|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
3745 days ago
|
|
First, I don't concede the idea that this is a concern I need to ameliorate, because the work-sample process consumes fewer hours of candidate time than the conventional interview does, and, better still, consumes those times as, when, and where the candidate chooses to make them available: an hour a night during the week, say. Do the work from your favorite quiet bar. Do it during your coffee break. I am spending a lot of time these days talking to people interviewing in the valley, and what I'm seeing is that the norm candidates are subjected to is 7+ hours of 6-7 on-site interviews. Candidates have to go through all the interviews, even if the first interview has effectively ejected them from the process. Compared to that horrid process, I don't believe I have to justify anything about my process. But, if you read downthread, you'll see that we in fact did a lot to ameliorate the (bogus, I think) concern that we were incentivized to soak up hopeless effort from lots of people. |
|