In some cases we do, but we have a high bar for overall “fit for the role,” we don’t hire people below that bar, and so we often end a hiring round with too-few applicants ending up above our bar (as far we can assess at that time with limited investment by both us and the candidate). We maintain this high bar for several reasons, one of which is that managers’ time is also scarce and high opportunity cost.
“managers’ time is also scarce and high opportunity cost” doesn’t seem like enough in my opinion to warrant “millions will just sit in an account for another year”. I’m curious to know what the other “several reasons” are. I fear that some people are vain about who they associate with and insist on being part of a “talent-dense” organization, such that they will set a bar unproductively high
In some cases we do, but we have a high bar for overall “fit for the role,” we don’t hire people below that bar, and so we often end a hiring round with too-few applicants ending up above our bar (as far we can assess at that time with limited investment by both us and the candidate). We maintain this high bar for several reasons, one of which is that managers’ time is also scarce and high opportunity cost.
“managers’ time is also scarce and high opportunity cost” doesn’t seem like enough in my opinion to warrant “millions will just sit in an account for another year”. I’m curious to know what the other “several reasons” are. I fear that some people are vain about who they associate with and insist on being part of a “talent-dense” organization, such that they will set a bar unproductively high
Could you specify what you mean by “fit for the role”?
Often subjective terms like these are just used to justify arbitrary discrimination (not necessarily of the illegal kind).