[btrettel]

I think a big part of the problem is an overly narrow view of what a qualified candidate looks like from the hiring side. Tons of qualified people are rejected because they don't look qualified to the people hiring.

For example, recently a friend had an interview and the guy interviewing him seemed disappointed that my friend didn't have experience solving a problem in a particular way as if that were the only way to solve that problem. In my opinion, the way the interviewer solves that problem is inefficient. But they didn't seem to see any other way.

(Yes, a candidate can communicate their abilities better. But in my experience, this only goes so far, and the people hiring need to make more effort.)

A better process would be more open-minded and test itself by interviewing candidates who the interviewer thinks are bad. In science there's an idea called negative testing. If a test is supposed to separate good from bad, you can't just check what the test says is good, you also need to check what the test says is bad. If good things are marked as bad by the test, something's wrong with the test. If I were hiring, I'd probably start by filtering out people who don't meet very basic requirements and have some fairly open-ended interviews early with randomly selected people (who pass the initial screening) to refine the hiring process and help me realize gaps in my understanding.

[Signatura]

I agree with this. What stands out to me is that the hiring process often treats one internal mental model as “correct”, and anything outside of it as a flaw in the candidate.

The example you gave about solving the same problem differently is common; different approaches get mistaken for lack of competence.

I like the negative testing idea a lot. If a hiring process never examines who it’s rejecting, it has no way to know whether it’s filtering quality or just filtering familiarity.

Have you seen teams actually test or evolve their hiring criteria this way, or does it usually stay fixed once defined?

[btrettel]

> Have you seen teams actually test or evolve their hiring criteria this way, or does it usually stay fixed once defined?

I'm sure many folks hiring do iteratively improve their hiring criteria, though I'm skeptical of how rigorous their process is. For all I know they could make their hiring criteria worse over time! I have never been involved in a hiring decision, so what I write is from the perspective of a job candidate.

[Signatura]

That makes sense, and I think your skepticism is reasonable.

From the candidate side, it’s almost impossible to tell whether criteria are being refined thoughtfully or just drifting based on recent hires or strong opinions in the room.

What strikes me is that without explicit feedback loops, iteration can easily turn into reinforcement, people conclude “this worked” without ever seeing the counterfactual of who was filtered out.

From the outside, it often looks less like a calibrated process and more like accumulated intuition. I’m curious whether that matches what others here have seen from the inside.