[jiffyjeff]

Terrific post, thanks! I am somewhat familiar with this hiring process thanks to tptacek's HN contributions (which incidentally led me to recommending a friend to Matasano). I would like to have a better feel for the context of the hiring problems involved here. I am wondering if the company's particular niche makes the hiring process unusually difficult. Or perhaps the company is in a growth phase with a corresponding shortage of employees? With such low turnover rates, how many additional employees are needed? Is it possible that the company is in a position to profitably hire every qualified applicant it receives? If so, the company is essentially losing money on every hire it doesn't make. In addition to a radically improved hiring process, what about offering remote work and/or extremely high starting salaries? Well-advertised high salaries and location flexibility might allow the company to out-compete many alternatives (e.g., Google, FB, Bootstrapped startups).

[elptacek]

When I was at Matasano, there was always enough inbound work (sometimes more than enough) to keep the consultants utilized. So yes, a company with a full pipeline will lose money on every qualified hire it doesn't make. Perhaps this is not the case for other industries, but for infosec consulting, there seems to be more work than there are qualified workers. Matasano ran under its own steam and did not take funding. Offering extremely high starting salaries would have killed it in its early years. It was more cost effective to create a process for finding people who could actually do the work rather than rely on the 4-page CV candidates. The expensive ones.

The net result was a win-win: you get bargain candidates and they get 4-page CVs.

[eru]

Did the salaries of the bargain candidates creep up as their value was realized?