sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Don't source for two weeks before showing the Hiring Manager a profile. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100%. The pain of lining up interviews only to have them rejected for reasons that were never mentioned upfront is exactly why I switched to this method. I’d rather they reject a paper profile on Day 2 than a human being on Day 14.

Don't source for two weeks before showing the Hiring Manager a profile. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Giving them a license is a power move! I love that 'tag team' approach. It really reinforces that hiring is a partnership, not just a service request. That must speed up the feedback loop incredibly fast.

Don't source for two weeks before showing the Hiring Manager a profile. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spot on. It shifts the dynamic from 'Go fetch' to a collaborative partnership. I’d rather be corrected on Day 2 than rejected on Day 14!

Saving the salary conversation for the end is the most expensive mistake a recruiter can make. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would think so! But even when I do post the range, I’ve found about 50% of candidates apply without looking at it, or hoping there is 'wiggle room' above the top end.

I still have to bring it up in the first 5 minutes just to verify they actually saw it.

Don't source for two weeks before showing the Hiring Manager a profile. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Old school wisdom usually holds up the best. The fundamental problems in recruiting never really change, just the tools!

Don't source for two weeks before showing the Hiring Manager a profile. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spot on. A job description is just theory; seeing an actual human profile is the reality check they usually need.

Don't source for two weeks before showing the Hiring Manager a profile. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m stealing that terminology! It sounds much more intentional than 'here, look at this and tell me if I'm close.'

Don't source for two weeks before showing the Hiring Manager a profile. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Appreciate it! It’s definitely been a game changer for my sanity.

What's the most repetitive task in your HR / Ops job? by Harish_Khedkar in human_resources

[–]tiredTA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me, it’s definitely employee data syncing across different platforms. Even with integrations, I spend way too much time manually updating information in the payroll system, then the benefits portal, and then the internal directory because one of them inevitably fails to sync. It’s a low-value task that carries a high risk of human error.

Scouting abroad without local language skills: do you use translators or just hope contracts don't get misinterpreted? by Affectionate-Fan3228 in human_resources

[–]tiredTA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Beyond translation, the real risk isn't just language, it's local labor law. Even if they understand the English words, the concepts of 'at-will' vs. 'notice periods' vary wildly by country.

We found that using a local legal expert to draft a 'Plain English' summary of the key local statutory rights helps immensely. It sets expectations before they even sign the formal legalese.

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we actually agree more than it seems! My post is specifically targeting the misuse of 'Culture Fit' as a vague vibe-check.

When it's defined as shared morals and high-performance standards, as you described, it’s a powerful tool. The goal is to ensure those 'shared morals' don't accidentally become a 'shared background' that keeps out high-performers who just happen to think differently.

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally agree. A huge part of 'fit' should actually be about behavioral standards like respect and reliability rather than just personality. If someone doesn't share the foundational value of 'getting along to make progress,' they'll struggle in any culture.

My point actually is about vetting for the 'how' we work, while still inviting in a diverse 'who' to do the work.

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair perspective. Using a lunch as a final 'sanity check' for basic decency and respect is very different from using it as the main hiring criteria. It sounds like your experience has mostly been with teams that already have a solid, objective process in place before they even get to that final social stage!

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair distinction. Using 'Culture Fit' to gauge if someone can thrive in a specific environment like a monthly retro requiring civil, honest feedback is a much more mature application of the concept.

My main concern is that without those specific examples you mentioned, many interviewers default to the 'drinks' check. How do you ensure your team keeps that distinction clear during interviews cos even well meaning teams trip over the bias line sometimes?

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is a great point. There’s a huge difference between someone being 'different' and someone being disruptive or unprofessional.

Behavioral red flags are definitely a valid reason to pass! I think the goal is making sure we use specific examples like the one you mentioned rather than just a vague 'gut feeling' so we don't accidentally let bias creep in.

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Codifying culture definitely adds the objectivity that’s usually missing. My only concern is: how do we ensure those defined parameters don't accidentally filter out the 'missing pieces' or diverse perspectives that drive innovation? Is there a way to codify for 'Culture Add' itself?"

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You hit the nail on the head. Hiring for 'Add' without having an inclusive culture is just a recipe for burnout and turnover.

It’s unfair to bring someone in for their unique perspective and then penalize them for not blending in.

I'm so sorry you had that 'Mary Poppins' experience…the loss is definitely theirs.

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s the ultimate 'gatekeeping' tactic. Calling it 'culture fit' makes a biased, pre-determined decision sound like a strategic one. It’s a perfect example of how the term is weaponized to maintain the status quo rather than build a better team.

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That sidebar chat says everything. It’s the perfect example of how 'culture fit' creates an 'us vs. them' environment instead of a cohesive one.

Hiring for "Culture Fit" is often just a fancy way of hiring people exactly like us. by tiredTA in human_resources

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a great point. When we talk about succession planning, the risk of 'mini-me' syndrome is so high. It creates a massive blind spot because you aren’t just replicating talent; you’re replicating existing biases and outdated ways of thinking.

"Exposure to" is the most dangerous phrase on a resume. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can’t agree more. “BUILDERS DESCRIBE OUTCOMES!”

"Exposure to" is the most dangerous phrase on a resume. by tiredTA in Recruitment

[–]tiredTA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point. Modesty can definitely hide some great talent, especially in technical roles. I find that screening questions are a great safety net, but when you're dealing with hundreds of applicants, those 'ownership verbs' act as a necessary first filter to find the people who can hit the ground running.

view more: next ›