
Ask HN: Why Hiring Is Broken? - alvis
We know hiring is broken.<p>We know recruiters&#x2F;HR always have unconscious bias on name, typo, keywords, CV format etc. We know recruiters always don&#x27;y response to replies.<p>But fundamentally what creates these problems? Why we are not looking into whether a candidate can create a great product for the company, but whether they can sell themselves with nonsense keywords?
======
gregjor
We don’t “know that hiring is broken.” We know that some people find the
process of finding a job frustrating, and that employers struggle to find the
right people to hire. I attribute those problems to more demand than supply
for competent candidates, and no reliable and quick way to determine how a
candidate may perform in any specific role. Given those conditions, proxies
such as credentials, experience, sample work, and whiteboard interviews get
used instead.

The biases you list aren’t even unconscious. Poor spelling and grammar
indicate either sloppiness or inadequate education, not qualities anyone hires
for. A person who can’t put their own CV together doesn’t give a good
impression regarding attention to detail, checking their work, or mastery of
the tools and domain.

How do you think a potential employer might determine if a candidate “can
create a great product for the company?” Why assume that creating a “great”
product is even the employer’s main priority? How might a recruiter or hiring
manager judge and rank multiple relevant qualities for hundreds or thousands
of candidates?

A process that seems less than ideal and frustrating for some people isn’t
necessarily “broken.” It may be the best we can do given the constraints and
ambiguities of hiring and job hunting.

