undefined | Better HN

0 pointskjeetgill4y ago0 comments

I never understand answers of this format: "status quo has flaw of some known, finite impact" time to "completely ridiculously overcompensate, overreact, and make arbitrary move?"

I can't even fathom in what ways you think "time to hire more, and fire fast?" is more "effective and equitable"? You just shove even more risk onto individuals who might be getting their footing still.

You're just turning a 8-9 hours commitment to an interview into a 6 month commitment. Sure, you get paid but you also have to deal with churn and burn.

I mean, did you think stack ranking was a good idea?

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

dleslie4y ago· 5 in thread

The response is to the needless growth in complexity of the hiring process; advocating for reducing that complexity is appropriate.

You're tacitly expressing a concern that a fast hiring commitment would be riskier; but that's not necessarily so. A minimal set of filters are meaningfully effective: resume, references, and meet the team. Anything beyond that doesn't have just diminishing returns, it can negatively impact the company by narrowing the field of viable candidates too far.

kjeetgillOP4y ago

I guess I don't think 2 phone calls and 5-6 hr onsite is that complex. Maybe the onsite could be 3 instead: 2 code + behavioral, but I can't imagine wanting to do less than that.

dleslie4y ago

5-6 hr onsite is a strong filter against folks who are presently employed; particularly those who cannot spare personal days or unpaid days for every interview.

1 more reply

graderjs4y ago

Nor do I. But I'm the cases we seem to be talking about here, normally it's not like that tho. It's multiple rounds: 5-7 interviews. Especially since remote.

1 more reply

prepend4y ago

> expressing a concern that a fast hiring commitment would be riskier; but that's not necessarily so.

I think it is necessarily so. Hiring fast is effectively hiring randomly and that is way riskier.

Would you read random books? Watch random movies? Maybe, but probably not.

Would you buy a random car? Of course not. Would you buy a random home? Etc etc

You can logistically reduce the number of days by maybe doing multiple interviews into a single day, but that’s still hours.

I’ve worked back in the dot com days where you were hired on the spot and that was fun until they fired on the spot.

Having a well-designed process that takes a while is not perfect, but is better than the other options. “Slow to hire, slow to fire” is a good maxim.

dleslie4y ago

I'm not advocating for hiring literally anyone. If they pass your credential requirements, reference checks, and team meet then they're already passing through significant filtering.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

dleslie4y ago· 5 in thread

The response is to the needless growth in complexity of the hiring process; advocating for reducing that complexity is appropriate.

kjeetgillOP4y ago

I guess I don't think 2 phone calls and 5-6 hr onsite is that complex. Maybe the onsite could be 3 instead: 2 code + behavioral, but I can't imagine wanting to do less than that.

dleslie4y ago

5-6 hr onsite is a strong filter against folks who are presently employed; particularly those who cannot spare personal days or unpaid days for every interview.

1 more reply

graderjs4y ago

Nor do I. But I'm the cases we seem to be talking about here, normally it's not like that tho. It's multiple rounds: 5-7 interviews. Especially since remote.

1 more reply

prepend4y ago

> expressing a concern that a fast hiring commitment would be riskier; but that's not necessarily so.

I think it is necessarily so. Hiring fast is effectively hiring randomly and that is way riskier.

Would you read random books? Watch random movies? Maybe, but probably not.

Would you buy a random car? Of course not. Would you buy a random home? Etc etc

You can logistically reduce the number of days by maybe doing multiple interviews into a single day, but that’s still hours.

I’ve worked back in the dot com days where you were hired on the spot and that was fun until they fired on the spot.

Having a well-designed process that takes a while is not perfect, but is better than the other options. “Slow to hire, slow to fire” is a good maxim.

dleslie4y ago

I'm not advocating for hiring literally anyone. If they pass your credential requirements, reference checks, and team meet then they're already passing through significant filtering.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse