> If you're too specific about the position, you get too few quality candidates.
What do you mean by too few? I'd say that zero is too few, but one quality candidate might be perfect, because then the hiring process can go very fast. There's no reason why you couldn't or shouldn't hire the first quality person you find.
In my opinion, the biggest problems with job postings are:
1) No salary/compensation listed, which can end up wasting everyone's time when there's a mismatch in expectations. "Competetive salary" is BS and often a lie. (This might also be why you're getting fewer quality applicants than desired.)
2) The posting focuses too much or even exclusively on arbitrary "qualifications" that the employer mistakenly believes are necessary but ends up relaxing anyway in many cases. Instead, the posting should describe in as much detail as possible the actual job, what the employee is to do, and then the qualifications will implicitly follow from that.
>Some will find a job before they finish you interview process.
Not if your interview process allows for a good candidate to get an offer in a reasonable time frame. If so, then rare. You could make an offer on spot, for example.
>Some will change their mind.
Not if your interview process allows for a good candidate to get an offer in a reasonable time frame. If so, then rare. You sign a contract on the spot for example.
>Some will have a change on personal circumstances.
Not if your interview process allows for a good candidate to get an offer in a reasonable time frame. If so, then rare.
These first three are all the same. People will bail out if you're too slow with your dumb hiring processes. Don't be slow and the problem mostly goes away.
>Some (many?) will ask for more than you can offer.
Not if you post your salary bands with your job openings like any decent company would do.
>To hire one good person, you usually need many to apply.
Nah, you need a couple of decent candidates to apply, a first choice and a fallback if you want to worry about those rare case of someone changing their mind. If your salaries are public and your process is efficient, you need only one good candidate, maybe two for backup and variety outside of core competency.
But that's the employer's own fault. I was offering suggestions to employers.
> And in most cases, you can't revamp the whole hiring process
In most cases, they should revamp their whole hiring process. The point of this HN submission is that employers can't find employees, and that's also the point of my original comment. "We can't change anything about hiring" is why you can't find employees. It's a poor excuse.
What do you mean by too few? I'd say that zero is too few, but one quality candidate might be perfect, because then the hiring process can go very fast. There's no reason why you couldn't or shouldn't hire the first quality person you find.
In my opinion, the biggest problems with job postings are:
1) No salary/compensation listed, which can end up wasting everyone's time when there's a mismatch in expectations. "Competetive salary" is BS and often a lie. (This might also be why you're getting fewer quality applicants than desired.)
2) The posting focuses too much or even exclusively on arbitrary "qualifications" that the employer mistakenly believes are necessary but ends up relaxing anyway in many cases. Instead, the posting should describe in as much detail as possible the actual job, what the employee is to do, and then the qualifications will implicitly follow from that.