[chairs]

Appalling. You were lucky the candidate was available for months of interaction. You deliberated too much and you lost out on what sounded like an excellent fit. No one is going to be perfect. No one is going to be at their best during interviews. Yet not understanding that when someone shows strength and promise that you bring them in to the role where there's a probationary period to do further evaluation shows a complete lack of competence in hiring.

Yikes.

[RogerL]

This is the key takeway, not hey you know what, I'm evaluating this person or poor me my job is hard. Unless this is for astronaut training for a manned trip to Mars to build a colony that time line is insane.

[ball_of_lint]

Months as in 2 months is pretty normal. FAANG processes often take 6+ weeks.

And after that, this is a fully general critique. Hiring well means that there's a bar hires have to meet somewhere. You can argue that their bar is too high, but there's an identical story with a lower bar. It's disappointing to see someone interview and just barely not make the cut because we're human and can empathize. That doesn't make it the wrong decision.

[llm_trw]

>Months as in 2 months is pretty normal. FAANG processes often take 6+ weeks.

What sort of barrel are you scraping that you can spend that long on a hire?

The people I've had to hire were on the market for two weeks every five years if I was lucky.

[mgh2]

Goes to prove that sometimes hiring and work itself is bs, based on the whims of whether someone will get along. In the end, hiring decisions are not made objectively based on competency but subjectively based on superficial and biased preferences. Complete incompetence as a higher up, seems to be a lesson for management.