I think you are meaning to say that it can bring accountability to these companies, in which case I'd agree.
In a larger company I’ve worked at (and have hired for), they had a process where if the candidate passed the first 2 interviews, you basically get a formal “intent to hire” process started which reserves money for the position that cannot be withdrawn except for VP-level intervention.
but in seriousness, i'm one of the people here trying to uplevel hiring at YC startups, and at startups more broadly.
this thread is helpful for me to know what we can do to make startup hiring (and working at a startup) better. i'm appreciative for the comments/voices here so i can keep learning.
thank you very nice PR man. u r doing a very good job of preventing founders from experiencing discomfort and making the meat feel cared for.
> but in seriousness, i'm one of the people here trying to uplevel hiring at YC startups, and at startups more broadly.
That's cool, but what pressure is there actually against practices like this if the companies aren't even named? Am I supposed to believe you call up a founder and go: 'uh hey, can you get your churn under control? We're getting complaints'.
What does this conversation sound like? Is it like: 'Oh, is negative word getting out publicly?' 'nah, they didn't name you, its under control' 'ah good. Well Ryan, we want the best, the absolute best and that requires trying lots of candidates I just don't see a problem, OP was nice person but just not a good fit for us' 'ok, makes sense, thanks founder, you guys are doing great, keep up the good work'