[solarmist]

Sure, that would be even better. But how would that even look?

In the best case applicants needs to apply multiple companies. Companies need to interview multiple applicants and have a way to compare those applicants.

Those are the most basic constraints I can think of. How do you make that cost tens of hours for each round?

[codr7]

You would have to stop optimizing people to hell and back and start committing to a few at a time. Sounds like a really good idea to me.

[solarmist]

That doesn’t answer the question.

For me as a job applicant even in the best case I would need to do 3 to 5 interview interviews. The same is true for companies in the best case it will take at least 3 to 5 interviews to find somebody. Are they supposed to have 3 to 5 temporary staff for weeks at a time?

How much time should that take per interview? How would somebody that currently has a job manage that kind of time commitment?

[codr7]

Yeah, you would need to change your expectations, I figured that much was obvious.

[solarmist]

I felt like I was doing that with what I described.

What changes to expectations are you talking about?

[codr7]

You seem stuck on the idea that you need to verify an employee to hell and back before investing anything, that's not what I mean by committing. If they look like they might be a reasonable fit, give them a month to prove it, then you'll know for sure. One interview per person should be enough to make that decision.