[Signatura]

I agree with this. What stands out to me is that the hiring process often treats one internal mental model as “correct”, and anything outside of it as a flaw in the candidate.

The example you gave about solving the same problem differently is common; different approaches get mistaken for lack of competence.

I like the negative testing idea a lot. If a hiring process never examines who it’s rejecting, it has no way to know whether it’s filtering quality or just filtering familiarity.

Have you seen teams actually test or evolve their hiring criteria this way, or does it usually stay fixed once defined?

[btrettel]

> Have you seen teams actually test or evolve their hiring criteria this way, or does it usually stay fixed once defined?

I'm sure many folks hiring do iteratively improve their hiring criteria, though I'm skeptical of how rigorous their process is. For all I know they could make their hiring criteria worse over time! I have never been involved in a hiring decision, so what I write is from the perspective of a job candidate.

[Signatura]

That makes sense, and I think your skepticism is reasonable.

From the candidate side, it’s almost impossible to tell whether criteria are being refined thoughtfully or just drifting based on recent hires or strong opinions in the room.

What strikes me is that without explicit feedback loops, iteration can easily turn into reinforcement, people conclude “this worked” without ever seeing the counterfactual of who was filtered out.

From the outside, it often looks less like a calibrated process and more like accumulated intuition. I’m curious whether that matches what others here have seen from the inside.