> Having a long initial process is a feature.

Reality is:

1. Screening tools (background check, skills analysis and testing) are really good. There's really no reason to put someone through a six-week gauntlet just to find out if they can do the job.

2. Interviews are really a tool for seeing if coworkers and managers get along with the candidate, and the candidate gets along with their future coworkers and managers. In many companies interview == where manager has discretion to hire the people they want. Lots of interviews usually means lots of managers who all want to put their stamp on the hire.

3. Being good at getting hired is a function of experience getting hired. The skills needed to be a good candidate do not align with the skills needed to be a good worker in most roles.

In my experience:

  (1) just isn't true.  It's at best a mixed bag.

  (2) is somewhat true. Team fit is pretty hard to figure out without interactions, and agree sometimes managers just want to get their oar in.

  (3) is oversimplification.  There are definitely people who are better a getting hired than doing the job, and they are hard to weed out early in their career.  If you aren't able to identify good candidates in front of you though (e.g. the FN, not FP) there are problems in your process, not the candidates.

1. I'm pretty sure that background checks work beyond doubt. I'm pretty sure that skills tests work beyond doubt. I'm less confident in AI resume/profile analysis and skills matching tools - both are getting better.

3. Agree, it's simplified, but for most companies, field and "hiring" managers are barely able to do an effective interview, let alone smoke out someone lacking interview skills from one lacking communication skills.

Agree both background checks and skill tests can work very well in an ideal form, but it's expensive (in time, mostly). As practised, they are very much a mixed bag. The latter is a problem past early career stuff anyway, as you aren't going to learn much in a couple hours.