A large company can afford bad hires. You can shuffle them around or find something they can do.
A small company can not afford that luxury so they have to be more careful in their hiring. A bad hire completely distracts a small team.
A small company can not afford that luxury so they have to be more careful in their hiring. A bad hire completely distracts a small team.
We had a new hire that didn't work out at a place I used to work at. Fired after 3 months. No hard feelings, he took it well and found a good job a few weeks later. Everyone is happy.
Which means you probably went 6 months or more without a role properly filled.
On a small team that's a huge dent. For half a year.
Not to mention the time spent in the hiring process itself, which you now get to repeat.
So either you pay the cost by trying more people more quickly, or you pay the cost desperately waiting and waiting because you’re so confident your interviewing filter is tuned correctly and that you know better regarding who to hire.
(In a small company, the process of hiring is often quite poor because it’s idiosyncratically controlled by the early employees and founders, and usually reinforces their cultural views and their biases of interviewing, so having a restrictive filter is even more harmful to small companies.)
This should prove that numbers speak towards the idea that bad hires are very costly. Google's policy is also not to give feedback. 50 percent of their hires had to apply more than once.
I would say large companies do not need that exceptional candidate since they have so many great ones already. Exceptional won't make a difference unless it is executive role or something like that.
That's one of the reasons why I pass when a Google recruiter comes why way.
(The other is that I don't want to move. I'm no longer a bachelor who can move on the drop of a hat, moving is way to disruptive to my family.)
Why? I do not agree that Google’s hiring practices have anything to do with “bad hire” costs.