> Your comment is chock full of flawed and patently false ideas.
Whoa, what triggered and justified that response? I don’t know if the parent was edited, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.
> Firstly, I have yet to encounter a company with a hiring process that is actually, provably, repeatedly tied to any of that company’s business needs.
What do you mean? Why do companies hire then?
> an ineffective hiring process usually leads to the hiring of candidates who are good at interviewing, not at the actual work. These are the literal “bad hires”
This hasn’t been true in my experience. Why would someone who’s good at the work not tend to be good at interviews?
I’ve interviewed hundreds of people and hired dozens. The number one reason for a candidate not getting a position is that there was another better candidate. More often than not, it has nothing to do with how good the candidate is, nor does it have anything to do with how good the company’s interview process is. After that, there is usually a large number of candidates that are young and shooting above their weight, hoping to get in somewhere with almost enough qualification. Occasionally, that works. I haven’t bumped into anyone yet that was great at interviewing but not good at the work, but like many companies, I’m using the interviews to try and find out if they’ll fit it, and if they’re truly interested, and if they’re good at work.