Is it just me, or is the modern hiring grind broken?
We spend so much energy on "the process"—interviews, resumes, hoops to jump through—only to find out the fit isn't even there.
We should be hiring based on "Proof of Work." Throw a real-world problem at a pool of candidates, see who actually ships the best solution, and bring them on board. It’s a win-win for efficiency.
5 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 24.6 ms ] threadI don't disagree it has serious problems, but this doesn't seem a workable solution in my experience on the other side.
If you want the good jobs, you will have to be more flexible. Ask the deal breaker questions in the first meeting
Ultimately, hiring is a transaction: Can this candidate fix your issue?
Sure, you need to filter for red flags, but come on—the current interview meta is broken/dumb.
It really boils down to this: What value does A bring to B, and vice versa?
The best candidates usually don't want to do them.
What seems to be working for companies is ability to identify if candidate's used LLMs unfairly during interviews, all interviewers are following the planned agenda and taking decisions consistently and having the right evaluation metrics
We are trying to solve these problems at fairground.work . would be glad to demo if you want to take it for a spin