4 ms·
The advantage of interviewing employed people is that you have a better chance of hiring someone that is competent. That's also the reason, in a one local compa
by hibikir 12y ago
The advantage of interviewing employed people is that you have a better chance of hiring someone that is competent. That's also the reason, in a one local company's case at least, that your list of employers is looked at, as some companies hire a very high percentage of frauds.
One local employer, always looking for people, and not a bad place to work, has 3% of people pass the on-site interview, and it's not especially onerous: It shows you have general programming competency. Everything their exercise asks is something you'll use on the job. But most people that apply fail, because there is a local glut of people that know less than a proper entry level candidate, but ask for senior level salary. Those people tend to be the first to get laid off, and the ones that stay unemployed the longest.
There are great unemployed people out there sometimes: A SF startup that is 95% remote laid off 60% of their staff three weeks ago, and anyone would be fortunate to get that unemployed talent when they can. HR has to shift through a lot of unemployed people that you probably don't want to hire to find a great programmer, and a great programmer probably already has a network that gets them snapped up in days.
It's absolutely not fair to the good programmers that end up being unemployed for one reason or another, but given my experience interviewing, it's not hard to see why someone unemployed and without a good network gets passed up far more often than they deserve.
- DanBC 12y ago> The advantage of interviewing employed people is that you have a better chance of hiring someone that is competent. That's also the reason, in a one local company's case at least, that your list of employers is looked at, as some companies hire a very high percentage of frauds. How can you say that? All being emoyed means is that you got through the interview process and haven't annoyed anyone with the power to fire you. That hire may well be incompetent and looking to move out before they get fired.
- vonmoltke 12y ago> One local employer, always looking for people, and not a bad place to work, has 3% of people pass the on-site interview, and it's not especially onerous: It shows you have general programming competency. How many people who apply get an on-site interview? Has this company considered if their prescreening process is broken and is actually filtering out mos of the people who could pass the on-site interviews?
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago>The advantage of interviewing employed people is that you have a better chance of hiring someone that is competent. I think I have to call Base Rate Neglect Fallacy here. Being already-employed may be evidence that someone is competent, but without knowing the strength of that evidence (ie: how many incompetents get hired anyway) and the base rate of competence/incompetence among all job-seekers, employed or not, we can't really say much about whether it's a good practice to poach rather than hire from the general pool.