> I've noticed my interest in a job tends to drop consistently the longer it takes for a response.

As a software engineer with a long track record, I somehow only just realized this about myself within the last couple months.

With the two fresh data points I have in mind, it wasn't about perceived likelihood of an offer, but about perceived likelihood of it being a good situation if I accepted the offer.

Delays (especially after a great initial call) can be felt as signal about how much they value the role, whether they're excited about me specifically for it (both of which can make the difference between a great role and an awful one), and how well they can execute (e.g., do they have a clout deficit or a huge-corporate bureaucracy that would also be a problem getting things done there).

And if there's a recruiter, HR middleperson, or other communication barrier -- blocking the normal ability to read people and pick up on clues, from direct interaction with a hiring manager or team member -- this signal can be all we have to go on.

This, to me, is a really good signal of how well run a company is. After all, a company is merely a collection of people on whom its outcomes are entirely dependent. Thus, the single most important function a company can perform is hiring. If a company fails to recognize this or just does it incompetently, its probably a crappy company. Thus, slow responses == crappy company.

I would postulate the single most important thing a company can do is make money. Hiring is also important though.

Making money at all costs usually implies a shitty culture that I personally seek to avoid.

Nobody said at all costs.

Maybe.

But whatever the goal of your organization, achieving that goal is going to depend on the people you hire.

I wish every organization had read that memo :)

> I would postulate the single most important thing a company can do is make money.

Nobody in the company "makes money" (unless the company is a bank, then they literally do, by giving out loans). The people perform various functions and the money made or lost by the company is a result of a sum total of their actions.

Making money is a downstream output of the activities of your people. So, if making money is your goal, the most important thing you can do to reach your goal is to hire the right people.

If you want to hire the right people, you need to be making enough money to pay them.

Companies with poor hiring likely don't make money. There maybe a select few that have such a desirable product that they cannot help themselves. Usually that is short lived as competition eats your lunch because your crappy employees cannot adapt.

"Making money" is the result of doing everything else well.

It's not difficult to find companies that cut costs in order to increase profits only for it to backfire and result in less money or even bankruptcy.

More importantly, as I remind my mentees, it's is an excellent signal for true interest. Nothing burns more than getting your hopes up and investing hours/days into a job interview process only to find out you were not the preferred candidate. This stings a bit if you don't get the job, becomes seriously annoying when it surfaces during compensation negotiation, and can be disastrous for your career and personal life if it surfaces post-hiring.

Definitely noticed this effect when applying now too.

Additionally a responsive and clearly communicating company is always a good sign that they really need to fill the role. It is always a plus if I go from hiring manager/recruiter straight upper management interviews in a matter of days.

Additionally the quicker the employer response the more likely the applicant is mentally primed for the responder and does not yet have their mental/time bandwidth taken by competitors.