Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of never-ending job interviews

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#21

Post by throwaway984393 »

If you go to an interview, you can probably suss out which are stringing you along and which want to hire quickly. Ask if they need a candidate immediately or are taking their time. Ask if your qualifications are exactly what they're looking for, and if you feel like a cultural fit for them. Ask if they have the budget and headcount to hire you immediately. Ask which teams the people interviewing you are on, to find out if they are all in different teams/departments or the same. Ask if each interviewer even knows who the the previous interviewer is in the company ("Frank who?"). Ask if they know exactly what they want you to work on. Follow up periodically to see if they are responding to you in a timely manner.

It's common for there to be some uncertainty with one or two of these things, but if there's a lot of uncertainty, you are being strung along. Best case they are waiting you out trying to find a better candidate, worst case they don't even have the budget for you and are playing politics within their company using you as leverage.

Interview multiple places in parallel, and don't cancel any interviews until you've got a signed piece of paper. But of course, prioritize the ones that aren't jerking your chain.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#22

Post by nowherebeen »

> Five companies told him they had to delay hiring because of Covid-19 – but only after he’d done the final round of interviews.

This is a typical HR strategy to keep themselves busy so they don't get laid off. HR is not a revenue generating department, so even if they aren't hiring, then they still need to push paper.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#23

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

sp332 wrote: post #18
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #2

What’s happening is that companies want to completely remove risk from the hiring process. In the real world, you cannot remove risk. You can manage it, but you cannot remove it. Asking candidates to go through 6 interviews before making a decision and not telling them when a decision will be made signals a risk adverse culture that cannot make decisions.

Companies don't want to do job training anymore. Instead of a general background and attitude check, they need to know if the candidate has all of the individual skills that will be used on the job.

Job training is not as much worth it for companies when employees can switch jobs at the drop of a hat.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#24

Post by madengr »

DSingularity wrote: post #5
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #2

What’s happening is that companies want to completely remove risk from the hiring process. In the real world, you cannot remove risk. You can manage it, but you cannot remove it. Asking candidates to go through 6 interviews before making a decision and not telling them when a decision will be made signals a risk adverse culture that cannot make decisions.

The reason they want to remove the risk is because it takes years to prune bad talent.

How? I have seen people with 25 years service (electrical engineer) walked out with zero notice. Unless you are unionized, you can be fired on the spot.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#25

Post by wyager »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #2

What’s happening is that companies want to completely remove risk from the hiring process. In the real world, you cannot remove risk. You can manage it, but you cannot remove it. Asking candidates to go through 6 interviews before making a decision and not telling them when a decision will be made signals a risk adverse culture that cannot make decisions.

The risk is artificially inflated by how hard it is to fire people.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#27

Post by throwawaylinux »

DSingularity wrote: post #5
vegetablepotpie wrote: post #2

What’s happening is that companies want to completely remove risk from the hiring process. In the real world, you cannot remove risk. You can manage it, but you cannot remove it. Asking candidates to go through 6 interviews before making a decision and not telling them when a decision will be made signals a risk adverse culture that cannot make decisions.

The reason they want to remove the risk is because it takes years to prune bad talent.

Taking years to prune bad talent is another sign of a problem in the organization.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#28

Post by jimbob45 »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #23
sp332 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies don't want to do job training anymore. Instead of a general background and attitude check, they need to know if the candidate has all of the individual skills that will be used on the job.

Job training is not as much worth it for companies when employees can switch jobs at the drop of a hat.

You say that and I’ve seen several companies in practice echo what you’re saying. However, I fail to understand why they don’t simply make better use of contracts and probationary periods to solve that specific problem.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#30

Post by godelski »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #23
sp332 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies don't want to do job training anymore. Instead of a general background and attitude check, they need to know if the candidate has all of the individual skills that will be used on the job.

Job training is not as much worth it for companies when employees can switch jobs at the drop of a hat.

Then give them a reason to stay (note: it's also not all about money)
Post reply on HN