We paid the market median to new hires; we definitely didn't buy our way to that turnover (NCC pays better than a lot of early stage startups, but not better than late-stage ones).
No, I attribute the turnover to the recruiting mechanism. We found great people who were sorely mispriced by the market, and we took advantage of that to create a win-win scenario: people without the resume to get a similar job at a competing firm got an extremely impactful resume bullet and a good-paying job, and we got people who genuinely wanted to be on our team and weren't applying as a once-a-year lateral job-hopping gamble.
(I have no problem with people job-hopping, by the way, but every employer is trying to minimize their exposure to that.)
You were also recruiting for a "cool" sector where people would be learning marketable skills. Do you have any evidence that the same technique would work for more "boring" companies? (I ask because I'd like to convince my manager that creating a work-sample test wouldn't be a waste of time)
