Referrals

[aayushpi]

Referrals, especially coupled with referral bonuses should be something that starts with a number of warnings. A $ bonus unconsciously triggers expediting trials, and you’re likely to access your immediate network more often than the fringes of it, which in itself can be one of the quickest ways to build a monoculture, despite your best efforts.

Also, I’m a little cautious about referrals being the top of any sourcing document. In this case, the idea that the best signal about a candidate being successful at Clef should not be just a part of an employee’s understanding. The entire sourcing process, across your ATS should aim to mitigate risks and answer that question.

I also think this document should acknowledge that very often, referrals from a candidate perspective come from a certain (sometimes deserved, sometimes by chance) entitlement of network: a chance meeting at a conference, picking company A vs B is the difference between an exceptional network and a weak one, directly correlating the potential of referrals.

So I’d love it if this section was listed with the idea that referrals are helpful, but keep an eye on the plucky, skillful underdog who’s flying under the radar and needs that break.

[iamb55]

Thanks for this @aayushpi, we do mention in the doc that referrals are likely to bring candidates who are most like our existing team and that we should consider ways to mitigate that, but we also know that searching for and evaluating candidates is time consuming and expensive and we want to compensate employees for their help doing that work.

I think the network privilege is definitely a real consideration, and in general I'm interested in how we can make our recruiting process better. The policy is largely reflective of where we've had success in building a non-homogenous pipeline so far, which will likely change as we grow.