Thread

1. jonas21 · 1790183511 · focus · HN ↗

   Every time I've hired someone at a big company, it's taken multiple months to get candidates through the pipeline, and it was not uncommon to have to go back to the candidate pool when someone would accept an offer and change their mind before starting. 90 days to fill a role would be considered relatively quick.

   1. sporadicism · 1790185455 · focus · HN ↗

      What an absolutely insane way to do business. Everybody is out here trying to squeeze every last drop of efficiency out of software teams to the point of shipping garbage. Meanwhile managers, executives, and hr are operating under the belief that taking literal months to move "candidates through the pipeline" is eminently reasonable.

      1. mattm · 1790186708 · focus · HN ↗

         Most tech companies have a: - recruiter screen - tech screen - multiple interviews during an "onsite" round

         Job is posted. You apply along with hundreds of other people. The recruiter/hiring manager needs to spend some time sifting through them along with juggling all the other tasks they have going on. Let's say that this takes 1-2 weeks. Some places may let the opening sit longer to get more applicants.

         Several candidates are identified as possible fits. Recruiter reaches out to them to schedule the recruiter screen. Schedules need to line up. This likely takes 1-2 weeks until the recruiter screen happens.

         The recruiter needs to schedule the tech screen after a successful recruiter screen. Again, schedules need to line up. This could take another 1-2 weeks.

         Feedback needs to be submitted and then the onsite round is scheduled. This could take another 1-2 weeks.

         The onsite round will have multiple interviewers. This means more people to collect feedback from which likely increases delays in getting that. A debrief is normally scheduled with everyone who interviewed them. But let's say one week to gather this and make a decision.

         An offer is made. It takes some time to prepare and get sign off. There will be time to discuss with the recruiter to explain the details, plus some time needed for negotiation and thinking it over. This could be another 1-2 weeks.

         Additionally, some candidates may want to ask for more time during these phases in order to prepare better or align their schedules. This pushes back the process for all other candidates if the company is hiring for a specific job in order to give all candidates a fair assessment against the pool.

         Adding this all up, we arrive at 6-10 weeks.

         1. sporadicism · 1790188071 · focus · HN ↗

            The person I responded to said that filling a role in 90 days would be "relatively quick" so you've already improved theoretical hiring efficiency by up to 50%.

            But it still doesn't sound like a very effective process typed out like this.

            1. mattm · 1790188653 · focus · HN ↗

               I can't speak to their experience but the bigger the company, the more process and people involved usually. That causes delays here and there that add up. It's also a matter of how much of a priority the company makes it. If they're large and well-known there's really no incentive to change anything. They'll always have a stream of candidates applying and being available to hire.

               What would you do to make it more effective?

               1. johnnyanmac · 1790218019 · focus · HN ↗

                  > If they're large and well-known there's really no incentive to change anything.

                  Well there it is. Suggestions don't matter if there's no one in power who cares. Have them care and suddenly we'd be able to get people hired in 2-4 weeks.

                  Otherwise it's not rocket science. And you're not hiring rocket scientists. It shouldn't take more than 3 stages to know if a candidate can do the job:recruiter screen, main interview, negotiation meeting. If you need more people in the know, they join on the main day. If they can't, it clearly isn't important enough for their scope of responsibilities (does a skip manager 3 levels up really need to personally meet a candidate?)

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.