Comment by sporadicism
4 days ago
The person I responded to said that filling a role in 90 days would be "relatively quick" so you've already improved theoretical hiring efficiency by up to 50%.
But it still doesn't sound like a very effective process typed out like this.
I can't speak to their experience but the bigger the company, the more process and people involved usually. That causes delays here and there that add up. It's also a matter of how much of a priority the company makes it. If they're large and well-known there's really no incentive to change anything. They'll always have a stream of candidates applying and being available to hire.
What would you do to make it more effective?
So it's not that they can't, it's that they won't. Seems crazy to me.
>What would you do to make it more effective?
I'd ask companies who have managed to get the process down to 2-3 weeks what they're doing, and then do that. It sounds like you're saying they don't actually care to, though.
> If they're large and well-known there's really no incentive to change anything.
Well there it is. Suggestions don't matter if there's no one in power who cares. Have them care and suddenly we'd be able to get people hired in 2-4 weeks.
Otherwise it's not rocket science. And you're not hiring rocket scientists. It shouldn't take more than 3 stages to know if a candidate can do the job:recruiter screen, main interview, negotiation meeting. If you need more people in the know, they join on the main day. If they can't, it clearly isn't important enough for their scope of responsibilities (does a skip manager 3 levels up really need to personally meet a candidate?)