I am always fascinated by answers to the "hiring" question. (I don't claim to know any good ones, perhaps that's why it's so interesting and why we discuss hiri

I am always fascinated by answers to the "hiring" question. (I don't claim to know any good ones, perhaps that's why it's so interesting and why we discuss hiring so much). You're still beginning by submitting a resume - they are replacing parts of interviews with auditions, though they suggest there are interviews too, so it's more of a supplement than a replacement. So Automattic is adding something to the process, something non-trivial in time commitment. I think I can show that this hurts them. ~~~ Employers need to keep in mind that there are some vast asymmetries between employer and the (prospective or not) employee. For instance, some common cases: * When an employee is fired, they are at 0% productivity until they find a new job. The employer on the other hand is at 99% or 100%[1] productivity. This is in short why we have things like unions, because negotiating power in terms of productivity lost to both parties (employer and employee) approaches equal when the employer has all employees at stake, not just one. * When an employer wants to fill a position, they have one spot and can try out several candidates (even with auditions) simultaneously. When an employee wants to find a job, they need to spend time choosing to fly out to places to interview. These decisions are hard, because there's opportunity cost involved: When you fly to place A to interview, you're spending that time not looking for other, potentially better jobs and/or flying to place B. This ups the ante of the opportunity cost significantly. It's becomes an awkward gambit: "I'll pay you $25 an hour to pause your search for a job (you'll do our tasks instead), and after an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps offer you one." That would get some strange looks on a job board. It becomes an odd form of speculative work. You're trading a lot more of your time (that you could be spending evaluating other jobs) to hone in on this one, and then they may not accept you. It seems to be a good deal if and only if you're certain this is the job you'd prefer over the others you'd seen so far, or that you have hopes of seeing. Otherwise, this is the one prospective job you'd want to entertain last. So this might look good to Automattic since they are capable of handling the load, but they are forgetting that such a load is not preferable from the employee's perspective if you have many decent job offers. A shorter, more streamlined hiring process will probably win out, since they're likely to try interviewing anywhere else first (easier) and since the opportunity cost anywhere else is less. I'd like to think we're at least a little rational about this, at least those that feel somewhat time-constrained when job searching, like the currently unemployed. I think this gives other companies a slight edge against Automattic, at least for prospective employees who have options. I think by doing this they will lose good candidates, even ones who might (eventually) entertain their lengthy interview process. Am I off base here? Or does this seem sound?