11–20 of 337 posts
In the US are there legal reasons why employers generally are tight-lipped about why a candidate didn't get hired?
It is convenient (i.e., easier) and simple risk aversion. In the many years I have been working in the corporate world, I have never encountered or directly heard of a non-hire lawsuit. But, this is talked about as if it is a common occurrence.
"So, here is my answer to the question, “What do we owe the people who we do not hire?” 1. Information on where they stand. 2. An explanation of what they are doing wrong. 3. Help improving." Nope! You don't owe them those things. Good for the author that they tried it and it worked out, but it's not a general rule. Everything works smoother in lots of different parts of life if all parties understand the concept of…
I don't think that a modern hiring manager can afford to think this way, especially when tech wages are so high.
"So, here is my answer to the question, “What do we owe the people who we do not hire?” 1. Information on where they stand. 2. An explanation of what they are doing wrong. 3. Help improving." Nope! You don't owe them those things. Good for the author that they tried it and it worked out, but it's not a general rule. Everything works smoother in lots of different parts of life if all parties understand the concept of…
Google cache since site is down: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bfmrmRK...
It's easy to see what's to love: an open, honest, and collaborative hiring process with a boss willing to train employees. Awesome!
But he also got about 30 people to spend four weeks building trading software for him. Collectively that's over two years of uncompensated work, the results of which the hiring manager may use for free. And from the perspective of the applicant, how many applications could they complete in a year if all were so time intensive? 12? 24? I suspect many top applicants would avoid this process entirely.
"So, here is my answer to the question, “What do we owe the people who we do not hire?” 1. Information on where they stand. 2. An explanation of what they are doing wrong. 3. Help improving." Nope! You don't owe them those things. Good for the author that they tried it and it worked out, but it's not a general rule. Everything works smoother in lots of different parts of life if all parties understand the concept of…
In the US are there legal reasons why employers generally are tight-lipped about why a candidate didn't get hired?
Please note, "good" means they reduce the chance of the company getting sued.
The first time I got a front page link to my site on HN, it did this exact same thing, which prompted me to move away from Wordpress. Static HTML ever since. But to comment on the article, I think this is a fantastic idea. I do wonder though how he found so many enthusiastic people. Maybe it's just a new era, but I have a hard time finding people who even want to do a 1 hour coding challenge. He got these folks who w…
What's worse is the companies who try to defend their unicorn hunts when called on it.
In the US are there legal reasons why employers generally are tight-lipped about why a candidate didn't get hired?
I've always thought so, and I figure it is a case of our sue-happy culture and a cover your ass tactic "anything you say can and will be used against you" kind of fear. I'd love to have reached out to some applicants in the past to offer help, but what if they don't want any?
Sometimes its pretty clear if you are not a good match, but sometimes its really not, and it seems like it would be best for both parties if certain kind of feedback could be provided, e.g. you were close, please consider applying in a year or two with some more experience, or we have decided not to hire anybody due to a later hiring freeze, but otherwise we would hire you - or, you are a unlikely to ever work in this industry, don't waste anybody's time with further applications (maybe some suggestions for better fits).
In general, more information leads to more efficient markets benefits all participants.
When you hire for a person , you find that personality traits are much more important than what an applicant has done in the past, including passion, drive, etc. When you hire to fill a position, all this goes out the window the applicant goes into the hiring lottery pool to maybe get an interview, and then the traditional "You could totally goog this IRL, but I'm going to hire you based off your memory" type of hiri…