Leaving aside that many companies have pulled back from remote to at least some degree, I'd always push for an in-person day for a variety of reasons. In general, the cost is nothing for a late-stage/end-stage confirmation. And, honestly, a candidate that just doesn't want to do that is a red flag.
> In general, the cost is nothing for a late-stage/end-stage confirmation.
One in-person day costs a nearby candidate about 3 days, and a more remote candidate anything from a week to a couple of months depending mostly on where you are. And yeah, it also costs some money that maybe you will reimburse.
It doesn't cost you much, that's for sure. But if it's for a full-remote position, it's absolutely not a "the cost is nothing" situation and the candidate refusing it for some random company in a random stage of the interview is absolutely reasonable.
While I don’t disagree with you I find it to be a slippery slope to some extent.
Would you screen out Linus Torvalds because he hypothetically doesn’t want to come in to a physical office for an interview?
Hiring managers should think long and hard in a data-driven way about whether the office presence is so necessary that you are willing to miss out on the best candidates who have the luxury of being picky.
Is it true scientifically that an in-person interview day results in better candidate quality or is that just a vibe?
I think eliminating top talent who refuse to step foot in an office and are rare enough to be able to maintain that demand is a lot of quality people being left out of your talent pool. I thought during the pandemic we already proved by numerous studies that in-office workers are less productive.
My company philosophy would be more like, put the burden of identifying quality talent on the employer rather than the employee. Put the candidate through the minimum effort required to screen them and identify standout talent. Then when you find that standout talent you roll out the red carpet and focus on convincing them to work at your company.
You can come up with outlier examples of course--though I'm not sure how relevant they are unless you're looking at hiring a "name" for some reason. But I'd still default to an in-person visit of some sort. I've never seen any data but then in-person was just assumed in most cases until a few years ago.
Leaving aside that many companies have pulled back from remote to at least some degree, I'd always push for an in-person day for a variety of reasons. In general, the cost is nothing for a late-stage/end-stage confirmation. And, honestly, a candidate that just doesn't want to do that is a red flag.
> In general, the cost is nothing for a late-stage/end-stage confirmation.
One in-person day costs a nearby candidate about 3 days, and a more remote candidate anything from a week to a couple of months depending mostly on where you are. And yeah, it also costs some money that maybe you will reimburse.
It doesn't cost you much, that's for sure. But if it's for a full-remote position, it's absolutely not a "the cost is nothing" situation and the candidate refusing it for some random company in a random stage of the interview is absolutely reasonable.
While I don’t disagree with you I find it to be a slippery slope to some extent.
Would you screen out Linus Torvalds because he hypothetically doesn’t want to come in to a physical office for an interview?
Hiring managers should think long and hard in a data-driven way about whether the office presence is so necessary that you are willing to miss out on the best candidates who have the luxury of being picky.
Is it true scientifically that an in-person interview day results in better candidate quality or is that just a vibe?
I think eliminating top talent who refuse to step foot in an office and are rare enough to be able to maintain that demand is a lot of quality people being left out of your talent pool. I thought during the pandemic we already proved by numerous studies that in-office workers are less productive.
My company philosophy would be more like, put the burden of identifying quality talent on the employer rather than the employee. Put the candidate through the minimum effort required to screen them and identify standout talent. Then when you find that standout talent you roll out the red carpet and focus on convincing them to work at your company.
You can come up with outlier examples of course--though I'm not sure how relevant they are unless you're looking at hiring a "name" for some reason. But I'd still default to an in-person visit of some sort. I've never seen any data but then in-person was just assumed in most cases until a few years ago.
1 reply →