[aivosha]

I thought phrase in my post "I choose to believe you" indicates basic trust. I dont see how you got confused and misread my intentions to claim quite the opposite. I choose to trust, yes ! Thats the whole point. I dont trust the interview process itself to be valuable, b/c it does not give you neither the right context or enough time to learn about the person.

[JohnFen]

> I thought phrase in my post "I choose to believe you" indicates basic trust.

Interesting. I took that phrase as indicating the exact opposite. It implies that you don't really believe the person, but are electing to act as if you do (and to inform them of that fact) -- which means there is a lack of basic trust. I think because it's such an odd thing to say, it's hard to know how to interpret it.

In the context of the rest of your post, it seems to me to indicate a lack of trust even more strongly. But perhaps that's just me, and others would take it differently.

Why not just use probationary periods, but not emphasize the reason to the applicants? Everyone already knows what probationary periods are for, after all.

[aivosha]

Well if you believe the person you never met, why do an interview at all then ? Basic trust - get on board ! Im sorry but your argument doesnt make sense. Nobody in their right mind expects to be trusted right out of the gate. They come to the interviews to build that trust. To prove they are what the paper says about them.

>Why not just use probationary periods, but not emphasize the reason to the applicants?

Thats effectively what i do, but I want to be upfront about it more so than its conventionally accepted. And the main reason is b/c i chose not to do long interviews, which might convey that "ah, seems like an easy place to slack, nobody gives a shit here"

Updated: added more clarifications.

[aivosha]

But I get your point. Maybe its better not to emphasize too much about the "trusting their words". Thanks.