Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 172 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#61

Post by corbulo »

endemic wrote: post #32
systemvoltage wrote: post #14

Hard take which is pretty much unpalatable to HN crowd: If I had a small dev shop, I would put out an hiring ad that says you must drop off your resume in person and we will only hire people from 50 mile radius. Like they used to do in 1970's. Not a fan of: 1) Global pool of candidates 2) Leet code bullshit 3) Remote work Fan of 1) Permanent hiree after 3 months of time with us. 2) You will be part of our family, we'…

I'm amused at the juxtaposition of "you'll be family" with "no bullshit."

That is a certain kind of family

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#62

Post by yamtaddle »

BeetleB wrote: post #42

A lot of this is game theory at play. > 1. Applicants must wade through large volumes of job postings, which are often poorly written, and frequently lacking key information which is important to the applicant. This is nothing new - it's been this way for over 20 years. Job postings are not more poorly written than in the past. > 2. Employers are overwhelmed with large numbers of applicants, most of whom don't meet t…

> > 2. Employers are overwhelmed with large numbers of applicants, most of whom don't meet the requested minimum requirements.

> Because many/most employers are willing to hire people who don't meet the minimum requirements. Or rather, they are sloppy when they made the job posting. Therefore, applicants who actually honor the minimum requirements are at a disadvantage.

Seriously—treat "requirements" as "a wishlist" is basically job hunting 101—because it works. Sucks for the employers who really, super-duper mean it when they write "requirements", but that's not most of them.

> 5. Write in reasonable detail about the interview process. Will it involve Leetcode style questions? Etc.

I swear to god, some companies protect this stuff like it's a state secret. I promise you that making details of your process public, or at least sharing them with applicants on first contact, won't ruin it. If FAANG can practically provide a study guide and get by, I'm pretty sure Jim Bob's House of Software or Boring Business Bank Incorporated isn't going to be ruined by providing a schedule and some guidance on the kind, difficulty, and broad domain of any technical assessments that will be performed. Meanwhile, leaving candidates with no clue what to expect when the real-world range of what happens in these interviews is unreasonably enormous, is simply shitty.

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#63

Post by ghaff »

yamtaddle wrote: post #57
ghaff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting idea, especially if you largely automate the analog->digital ingress process. Unfortunately, you probably would have an adverse selection process. Anyone who can (or thinks they can) easily land a job will be F this crap. And the truly desperate will jump through the hoops.

> Unfortunately, you probably would have an adverse selection process. Anyone who can (or thinks they can) easily land a job will be F this crap. And the truly desperate will jump through the hoops. I usually think that's the case when adding barriers, but I think it's also the case that the best devs aren't usually shotgunning résumés anyway, so if they really want to apply, it's not that big a deal. Personally, I'd…

Possibly. I mean, you'd have people here who would be "The 20th century wants its job application processes back." On the other hand, I also see people pop up here saying they've applied to 500 jobs online which seems like an almost unfathomable level of shotgunning applications.

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#64

Post by BeetleB »

noirbot wrote: post #54
BeetleB wrote: post #42

A lot of this is game theory at play. > 1. Applicants must wade through large volumes of job postings, which are often poorly written, and frequently lacking key information which is important to the applicant. This is nothing new - it's been this way for over 20 years. Job postings are not more poorly written than in the past. > 2. Employers are overwhelmed with large numbers of applicants, most of whom don't meet t…

I was going to ask about Cover Letters. Why do you think that's such a big improvement, especially in the current AI Generation zone? Most of the time I've written a cover letter, it may as well have been written by an AI, or I simply recycled another one I'd written and changed the names. If you're actually going to reject someone for having a bad cover letter, does that not heavily bias against people who aren't as…

I don't care if an AI wrote it, as long as it reflects the candidate's motives and background.

> If you're actually going to reject someone for having a bad cover letter, does that not heavily bias against people who aren't as proficient in your chosen language?

Then get ChatGPT or a friend to write it? :-)

When I say "proper", I don't mean "good grammar", but things like why you think you'd be a good candidate. Why does this job appeal to you[1]? Etc.

[1] I personally don't like this one as much,

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#65

Post by lolsal »

systemvoltage wrote: post #14

Hard take which is pretty much unpalatable to HN crowd: If I had a small dev shop, I would put out an hiring ad that says you must drop off your resume in person and we will only hire people from 50 mile radius. Like they used to do in 1970's. Not a fan of: 1) Global pool of candidates 2) Leet code bullshit 3) Remote work Fan of 1) Permanent hiree after 3 months of time with us. 2) You will be part of our family, we'…

Interesting take. I have some questions:

> 1) Global pool of candidates

Why not? global pool could potentially get you a lot more bang for your buck. I've employed folks from outside the US and it was a joy to get really talented folks and pay them stupidly well for their location. They were super excited to work with us for that and we were super excited to pay them a lower rate than hiring in the US. Win-win.

> 3) Remote work

Why not?

> 1) Permanent hiree after 3 months of time with us.

I think this works well on paper, but not so much in practice. I wouldn't be interested in wasting 3 months of time (even if I'm paid) just to find myself back in the job hunt process again. I can't imagine on a large enough or complex enough project that three months would be sufficient to be measurably productive. I'd rather use that time to find a longer-term place that is a better fit for me. This is just me though.

> 2) You will be part of our family, we'll build great things together

Oof, no thanks. I'm exchanging my time and experience for money. I don't need additional weird social hierarchy or hidden rules about behavior (not to mention the passive exploitation).

> 3) You'll get a decision when you visit us. Just drop by, no appointment necessary. We'll make time.

Gosh, as an employee there, this would signal to me that I might be expected to be interrupted and context-switch to an off-the-street interview. That doesn't sound like fun.

> 4) If you get rejected, we’ll tell you in the most honest way possible. No HR bullshit talk.

Sometimes that "HR bullshit talk" is to protect you and your company from lawsuits. Honesty combined with "HR bullshit" is possible and not mutually exclusive.

----

On another note, I appreciate such visible signals that I would not be a good candidate for your company.

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#66

Post by lapcat »

BeetleB wrote: post #42

A lot of this is game theory at play. > 1. Applicants must wade through large volumes of job postings, which are often poorly written, and frequently lacking key information which is important to the applicant. This is nothing new - it's been this way for over 20 years. Job postings are not more poorly written than in the past. > 2. Employers are overwhelmed with large numbers of applicants, most of whom don't meet t…

[deleted because my reply misunderstood the original comment]

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#67

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

annexrichmond wrote: post #21

Have the candidate interview with their potential teammates really helps. The interviewer will also be more engaged than if they were interviewing for some other random team I also try to make small talk, have a quick conversation and so on. This has been mostly good except with a couple candidates. They were hasty and basically like ok let’s get to the question It’s so interesting how groomed candidates are with Lee…

Not so sure about this. Most people suck at conducting interviews if they haven't been trained. This is how we ended up with candidates complaining about high pressure whiteboard tests as a form of hazing.

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#68

Post by lolsal »

blackbear_ wrote: post #46

A question for those who are hiring: how much do cover letters actually matter? How much of a setback is not submitting one (when it's optional)?

As someone who has done a lot of the hiring side for technical positions, I never care about a cover letter. I can't remember the last time I saw one.

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#69

Post by lapcat »

glass3 wrote: post #18

Applicants could organize in a guild. The members can rate each other in a friendly environment with constructive feedback. Then, the guild knows who are the best matches for a given job. Employers at first communicate with the guild and only have to evaluate 5-10 candidates. All interviewed candidates pool their knowledge about the employer so the next suggestions from the guild will be even better matches. Medieval…

> The members can rate each other in a friendly environment

> Employers at first communicate with the guild and only have to evaluate 5-10 candidates.

Yeah, no. It's not friendly when there's an obvious hierarchy and competition for jobs involving large amounts of money. And who decides the criteria? How are other developers even supposed to "rate" you if they haven't worked with you?

Putting all software engineering hiring in the hands of one central authority is one of the worst ideas ever. It's good when different employers have different hiring criteria. What sucks is when a bunch of employers cargo cult on the same hiring methods. We need more diversity in hiring, not less.

Re: Ask HN: Why is hiring so dehumanized, and what can be done?

#70

Post by yamtaddle »

elbigbad wrote: post #41
systemvoltage wrote: post #14

Hard take which is pretty much unpalatable to HN crowd: If I had a small dev shop, I would put out an hiring ad that says you must drop off your resume in person and we will only hire people from 50 mile radius. Like they used to do in 1970's. Not a fan of: 1) Global pool of candidates 2) Leet code bullshit 3) Remote work Fan of 1) Permanent hiree after 3 months of time with us. 2) You will be part of our family, we'…

This is so on point, back in the 20s I got my first tech job by putting an onion on my belt (that was the style at the time) and going to the company with a resume and shaking their hand and not releasing until they agreed to give me a job. Kids these days don’t know the value of a handshake and a drop by. I grew with them as a family and still hold the job to this day. The name of that company? The International Bus…

I got... oh, three of my first four software jobs, by walking in and asking. Including my second full-time role post-college. The first of these would have been around 2000, the last around 2010 or '11.

The other one of those four just came to me directly through my network.

Now that I think about it, of the 7ish jobs I've held in about 23 years, I don't think a single one came from "fill out this online application form". I've done those, but it's never gotten me a job. Recruiters, responding to a very-basic listing on Craigslist that didn't involve some online form and was all-email, network, and just walking in. The "normal" process, not once, I don't think. But I also think the normal process takes a lot longer than any of my job searches have (longest was about a month? Most two weeks or less) to yield results, in most cases, so IDK, maybe it would eventually have worked for me.

I guess maybe the '00s are onion-on-my-belt-territory now, though.

[EDIT] Incidentally, I do think it helps to be fairly young when attempting this. Putting on my other-side-of-the-table hat, I'd probably be more likely to have positive feelings about a 24-year-old walking in like this and asking for some time, than a 34-year-old. 24 year old does it, "huh, interesting, they clearly have some amount of spirit or hunger to them, let's see what they're like, I can find a few minutes"; 34-year-old: "WTF are you doing?" I've not attempted it since crossing the 30-year-old barrier.

Post reply on HN