When companies stop treating devs as juveniles, or people who desire to work "on cool problems" without care for compensation (while those working in sales/business roles, and founders, sure care about making money), they'll have an easier time hiring.
One of the reasons employers want people motivated by the work is precisely because they will be harder to be lured away by pure compensation.
Side Advice: When interviewing, don't say the reason you want to work with a company is just because it's a prestiges company or higher pay. You are interviewing with your peers, not the HR department. Last thing teams want is to hire a person that isn't interested in their projects in the slightest.
The problem, of course, is that most devs are juveniles. At least in startupland.
Nothing telegraph's a company's poor management like a silly interview process. Make sure there's a purpose to each stage of your interview process, don't just throw your whole team, one by one, into a conference room with a candidate with no direction.
If the company is rapidly growing then they may require employees who never been an interviewer to become interviewers (hopefully some shadowing and training is involved).
How do you run a structured process for roles like sales, PM, GM, etc.? I guess with sales, depending on the model, you have a much lower bar (easy to hire, easy to fire), but that's not the case for long-sales-cycle enterprise products. A bad GM/COO will almost certainly sink an an otherwise-strong company.
The best I've ever come up with is just agreeing on criteria beforehand and having people score those, and then also having people who have done the role involved in both creating criteria and evaluating candidates (e.g. having lots of engineers engineer sales = probably a waste of everyone's time).
In a large company, you can test the interview process itself by seeing how candidates who are accepted under different processes perform, but in a smaller company, a bad string of sales hires means the company is probably not going to need to worry about making more hires -- and even if you do have time to correct, hiring/firing to the point where it is obviously a high churn environment deters good candidates and may cause good current employees to leave as well.
Now I don't think focusing on recruiting or only going to events in which you are actively recruiting people is wrong, it isn't. You are more than entitled to do everything in your power to help your company succeed, and recruiting is obviously a major part of that. However, go too crazy with it and you start to get into the realm of people who knock on random doors and proselytize their religion.
Recruited/recruiting for some notable companies. Current managers are heavily engaged in recruiting and I'm quite lucky . Working with some other companies, managers were MIA(missing in action) for long periods of time. Example, present candidates, don't hear back from managers for over a month x_X.
For extremely large corporations the recruitment function is increasingly being outsourced, in fact a candidate might not even know they're talking to an outsourced company. Here's my post on this:
http://withdavidli.blogspot.com/2014/05/what-is-rpo-recruitm...
Use of agencies, RPOs, and high amounts of contracted recruiters gives a company more flexibility with their budget, as headcounts can change dramatically in any given year.
