|
I appreciate that going through hiring process is challenging, and it is stressful and time consuming to need to prove or demonstrate yourself again and again in a process that can be rather artificial and seem unrelated to the job, often while getting negative feedback. On another hand, think about it from a company perspective: maybe 100 people apply for an advertised role. 25 might be excluded based on CV. Remaining 75 are phone screened and given coding tests online. 35 might be excluded based on that. 40 invited to proceed to on site to interview. 5 out of 40 candidates might demonstrate reasonable ability during on site interviews in terms of actually being able to write code, and demonstrate some problem solving ability, and some familiarity with common data structures, and not have obvious red flags about how they relate to people. Two of these 5 candidates who gave a strong performance drop out due to competing offers, one runs into visa issues, remaining two offers are made and accepted. Some candidates will apply for roles with no relevant experience, some candidates will demonstrate no ability to program in their preferred programming language during on site interviews after doing well during an earlier remote coding test (e.g. they got a friend to sit the test for them), some candidates have 10 years commercial experience but cannot assess when to use an array versus a hash map. This might boil down to something like 150 - 200 hours of human effort, much of this engineering effort required to assess engineering ability, to identify a single candidate who is a strong fit and goes on to accept an offer. From the company's perspective, the company has an imperfect hiring process. Sometimes candidates have a rough day, freeze under stress and don't perform well during the interview- even if they could be a good fit for the job. Sometimes the hiring process emphasises measuring things that aren't necessarily the most important things for the role. But it costs the company a lot more money to hire the wrong person versus missing hiring a person who's a great fit, so it's probably the right tradeoff to bias the hiring process to reject more often than accept, and risk rejecting a number of candidates who could have turned out great. |