Hiring is broken because engineers think it's just another problem you can apply typical engineering solution. Same kind of thinking that causes the terrible customer service in Google products like random algorithm locking out accounts.
It was win-win for our team. YMMV
In enterprise, I've mostly seen hiring broken because there isn't a dev in the room, just fluffy non-technical management.
Who says they don't want to? I'm an engineer, and I love doing interviews. Plenty of engineers are interested in human aspects of the job too, and would be greatful for the experience.
I'm trying to come up with a ballpark estimate of portion of co-workers who seemed entirely unconcerned about who potential new co-workers might be, and while a precise figure is going to be beyond me, it's probably close to an order of magnitude smaller than people who care somewhere between a bit and quite a bit.
Filtering out the people who don't care much also doesn't seem like it'd be a difficult problem: ask for assistance rather than assigning it.
What industry? I've been a hiring manager for years and am not familiar with this happening.
> Hiring is too important to leave to engineers who don't want to do it. Generally they will do a bad job because it's just an annoying thing getting in the way of their work.
So ask them. If they don't want to do it, don't force them. Most DO want to do it, because they get to pick who they get to work with, and do a fantastic job contrary to what you're saying.
Random algorithms locking Google accounts is nothing at all like hiring and I am failing to see the parallel you're trying to illustrate.
In fact, the worst hires I've had to work with were hired by my manager without involving the team at all.
At one point, you can give away resume reading too. And talking with HRs will get easier (more repetitive/automated) after a while; try to engineer a way for that.
