Comment

Comment by JadoJodo

This (and other terrible interviewing processes) seem like the epitome of a problem being tackled from the wrong end: Trying to filter things coming OUT of the hiring funnel instead of filtering the things going IN to the hiring funnel.

Case-in-point: Modern job sites (cough LinkedIn). Every job listing has HUNDREDS of applicants within an hour of the job being posted. It's ridiculous. It should not be _that_ easy to apply for a job.

The outcome is what we are seeing today: A company posts a job, is inundated with 100s/1,000s of applications. In order to filter out the 80% of applicants who aren't deeply interested in the role, the company deliberately assigns busywork/road blocks to slow down the process.

The other 20% of applicants will then spend days/weeks/months in the hiring process on intro videos, take home challenges, etc. Basically anything that can be throw at the applicant that isn't time with a human.

The takeaway for each can be broken down into:

- 80% of applicants: didn't spend anything, didn't get anything, don't care

- 19% of applicants: spent time doing some/all of the busywork, _aren't_ hired, end up very frustrated at the amount of time/energy/resources that was spent only to be discarded

- The 1%: spent time doing some/all of the busywork, _are_ hired, feel great!

I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I know that:

a) it's a race to the bottom (with the bottom being full automation on BOTH sides of the hiring process),

b) I'd much rather spend a fair bit of time putting together applications for 5 jobs and be seriously considered than spend very little time on 50 jobs only to be immediately rejected or handed an assignment before I even talk to a real human being

c) hiring teams hate the status quo, too.

parent JadoJodo 1 year ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton