> it sounds like they started out with a open house for everyone who applied, regardless of qualifications, instead of phone screens.<
I'm the CEO in the story. Oversimplifying a bit, we didn't invite everyone who responded to our ad to come to the open house, but put the responses into three buckets: those who get an invitation immediately (the "positive" email), those who get a second chance to say something interesting (the "negative" email), and those who were basically ignored because their background matched those who didn't do well in the past. As we have iterated and refined the approach, we emphasized the value of speaking to us in the first communication and dropped the negative email.
I understand your point about the phone screen, but found that this is a trade-off. The phone screen was very ineffective for us in letting people know who we are, our size, our location, what we do on a daily basis. The open house format lets the prospective employees see us as we are, where we are. Inevitably, people drop out of the process, and it's fine with us, as it opens up slots for those who like what they see. In an open house format, the candidates ask questions as a group, which means that any particular person benefits from the questions that others ask. They see our existing staff and can decide if this is a group they want to work with.
We are upfront with the candidates that we can't hire all of them, and therefore it seems like a fair exchange to do something for the "unchosen" as a bonus for coming in. Brooke and Noah have helped by providing guidance for them, and we have all tried to create a community of the unchosen.
The core concept being promoted here is that the current recruitment system is broken, and it is the fault of all of us who unquestioningly perpetuate it. My response is to experiment with different ideas until we find a model that works for all parties involved. I don't have a magic wand to provide the solution, but do keep notes on what hypothesis is being tested, what seems to work, what doesn't work and what possible improvements we should try.
Thanks for the additional details. I suppose the usefulness of this depends a lot on how many positions you're looking to fill, and at what level of skill. It sounds like you're using it to fill multiple entry-level positions, where it makes more sense. I suppose the people there know that there are multiple positions, so don't feel quite so much like they have to compete with everybody else to get hired. And if it's relatively entry-level, then maybe most of the candidates don't have full-time jobs already to be disrupted at, and would appreciate help if they didn't get hired?
I admit that I tend to think of things initially in terms of myself and what I would be looking for, more of a single position for someone with experience and marketable skills, and currently holding a full-time job. There's probably some room for improvement in the process for that too, but I don't think the open house idea would be a good fit.
The key word in the open house issue is "open" to allow for transparency currently lost in the limited disclosure game that is the modern interview process. That benefits everyone. Not to mention we offer evening events to respect those with full time jobs.
I understand your point about the phone screen, but found that this is a trade-off. The phone screen was very ineffective for us in letting people know who we are, our size, our location, what we do on a daily basis. The open house format lets the prospective employees see us as we are, where we are. Inevitably, people drop out of the process, and it's fine with us, as it opens up slots for those who like what they see. In an open house format, the candidates ask questions as a group, which means that any particular person benefits from the questions that others ask. They see our existing staff and can decide if this is a group they want to work with.
We are upfront with the candidates that we can't hire all of them, and therefore it seems like a fair exchange to do something for the "unchosen" as a bonus for coming in. Brooke and Noah have helped by providing guidance for them, and we have all tried to create a community of the unchosen.
The core concept being promoted here is that the current recruitment system is broken, and it is the fault of all of us who unquestioningly perpetuate it. My response is to experiment with different ideas until we find a model that works for all parties involved. I don't have a magic wand to provide the solution, but do keep notes on what hypothesis is being tested, what seems to work, what doesn't work and what possible improvements we should try.