I just divide the pile in two and throw half the resumes I get in the trash. Why would I want to hire unlucky people? They could make the whole company unlucky. Plus, it makes our hiring process more selective.
In seriousness though, my hypothesis is that they are at least certain that they are not making the candidate pool any worse by their screening, i.e. they are not selecting for unqualified candidates. Even if their process is barely better than 50%+1, they are at least certain it is not worse than 50%, and consider that good enough. If they took 1000 candidates, 100 of which were qualified for the position, and whittled that down to 100 candidates, 11 of which were qualified for the position, they'd honestly consider that a win.
Comments
I just divide the pile in two and throw half the resumes I get in the trash. Why would I want to hire unlucky people? They could make the whole company unlucky. Plus, it makes our hiring process more selective.
In seriousness though, my hypothesis is that they are at least certain that they are not making the candidate pool any worse by their screening, i.e. they are not selecting for unqualified candidates. Even if their process is barely better than 50%+1, they are at least certain it is not worse than 50%, and consider that good enough. If they took 1000 candidates, 100 of which were qualified for the position, and whittled that down to 100 candidates, 11 of which were qualified for the position, they'd honestly consider that a win.