision.