Unpopular answer: Interviewer Ego
Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
31–40 of 69 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#32In a nutshell: they aren't. The economics of it are that in many places in the world, it is extremely difficult to fire an employee. Getting rid of an underperformer can take time, effort, and exposes the company to liability if the termination can be construed as relating to the employee being in a protected class (e.g. can't fire someone because she's a woman). Let's assume that it's a SF startup willing to play a…
I've been in this business for a very long time, and I have heard this my entire career from everyone except HR professionals and lawyers.
First, in jurisdictions like Ontario, there is a probation period during which a new employee can be fired for no reason at all. They can be a top performer and still get fired, and they have no recourse.
There are Ontario Human Rights exceptions to this, you can’t have a “Cowboys and Squaws Dress Day” and then fire the newly hired First Nations person who objects.
But I have been to a number of management training programs put on by HR consulting firms, and zero of them have said, “Be 100% certain about your new hired, because firing them is difficult and expensive if they don't work out.”
It’s true that after they’ve been around for a while, firing someone without cause entails some costs. But here in Ontario, they are surprisingly low. It’s possible to get sued, and win or lose that costs money and time, so most employers either go through a PIP process before letting someone go, or write a decent but not outrageously large cheque in exchange for agreement.
On the whole, “Avoid all but the most insanely qualified candidate because firing people is hard” is not anything I’ve heard from a professional. At least, not in my jurisdiction.
——-
The above is my recounting my factual experience. And now to my conjectures:
What I have heard from fellow managers has more to do with team morale. Hiring and firing people on a regular basis destabilizes the teams they join.
Hiring people without ensuring they're a decent fit sends a message that the company doesn't value competence.
When such things were in vogue, using bullshit a-hair-to-the-right-of-astrology tests like “How many weights do you need to use a balancing scale to...” acted as a signal to existing employees that they are super smart elite braniacs, and the company values that.
I suspect that a lot of risk-aversion with hiring is a combination of “apocraphyl stories going around the intrnet, but nobody is quoting actual research and case law,” combined with cultural signalling.
At my current employer, there are lots of people who don’t pass our interview system, but when we review a candidate, we are often less concerned with how capable they are today than with our estimate of how amenable they are to growing on the job.
That obviously applies a lot more to people coming in at a lower level, but I assure you that we value great people, but we aren’t insanely risk-averse. Being too risk-averse with hiring is a failure mode, just as being too risk-averse with engineering and product development.
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#33Most were looking for exactly one type with one set of experiences. Anything outside of that and you are filtered out. In my experience this rings true for senior roles and less so for new college grads. Companies seem afraid to hire thinking there is a slightly better/cheaper option around the corner. I can see why perhaps a candidate receiving a rejection may think this, but in the companies I’ve worked at this has…
I would say many who fail are probably right for the job. Not having clear goals for the test that the applicant understands leads to this disconnect plus th time involved.
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#34A few (incomplete) thoughts:
1. We haven't yet figured out a way to get enough signal from two hours or so of work.
2. There are multiple ways to be a good programmer, but companies need a standardized way to assess skill. There's an inherent mismatch.
3. Most teams don't even know how to gauge their own employees' skill/value.
4. Teams rarely have their own employees retake their hiring tests to calibrate effectively.
5. Unpopular opinion: they aren't. Skills like algorithms are vital, and people who argue that they don't matter simply don't want to do the work.
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
To defend some of this: 1) Why pay someone to learn? In both terms of money and other devs time being sunk into helping you learn. 2) If you do know "tool X" and its a primary tool then its a lot easier to quickly evaluate whether or not standards will align. Personally I don't mind hiring Jr Developers that cost less, are mold-able, and are willing to put in extra effort. Could any experienced dev lean it? Sure... b…
Do you work with such an extremely static stack that it requires no further learning? I would say that one of the most important qualities a developer can have is the ability to learn. Perhaps, you expect all the learning to be done outside of work?
I lead product and engineering orgs in startups, so yes I make sure our -core- tools remain static as possible.
I never claimed learning is not important, if anything I supported that in my comment in hiring eager jr's.
My point being is if I am hiring someone "experienced" I need someone who can mentor others, own projects, and help drive our current products forward. If that person will need to come in and learn the job... I might as well hire a JR and train them up instead or hold our the X months the "experienced" person will need to learn to bypass that whole ordeal.
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#36In a nutshell: they aren't. The economics of it are that in many places in the world, it is extremely difficult to fire an employee. Getting rid of an underperformer can take time, effort, and exposes the company to liability if the termination can be construed as relating to the employee being in a protected class (e.g. can't fire someone because she's a woman). Let's assume that it's a SF startup willing to play a…
Other fields seem to get along just fine with the same set of constraints. Yes, some of those have professional licensure but not always, and those licenses aren't always required depending on the field. In the latter circumstances, the license unlocks higher level positions, it'd be like saying you couldn't be a Director of Engineering at a software shop w/o one.
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#37why would you choose to work remote - are you retired? no jobs available in your immediate area?
There are lots of jobs in the area. I've worked remotely a few different times in my life and prefer to reduce commute mostly.
I set out attempting to get a remote position and if that failed I would look locally.
It took almost two months where locally I usually could land a position in a month or less.
Locally is a lot easier for sure.
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#38A few (incomplete) thoughts: 1. We haven't yet figured out a way to get enough signal from two hours or so of work. 2. There are multiple ways to be a good programmer, but companies need a standardized way to assess skill. There's an inherent mismatch. 3. Most teams don't even know how to gauge their own employees' skill/value. 4. Teams rarely have their own employees retake their hiring tests to calibrate effectivel…
> 4. Teams rarely have their own employees retake their hiring tests to calibrate effectively
I can't imagine that would end well in most cases.
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#39In a nutshell: they aren't. The economics of it are that in many places in the world, it is extremely difficult to fire an employee. Getting rid of an underperformer can take time, effort, and exposes the company to liability if the termination can be construed as relating to the employee being in a protected class (e.g. can't fire someone because she's a woman). Let's assume that it's a SF startup willing to play a…
Don't know where you live but in most of Europe firing someone is pretty trivial. For a newly hired, you have a probation period, before your contract becomes permanent, usually between a month and a year, where you can be fired on the spot. After that, your contract becomes permanent and you can get fired, no questions asked, with a notice period of usually between one and 3 months. In theory, before letting you go,…
1 to 3 months is far from trivial...
Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?
#40All of my previous job searches started with me seeking remote work and ended with me giving up and taking a local job. There clearly is a surplus of great engineers looking for remote gigs.
I've recently landed an on-site job (I had to relocate) that pays pretty well in an R&D type environment that's actually all right -- in fact, this is one of the few jobs I've had that I've not hated -- so I may stay here more than my usual 1-2 years :)