Once you're inside the company there is data about your performance.
My point is that there's no control group and therefore no way to test the process in an empirical way and possibly improve it.
But the idea of finding a way to measure the performance of people who didn't get hired seems ludicrous, so we're back to being stuck in the status quo.
That's what I'm on about. I would love to see an article that talks about this rather than the screeds and diatribes that show up on HN so often.
The trouble with the idea of false negatives in hiring is that you can't really define what they are.
Every job is likely to legitimately reject good candidates.
Most hiring is for a specific position. If you get 10 viable, or even excellent candidates, you can often still only hire one of them.
The one that gets it will take the job in their own direction. Almost by definition, the winning candidate is therefore the best fit.
Whatever roles the other candidates end up in will go in their own directions. Even if, a year on, you can objectively compare the performance of the one you hired against the one you didn't, their performance was within the context of the role they did win. They may not have been as good a fit for the role you didn't offer them.
My point is that there's no control group and therefore no way to test the process in an empirical way and possibly improve it.
But the idea of finding a way to measure the performance of people who didn't get hired seems ludicrous, so we're back to being stuck in the status quo.
That's what I'm on about. I would love to see an article that talks about this rather than the screeds and diatribes that show up on HN so often.