Companies seem to be adding more screening steps to try to reduce their false positive rate -- the rate at which they interview people who aren't hireable.
But most don't seem to understand that mathematically, there's a tradeoff for a higher false negative rate.
Screening false negatives are people who would have done well in an interview, but don't make it to that stage. These are more hidden to the company because the interview never happens, but quite expensive for the hiring process, and painful for people who are wrongly rejected. If we put this in probabilistic terms, I hope we can have a deeper conversation about what's happening and how this issue impacts engineers.
Agreed. When I read the above article, it was one OMFG followed by another. How much more complicated do we want to make hiring? How much more complicated does hiring have to get before non-existent “training” or “probation” practices would become a more efficient use of resources?
IMO we’re already there. Everyone’s doubling down on hiring complexity instead of thinking of other solutions to create a great team.
2 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 14.5 ms ] threadBut most don't seem to understand that mathematically, there's a tradeoff for a higher false negative rate.
Screening false negatives are people who would have done well in an interview, but don't make it to that stage. These are more hidden to the company because the interview never happens, but quite expensive for the hiring process, and painful for people who are wrongly rejected. If we put this in probabilistic terms, I hope we can have a deeper conversation about what's happening and how this issue impacts engineers.
IMO we’re already there. Everyone’s doubling down on hiring complexity instead of thinking of other solutions to create a great team.