Why is on-site preferred? 58K GBP for a marketer with no prior experience could land you someone with absolutely amazing experience in a remote role. I’ve hired extensively both on-site and remote and in this particular scenario I would lean strongly to hiring remote to get someone with better prior work and assessments at half that budget, or get someone amazing who is not in London at that budget.
I think that there are lots of diffuse and hard-to-directly-measure benefits of having employees work from our London office. The main one that I’m especially excited about is the person in this role absorbing — and contributing to — our team culture, which I think is really helpful for keeping us as an organisation aimed at producing the most impactful outcomes.
I’m somewhat unsure this is the right attitude overall, and we are open to remote applicants (& many of the applications we’ve gotten so far are from remote candidates).
I agree there are certainly benefits to on-site. In recruitment scoring I give additional points for proximity, so when I have equally scoring candidates the candidate in our city would win. Usually remote wins in our model, but the proximity scoring depends on the role (e.g. someone doing physical events would almost certainly have to be on-site).
Ultimately it depends a lot on the company and the role, but thanks for explaining and I think it’s good to have both remote and on-site open.
Why is on-site preferred? 58K GBP for a marketer with no prior experience could land you someone with absolutely amazing experience in a remote role. I’ve hired extensively both on-site and remote and in this particular scenario I would lean strongly to hiring remote to get someone with better prior work and assessments at half that budget, or get someone amazing who is not in London at that budget.
Hey Vincent! Thanks for your question :)
I think that there are lots of diffuse and hard-to-directly-measure benefits of having employees work from our London office. The main one that I’m especially excited about is the person in this role absorbing — and contributing to — our team culture, which I think is really helpful for keeping us as an organisation aimed at producing the most impactful outcomes.
I’m somewhat unsure this is the right attitude overall, and we are open to remote applicants (& many of the applications we’ve gotten so far are from remote candidates).
Thanks Bella,
I agree there are certainly benefits to on-site. In recruitment scoring I give additional points for proximity, so when I have equally scoring candidates the candidate in our city would win. Usually remote wins in our model, but the proximity scoring depends on the role (e.g. someone doing physical events would almost certainly have to be on-site).
Ultimately it depends a lot on the company and the role, but thanks for explaining and I think it’s good to have both remote and on-site open.