| |
| ▲ | codr7 a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm not talking about being watched closely, I'm talking about regular work and then making a decision. You have to leave people space to do their thing if you want to see what they're capable of. | | |
| ▲ | solarmist a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, you would need to change your expectations, I figured that much was obvious. | | |
| ▲ | solarmist a day ago | parent [-] | | I felt like I was doing that with what I described. What changes to expectations are you talking about? | | |
| ▲ | codr7 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
