Legit worked for a place that could never seem to land a new hire because they would take forever to decide on someone and when they finally went "okay" they'd have taken another job in the meantime.
They even went so far as to build a spreadsheet showing the direct correlation of that chronic indecision and it's propensity to miss out on hires and it didn't help.
Depends on if I have the upper hand. market is not great for dev right now.
Plus this is the dumbest meme ever. Ya pope took 2 days to get the job, same with internal transfer hires.
Except that current pope has been working with that org for a number of years and is a known quantity vs. some outside guy you're bringing in from the cold. A nice try at an analogy, but it doesn't quite stack up.
Nah, my place still requires you to apply as to not to be unfair. It still takes weeks.
A friend of mine went through 7 rounds of interviews for a senior position in a tech company.
The sixth round was actual work, coming up with a preliminary plan for their first 90 days at the company in the position. It took them about a week to pull together and finalize.
The last round was a 15 minute discussion with one of the founders (who has since moved to the board and isn't involved in the day-to-day any more).
About 30 minutes later they got a call from the recruiter saying they "weren't a good personality fit with the founder" and they offered the role to somebody else.
Let me guess... they took the plan implemented it and 90 days later do the whole process again with someone else. Basically, they never hire anyone and get free work.
And so they took that plan they made, locked it away, and never implemented any of it since that would be stealing, right? They definitely didn’t just take it and use it for free, right?
7 rounds is way beyond insane. I've done 3 and 4 only to lose out to "a better fit."
I just accepted an offer after a referral and a 30min interview with the hiring manager. That's it.
It's not with a VC funded company, which I count as a plus. Fewer circlejerking bike shedders.
I worked for a place where the CEO had a big hard on for saying we were "data driven". He also rejected my friend as a candidate in the final round based on vibes (as far as we could tell)
Wow, that is pretty annoying. It might have been something minor in the end because they couldn't decide between the two top candidates, but still ...
Yeah something minor like the candidate wasn't the nephew of the CEO.
Yup - but still. That should have happened before the big final "show us how you work" interview.
If not, then the founder should have been in those interviews.
Never do free work! Fucking never! If they ask you to do that kind of thing take the amount of time you think it'll take to complete, and take the offered salary for that position to find out how much they need to pay you before hand. No exceptions!!
Sounds like the HR department needs to be locked together in a room with nothing to eat but bread and water.
This is always the case
Why HR and not the hiring managers?
Depends on how hiring works at your job
The cardinals didn't have to weed through 1000's of AI generated resumes of people who don't really exist. Lol
I'm thinking if corporations started taking our applications seriously and didn't put up fake offers to abuse quotas then maybe people would also be less inclined to cheat the system by spamming resumes. It won't stop the bots, but it'd lighten the burden on whoever is looking at the candidates because it's real fuckin easy to filter fake resumes.
All those interviews, and they just end up hiring North Korean tech workers anyway, Give 'em a break man, things are hard enough over there already!
Promoting within the company is always faster…
Why are people comparing this to a new hire? Apples and oranges people.
And even outside of the company, I bet it would be significantly faster to hire someone if all the candidates were locked in a office room with the interviewers until a candidate was picked.
Interestingly, this is one way people would be chosen for promotion in a worker co-op. The Catholic Church has been syndicalist this whole time.
Edit: let me clarify that. The Papal Conclave gets all the cardinals together to decide on the next Pope. Usually, they choose someone from the cardinals (though not always). So typically, all the candidates for promotion are right there in the room and part of the decision making process.
Well, that moves the question. How come so many companies refuse to promote within?
They would need to hire to fill that old position anyways, or double up someone else’s workload.
And the unfortunate reality, hiring new is cheaper promotion usually implies a pay raise, and if the position you’ve held has already had a few promotions… you usually want to move with some esteem. Not at the very bottom again.
Training everyone for each step up is costly, while training one single person is trivial.
The quickness of the current pope being selected makes me wonder why it took so damn long last time.
Internal prejudice against Jesuits, if I had to guess.
From my experience it’s usually because management doesn’t want to meet the applicants until person A, B, and C have all individually thought the candidate is worth the upper management team’s time.
Corporations don’t care unless they are regulated to care, but it’s also mixed with some corporations getting lots of flakes for the interviews. A hour wasted of upper management time spent studying up on someone that doesn’t show up for the interview could be a few hundred or a thousand dollars down the drain in “missed productivity”. Still, if they cared about the candidates they would do a team interview, and bring the executive team in right after if they thought the candidate was solid.
If somebody would do that do me I would very likely not show up after the third round because I would think they're crazy. (Am in Austria though so results might differ) But seriously after a second interview I would feel like they are trolling me and chances of me not showing up would be high... Is that really normal in the USA?
I believe the job market dictates some of it. It depends a lot on your company’s structure here in the USA for if this is the standard or not as well. Plus different states have more protections for hired on workers which could further complicate how picky organizations get.
If it’s a mid to large size employer this becomes more common practice to do multiple interviews, I believe.
There could be time conflicts for organizing an interview, such as the need to hire someone during a busy season vs slow season, or when different key decision makers are out on PTO. The company could also be having a difficult time making a final choice between two or more candidates so they are trying to find anything to help weed some of them out. I think that last one is pretty pathetic though since it is wasting everyone’s time if can’t make that determination from the initial interview.
Ha! I like this
That's not the best argument, since historically some popes took many years to select. Like, so long it was a major problem and they had to make reforms that included locking the cardinals in a room and taking away everything but bread and water at times.
Good details about the insanity in this Tasting History episode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZCs9aMkzBQ
Technology increasing the ability to advertise the position to a wider pool of candidates has accomplished nothing but to make companies paranoid about hiring nobody but the absolute most perfect one worldwide, instead of just picking somebody "good enough" from the smaller local pool of candidates and moving on.
Harvard(?) has done studies that the odds of successfully choosing a candidate via the standard interview process is no better than picking names out of a hat.
It's the illusion of control that matters the most, not that the process is actually effective.
I had 5 rounds of interviews for a Tier 1 IT job.
