Hacker News Reader

Comment by mr_gibbins | Hacker News Reader

Absolutely agree. People with 10+ years, a good network and decent resume pop their head up above the parapet and get instantly mobbed with offers. They're on the market 2 weeks, tops.

No-one good is going to do a takehome just so the hiring team can rub their beards and feel superior while they pick over the code. That approach worked a few years ago, in today's recruitment bear market you don't pick the candidates, the candidates will pick you.

We are having precisely the same trouble as you by the way - junior-heavy, but experienced folk are extremely thin on the ground, and we go from CV to offer within a week. One chap joined (for a few days) and left because he had started somewhere else at the same time - they won out. We're moving to 1-stage interviews, offer on the same day. Higher risk but we have no choice.

View on HN

I agree 100% and imo is the proper approach in such a market. I was trying to explain this to people that the market has changed and the hiring pipelines must be simplified and significantly shortened and i kept getting the opposite outcome, more rounds and more time to make an offer to good candidates and eventually "we cannot find anyone, keep looking".

Companies keep their traditional pipelines with average time to hire time of 2+ months and think they will find and hire loyal people in this rapid market where people accept offers on top of others or with just a couple days or weeks in their new position. And they keep filtering others because "no culture fit", "not sure about this line of code in the take home assignment" and other nonsense.

> We're moving to 1-stage interviews, offer on the same day. Higher risk but we have no choice

Anecdotally, I've seen people actually been put off by this. Perhaps make it 2 interviews just to not seem desperate. It's not my own reaction, but I could see why people might think "They're really desperate, there must be something wrong there"

The counter to this is not extra interviews but increasing the importance of the people in the interview. A one pass, 60 minute interview with the CEO and/or CTO on the call tells me a lot more about the kind of company.

One of the reasons I went independent consultant/freelancer is because I no longer face hiring bullshit like multiple interview rounds. I don’t charge to discuss the problems, sign an NDA if need be, and I get to talk frankly with both technical and business people to work out if I’m a good fit, zero pressure. I’ve turned down work and recommended other people I know would be better.

I fit the “senior” role here and honestly I’d be ok with the 4hr take home on one condition… pay me.

One tactic I know people are trying is to “flip” a freelance contractor by gradually offering work and then pitching the full time gig, convincing them to jump onboard when everyone already knows it’s a good fit and no one has d as any risks.

I never understood why people are so dogged on hiring - just get a senior consultant - pay 2-3x and save the equity. it's faster and in the end the expenses level out (cost of hiring, 401, insurance etc.)

Make the contract with 1 months notice both ways and it's pretty much for all intent and purpose a hiree

For startups, equity is cheaper than cash. Cash has to actually exist in a bank account and be transferred out, equity is essentially imaginary.

based on term and employment conditions (ex: onsight for years) they run the real risk of retroactively being classified as an employee. The only way to avoid this is to hire a consultant who comes from another company... where they're typically an employee, so someone else solves the problem.

> A one pass, 60 minute interview with the CEO and/or CTO on the call tells me a lot more about the kind of company.

Depends, if I had this, I'd think, why is the CEO spending time in an interview instead of running the company? Sure, it's part of their job but after a certain scale of company size, it makes me think they must truly be desperate if the company is bringing out C-level executives to interview.

Communication here is key. If the process is described well and reasons explained, I believe it could work just fine.

It may seem odd, but I experienced this. I'm starting a new job in a few weeks and, while my path was definitely eased due to an internal referral, I got the job really easily, which makes me a little nervous, due to either the hiring situation or expectations.

> They're on the market 2 weeks, tops.

My last search lasted 9 days from when I put out the signal to having interviewed (for 3 companies) and negotiated an offer and submitted my resignation and 2 weeks notice.

Three days. Three interviews. Three offers. Three short, brief chats about the problem. Done.

> My last search lasted 9 days

i think you did disservice to yourself by optimizing for minimizing downtime between jobs. You should've played the field longer and gone for the highest bidder. I am 100% sure you are not getting paid your worth because no FAANG type company finishes the process in 1 week.

That is condescending: you are jumping to a conclusion and implying that the person you are answering makes stupid rash decisions. Without a lot more context you can’t know how sensible their decision is. Even with that context, why should your opinion be listened to, and who are you anyway to tell someone else how to run their life?

I am 100% sure there is no way you can actually be 100% sure about that.

Some off ids don’t want to work for FAANG.

> One chap joined (for a few days) and left because he had started somewhere else at the same time - they won out.

Wait what???

I think this will get more common with remote working. Start a new role, then dump it if one of the other searches turns up a better one.

I think FAANG has something to do with this too. They're often known to be slow in coming up with the offer, often seeming like they're not going to proceed. A friend started working at a startup, then got a top Google offer, dumped the startup for the better job that came in later.

Yeah reputation is still a thing...

You should be happy for them.

Let's see if you say the same thing when you interview 10+ candidates and you accept one like this, rejecting all the others since you filled the position.

No different from the firm rescinding the offer once the candidate has turned down all his others. Plus it's asymmetric, the firm has other staff that can somewhat do the work, the employee has no income if the job is rescinded.

I agree that that is a reputation-burning choice as well for the firm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com