Back in my day you just walked up to the CEO of a company, asked him (let's be honest, there really weren't any female CEOs "back in my day") for a job, shook his hand and started the next day. Why can't we go back to that (obviously minus the misogyny).
I'm joking, of course. Processes evolve for a reason, sometimes even a good reason. You do wonder though, how much is too much ?
I've read about people getting to the 7th round of interviews or people getting homework in their interviews. Assuming each application takes about an hour on both sides, which seems like a reasonable estimate overall (obviously on the side of the employer many people have worked very hard to streamline the process and cut costs to a minimum, but all that work did still happen), a job with 100 applicants costs 200 hours of productivity. Each hour of interview is another 2 hours of productivity.
And then you have the irony of the person most likely to be hired also being the person most likely having another offer, because in both cases it's people who interview well.
I also wonder what percentage of people survives the first interview. Say you interview 5 people out of 100 applicants, do 2 of them survive ? One ? I looked it up and my guesses seem close. Would love for someone with actual knowledge to let me know though !
Does anyone actually keep track of all the stats and calculating the total cost of hiring someone and the total cost of hiring the wrong person ? Seems like the second best candidate should be a good fit.
How much excess money goes into trying to separate the best candidate from the second best one ? Even in cases when hiring both is actually an option ?
Will AI actually make the process better ? If so, for which party ?
Obviously my perspective is the employee's perspective, although I do like considering both sides.