Requiring a public posting is a good idea in theory, but in reality it seems most places are just wasting people's time because external candidates are never seriously considered.
That's why it struck me as so strange.
The most egregious interview hassle I had was with a large insurance company based in Connecticut. They had me do 1 HR phone call and then a difficult 1-hour technical phone interview. After that interview they gave me a lot of positive feedback and said they wanted to proceed, but then pressured me heavily that in order to proceed past that point, they needed a lot of specifics about my desired salary. Foolishly, I agreed to share, thinking that I didn't want to miss the chance for additional interviews.
I did not hear a word of reply from them for months, at least 4 months. Then, out of nowhere, I received what was clearly an automated email sent to many people, which said basically the following:
"Thank you for participating in our exploratory market survey for the role of 'Data Scientist' -- regretfully, we have decided to move the company in a different direction and so the position will not be filled."
That dramatically changed my perspective about how to approach job interviews, how to relentlessly avoid ever sharing salary data, etc.
It could be that the internal process started simultaneously, just that the internal candidate "grabbed the thread", and either the HR contact wasn't informed, or didn't think / wasn't coached to notify the external candidates as to the change in status. Until they went back to clean up their inbox.
"What on earth is going on inside Etsy? What are they doing?"
I've come to accept that even when all parties involved have the best of intentions, the workflow of candidate vetting, combined with the inherent game theoretic aspects[1] of finding the best available candidate on the market (when one generally has no idea what market looks like until one has churned through a goodly number of candidates), all come together to make the process more complex (and time consuming) than people generally anticipate.
Unfortunately what gets added to this is that seldom do people stop to think, "Wait, if we don't treat ALL candidates nicely during the process, that means the good ones won't apply again. And they won't recommend their friends to apply to join us, either." And so, "Maybe we should put a little more thought into candidate experience, and make a point of treating them better."
Again, this is under the best of circumstances, and assuming that the parties involve seem to have put some degree of thought into, and to have some sense of discipline behind their vetting and communication process. Sadly, this isn't very often the case.
I was told I would have a phone interview with someone from the hiring team. Weeks went by and I got zero response. I figured I had just been rejected with usual company non-response b.s.
But after about three weeks I received an impromptu message from HR saying they were sorry about the delay, and also that unfortunately someone internal had put in a request for the job I would have interviewed for, and they wanted to proceed with their internal candidate.
I was grateful for the message and thanked that HR representative. I think it spoke well of Etsy that they bothered to give me some reply about my status.
But I also thought, as far as engineering goes, that it sounded less than ideal to me that their hiring process could go like that. Why wouldn't internal candidates have been vetted prior to spending time on the application process and phone interviews with others?
They said they thanked me for my understanding and would be in touch about future roles. I have never heard back. So it's puzzling that they seem to want to hire developers with a focus on craftsmanship, but aren't willing to consider me after previously at least feeling that I was good enough for a phone screen.
It's not so much that this is "bad" or "good" for Etsy, but more that it gives an overwhelming feeling of "What on earth is going on inside Etsy? What are they doing?"