Some comments:
-- If you're running a good company, then the resumes will be filtered by technical people, not HR. There really aren't too many of them (if you're big enough to be getting thousands of resumes, then you have enough engineers to do a first pass.) And don't just give the resumes to these engineers, you need to train them on what to look for.
It is already changing that Engineers filter the resumes and not HR. Good startups do this.
Hiring -- especially for a startup-- is absolutely the most valuable thing, and it is a valuable use of engineers time (but only have engineers who want to do it and care about the hiring process do it.)
"Before I share the actual results, a quick word about context is in order. TrialPay’s hiring standards are quite high. We ended up interviewing roughly 1 in 10 people that applied. "
A non-technical person (yeah yeah, I don't believe for a second she was ever an engineer, that's vanity talking) is eliminating %90 of the applicants and they think that's a "high bar"? No. That's randomness.
-- Top Company.
I love that she thinks having worked at a "Top company" like Amazon is an indicator of success. I pick amazon because I've worked there and its in the news lately for being totally poorly managed. That poor management means the engineering side of the house is a total and absolute mess. Bugs I fixed in 2006 are STILL BROKEN. Because they were regressed due to mismanagement. The QA team that was focusing on that area is totally disbanded. This areas of the site has not improved at all, and has in fact gotten worse over the past 10 years-- and it's critical- it's product search!
So, they will hire people from Top Companies (and put them thru the incompetent HR filter) over better engineers with good side projects.
> A non-technical person (yeah yeah, I don't believe for a second she was ever an engineer, that's vanity talking) is eliminating %90 of the applicants and they think that's a "high bar"? No. That's randomness.
I wish more people could wrap their heads around this. Her process could be rolling a D10 for every CV she receives, then lighting the CV on fire unless it passes the saving throw, and she'd still be able to say "we ended up interviewing roughly 1 in 10 people that applied". It says absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of her methods.
I've been involved in hiring in the past, and discussed this issue with people having this mindset, even using this exact example with the D10, but I don't think I've ever gotten through. Some people will insist on believing that any highly selective screening process is automatically good, without any further introspection.
I just divide the pile in two and throw half the resumes I get in the trash. Why would I want to hire unlucky people? They could make the whole company unlucky. Plus, it makes our hiring process more selective.
In seriousness though, my hypothesis is that they are at least certain that they are not making the candidate pool any worse by their screening, i.e. they are not selecting for unqualified candidates. Even if their process is barely better than 50%+1, they are at least certain it is not worse than 50%, and consider that good enough. If they took 1000 candidates, 100 of which were qualified for the position, and whittled that down to 100 candidates, 11 of which were qualified for the position, they'd honestly consider that a win.
It is already changing that Engineers filter the resumes and not HR. Good startups do this.
Hiring -- especially for a startup-- is absolutely the most valuable thing, and it is a valuable use of engineers time (but only have engineers who want to do it and care about the hiring process do it.)
"Before I share the actual results, a quick word about context is in order. TrialPay’s hiring standards are quite high. We ended up interviewing roughly 1 in 10 people that applied. "
A non-technical person (yeah yeah, I don't believe for a second she was ever an engineer, that's vanity talking) is eliminating %90 of the applicants and they think that's a "high bar"? No. That's randomness.
-- Top Company.
I love that she thinks having worked at a "Top company" like Amazon is an indicator of success. I pick amazon because I've worked there and its in the news lately for being totally poorly managed. That poor management means the engineering side of the house is a total and absolute mess. Bugs I fixed in 2006 are STILL BROKEN. Because they were regressed due to mismanagement. The QA team that was focusing on that area is totally disbanded. This areas of the site has not improved at all, and has in fact gotten worse over the past 10 years-- and it's critical- it's product search!
So, they will hire people from Top Companies (and put them thru the incompetent HR filter) over better engineers with good side projects.
Great.