3 ms·

As far as "Do you fish for the "best" candidate of a bunch or do hire as soon as you find a "hire-able" candidate?" I think this really depends on what you're

by gt565k 11y ago

As far as "Do you fish for the "best" candidate of a bunch or do hire as soon as you find a "hire-able" candidate?" I think this really depends on what you're looking for. If the first person seems like a good fit, with a solid referral, and you don't want to continue looking, then sure, hire him/her. On another note, I've seen people trying to hire candidates too fast backfire, as they rush to hire someone because they are in a dire need to fill a position fast. Usually these candidates aren't ones that are referred internally, but rather someone who came in through a recruiter. This is a problem on the management side. Ideally, you want to start interviewing candidates 1-3 months before you really need them. That way, you won't be forced to hire the first person that seems like a good fit. I'm actually surprised you get so many referrals from current employees. A referrer shouldn't feel the consequences of a bad hire. The referrer didn't make the hiring decision, it's not their fault if you hired the person they referred.

jrs235 11y ago
If the referrer is a current employee, someone from a department other than development won't "feel" the negative consequences as someone in dev. So a referral from a developer might carry more weight than one from someone in sales. Additionally a current developers referral would carry more weight than a salesperson's referral because a developer ought to be able to gauge the candidates abilities a bit more. The negative consequences for the developer comes mostly from psychology (which affects some more than others) in that most people apply personal pressure to ensure the success of a hire that they referred for fear of looking bad (current employees might feel this more than say a third party business contact that referred someone). So... "A referrer shouldn't feel the consequences of a bad hire. The referrer didn't make the hiring decision, it's not their fault if you hired the person they referred." A referrer might feel the consequences of a bad hire in that they, assuming they care about their personal referral capital and reputation, may have to pick up the slack for a "bad hire". You are correct they didn't make the decision to hire the person. The negative consequences aren't direct not intentional but they expose additional "skin" in a referral hence giving their referral more weight in ordering candidates. Maybe that's just wrong to consider and view things? On a slightly different note: in the past we have taken current developers and a potential hire out for lunch to see if there is "cultural fit". I don't like this idea anymore unless, we have agreed and intend to hire the candidate pending the lunch. However, the existing developers will not be able to override the hiring decision as it is not for them to say "no" but rather it is an opportunity for the candidate to decide if they can get along with the existing team? Is that fair?

by gt565k 11y ago

jrs235 11y ago

If the referrer is a current employee, someone from a department other than development won't "feel" the negative consequences as someone in dev. So a referral from a developer might carry more weight than one from someone in sales. Additionally a current developers referral would carry more weight than a salesperson's referral because a developer ought to be able to gauge the candidates abilities a bit more. The negative consequences for the developer comes mostly from psychology (which affects some more than others) in that most people apply personal pressure to ensure the success of a hire that they referred for fear of looking bad (current employees might feel this more than say a third party business contact that referred someone). So... "A referrer shouldn't feel the consequences of a bad hire. The referrer didn't make the hiring decision, it's not their fault if you hired the person they referred." A referrer might feel the consequences of a bad hire in that they, assuming they care about their personal referral capital and reputation, may have to pick up the slack for a "bad hire". You are correct they didn't make the decision to hire the person. The negative consequences aren't direct not intentional but they expose additional "skin" in a referral hence giving their referral more weight in ordering candidates. Maybe that's just wrong to consider and view things? On a slightly different note: in the past we have taken current developers and a potential hire out for lunch to see if there is "cultural fit". I don't like this idea anymore unless, we have agreed and intend to hire the candidate pending the lunch. However, the existing developers will not be able to override the hiring decision as it is not for them to say "no" but rather it is an opportunity for the candidate to decide if they can get along with the existing team? Is that fair?