A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires • Hacker News Board

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#31

Post by sheeshkebab » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 12:59 AM UTC

literallycancer wrote: post #20

ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

Are clauses like that common in the US? Do they hold up in court?

non-competes are common - but often can't be enforced by employers (and in some states are just ignored/illegal). blanket ip ownership not so common - but big shops sometimes require them, when they can get away with them.

Some people negotiate over such things or have them struck out from whatever HR paperwork. Consultants definitely have such crap taken out from contracts and replace with more straight forward and standard non-disclosure agreements (or charge a lot more - clients will pay if that stuff is important).

In other words, employer/client can put whatever crap they want and you need to always read and understand contracts you sign, as an employee or contractor.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#32

Post by Gustomaximus » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:01 AM UTC

Payment option is really good points. With take home problems, there is risk their brilliant buddy helps them out, and teaches them about the solution to help them talk about it. For this I feel its best to do any tests onsite.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#33

Post by eranation » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:02 AM UTC

This is great, except the over the weekend part. I have a wife and kids, I rather be with them than solve (even paid) challenges. I rather take half a day off, solve it right there in the environment and team that will potential work with you. I would encourage candidates to also reach out with questions during the challenge and see how they communicate ideas and react to suggestions. Other than that, completely agree.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#34

Post by kasey_junk » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:02 AM UTC

RandomOpinion wrote: post #18

ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

> This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. By that interpretation, you can never legally take part in a whiteboard coding session during an interview either since the code you whiteboarded also belongs to your current employer. There is such a thing as being too literal.

Anti-moonlighting agreements, where they are legal, are common and definetly apply in this situation without requiring extra literal interpretation.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#35

Post by cldellow » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:02 AM UTC

stove wrote: post #5

Does anyone have experience with this style of interview from the candidate side of the equation? I want to move to this style of hiring; however, I fear that because it's against the grain I may miss out on good candidates. Is that unfounded?

We do a variant of this, although we don't currently pay. Perhaps we should. IMO, it skews towards people who are diamonds in the rough (junior, or non-traditional background) or experienced people who are burnt out on traditional whiteboard interviews.

It hurts the size of our funnel, but I think the results we get are pretty good.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#36

Post by femto » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:04 AM UTC

RandomOpinion wrote: post #18

ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

> This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. By that interpretation, you can never legally take part in a whiteboard coding session during an interview either since the code you whiteboarded also belongs to your current employer. There is such a thing as being too literal.

The problem would be the payment. That turns it into a paid gig and leaves a paper trail. A solution might be to allow the candidate to forgo payment in lieu of the interviewer making a donation (in the interviewer's name) to a charity of the candidate's choosing, so the candidate never sees any compensation.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#37

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:04 AM UTC

Jgrubb wrote: post #16

I was actually hoping for a post on how to cull bad hires after they'd already happened. Any advice there? Asking for a friend...

My guess would be that most "bad hires" are either insufficiently skilled or insufficient motivated. For the former, you could provide training if you at least see potential. The latter shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#38

Post by paxy » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:05 AM UTC

This is one of those "aha" solutions that people keep mentioning, but completely ignore how it would work in a non-ideal world.

• What 2 hour project can you assign that would let the candidate go into enough depth for you to judge their code, design decisions, architecture skills?

• If you give them more time (e.g. a weekend like in the article), is it still financially viable to the company, especially at $100/hr??

• How do you filter out the candidates that aren't serious about the job but just want to make a quick buck?

• What about all the candidates out there who you can't legally pay (e.g. workers on a visa)?

This works when you are a small company that needs to pick 2 out of 6 total applicants, but otherwise completely unfeasible.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#39

Post by chubot » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:06 AM UTC

ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

Do you think Google would sue you over 2 hours of coding? Technically, they might be able to, but anyone can sue you for anything.

If you think they would, you're probably overvaluing what you can accomplish in 2 hours, and you're underestimating the cost of a lawsuit to them. I can't imagine a situation in which they would actually pay any of their legal staff to even look at something like this, given all the rest of the things the lawyers have to do there.

I worked for Google for 11 years and wouldn't have hesitated to take a paid interview as long as it was all done in good faith (i.e. for the purposes of getting another job).

Google is trying to hire good engineers and retain them with interesting work and good compensation/perks, not shackle them there by legal means.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#40

Post by countingteeth » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 1:11 AM UTC

ahh wrote: post #10

This system is interesting but has a crucial flaw: I legally can't take part. I have a job now, which claims ownership over any tech-related IP I create. There are processes for getting exceptions, but a) you won't get them for actual job-related things b) I'm not asking Google for an exception so I can interview somewhere else. This is true for nearly anyone with a standard SV job. So if you're willing to restrict y…

Are we reading the same article? The one I read said:

> DON’T use a real problem because of tribe knowledge needed to fix.

I do not see how this is different from a whiteboard problem, literally speaking. It's a "problem", not a "product", and presumably the solution is throw-away, or at least not used for commercial purposes.

If the author was talking about tasking potential hires with a small, real consulting task, then that would be an issue, whether it was paid or unpaid (and by industry norms, using applicants to do unpaid work is extremely unprofessional, though not unheard of).