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

A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

mattermark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 517 posts

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

#161

Post by greglindahl »

nolite wrote: post #104
pauljaworski wrote: post #21

This is literally the only way I've gotten job offers. I'm a very competent programmer, but when I'm asked to solve some silly puzzle with someone staring over my shoulder, I freeze under pressure and can not think at all. Luckily not everyone thinks solving leetcode problems is a good way to hire.

I've been in situations together with clients deploying a product, them presenting it for their managers, orpreparing for a big demonstration, and something goes wrong due to some unforeseen environmental factor you couldn't have imagined or predicted, and breaks in a way you don't expect, despite the weeks of testing you've done. You've got your main client staring over your shoulder, arms crossed saying fix it, and…

This is not a good way to hire people. I can do all those things, but I'm not normal. Some engineers do a lot better under stress with a system that they're very familiar with. Others do better under stress when they're working with people they know well. And still others are great engineers but aren't the person to be in front of the client under stress.

Congratulations that you can do all these things -- but unless 100% of the engineers in your company need to be like you, you might not want to use your list as hiring criteria.

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

#162

Post by fredophile »

throw_away_777 wrote: post #152
fredophile wrote: post #147

One important thing to realize with paying people for code they write as applicants excludes a large number of potential hires. People on work visas are not allowed to moonlight. I wouldn't risk ending up on the wrong side of ICE just for an interview.

Well then those people can refuse the pay and still take the interview.

No they can't. If they did they would be doing volunteer work for a position that is usually paid and this also violates US immigration law (at least for the visas I'm aware of).

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

#163

Post by kabdib »

inopinatus wrote: post #107
throwaway4job wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a viable approach for much of the hiring pool, as a majority of working engineers have contracts which explicitly forbid work for contract for other employers. As such, if you hire any of those, you're hiring somebody with a proven willingness to ignore their contract, which is a strong anti-pattern.

IANAL but I took business law 101, which taught me that courts almost universally lean strongly towards the employee when considering restraint clauses. Moreover, if you have a current employer that is sufficiently disrespectful of their employees that they'd even consider enforcing an anti-moonlighting clause in this circumstance, with the preposterous assertion that it qualifies as employment - run away now. The la…

If you're involved in the court system while looking for employment, you've already lost.

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

#164

Post by quickben »

peteretep wrote: post #130
MAGZine wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I am interested in roles paying above my current salary of $xxx,xxx only, and am looking for an improvement on that to reflect my increased experience and the risk of moving roles" Are you really advocating that people disclose their salary to a recruiter, voluntarily? What terrible advice. "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining chip 101".

> Are you really advocating that people disclose their > salary to a recruiter Yes > What terrible advice No > "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining > chip 101" If they're an internal recruiter, they have a banding you can be paid in, and they don't really care where you fall in it. Decisions above that salary banding will need to be referred to the person whose budget you are. If they're an external re…

And if they are an actual external company and not external recruiter?

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

#165

Post by greglindahl »

peteretep wrote: post #130
MAGZine wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I am interested in roles paying above my current salary of $xxx,xxx only, and am looking for an improvement on that to reflect my increased experience and the risk of moving roles" Are you really advocating that people disclose their salary to a recruiter, voluntarily? What terrible advice. "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining chip 101".

> Are you really advocating that people disclose their > salary to a recruiter Yes > What terrible advice No > "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining > chip 101" If they're an internal recruiter, they have a banding you can be paid in, and they don't really care where you fall in it. Decisions above that salary banding will need to be referred to the person whose budget you are. If they're an external re…

External recruiters get paid more for getting more candidates hired with the least effort per candidate -- they are not interested in spending a lot of time getting 10% more salary for a candidate, instead of getting another hire done.

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

#166

Post by majormajor »

throwaway4job wrote: post #59
zachd1_618 wrote: post #49

This. 100% this. As many others are saying, I find that this is the most comfortable way for me as an interviewee to demonstrate that I do in fact know what I'm talking about. Put me in front of a room full of people and a whiteboard and throw something at me, and I'll freeze. Freezing in that situation and being a bad engineer are wholly separate things. Anecdotally, when I get one of these problems, I spent 20 minu…

This isn't a viable approach for much of the hiring pool, as a majority of working engineers have contracts which explicitly forbid work for contract for other employers. As such, if you hire any of those, you're hiring somebody with a proven willingness to ignore their contract, which is a strong anti-pattern.

I don't understand the paid part at all. If I'm working full time, $200 isn't going to swing me one way or the other on deciding if I want to do your homework assignment. And if you come up with a ten-hour problem, then we're talking more of a chunk of cash, but you're also asking me to burn a lot of free time.

I'd much rather travel and meet you in person and do stuff there, but if you don't have the budget for it, we could figure other stuff out (shared docs, skype, whatever, I've done a few of these on both ends with some luck).

"Since the candidate is getting paid" seems like far weaker motivation than "since the candidate wants the job you're offering," which is what's going to determine my level of effort.

The "not a real problem" thing is key, though. I've tried testing out a few different "this is one of our real problem" things but there's almost always more hidden business rules or assumptions in there than you think.

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

#168

Post by photogrammetry »

peteretep wrote: post #130
MAGZine wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I am interested in roles paying above my current salary of $xxx,xxx only, and am looking for an improvement on that to reflect my increased experience and the risk of moving roles" Are you really advocating that people disclose their salary to a recruiter, voluntarily? What terrible advice. "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining chip 101".

> Are you really advocating that people disclose their > salary to a recruiter Yes > What terrible advice No > "How to immediately throw away your best bargaining > chip 101" If they're an internal recruiter, they have a banding you can be paid in, and they don't really care where you fall in it. Decisions above that salary banding will need to be referred to the person whose budget you are. If they're an external re…

Do you mind not using multiline code block quotes that split sentences in half?

Not only is it obnoxious to read on mobile, as horizontal scrolling is necessary, but it also fundamentally doesn't make sense as you should be able to copy/paste whole sentences.

One might expect that as a recruiter/(ex-?)developer you'd realize how painful it is when you use this formatting.

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

#169

Post by mcpherrinm »

zaroth wrote: post #78
throwaway4job wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a viable approach for much of the hiring pool, as a majority of working engineers have contracts which explicitly forbid work for contract for other employers. As such, if you hire any of those, you're hiring somebody with a proven willingness to ignore their contract, which is a strong anti-pattern.

IANAL, but that's not what this is. "Work for contract for other employers" could literally mean I can't help my neighbor mow his lawn in exchange for a beer. In this case what it really means is a non-trivial amount of work done for meaningful profit. If I fix a friends computer in exchange for a nice meal, I am using my relevant skills to perform work, but I'm not actually violating a contract forbidding outside wo…

I fear deportation, being unable to ever enter - never mind work in this country again.

You can call that a red flag, but it is the reality I live in. Maybe most of your candidates don't have that problem, but I would definitely be eliminated.

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

#170

Post by morgante »

This interviewing method suffers from the tragedy of the commons. It works great when almost nobody is doing it because if most of your interviews are traditional it's easy to squeeze in 1-2 homework assignments a week.

However, it would be totally unworkable if most companies were to adopt it. Try finishing a dozen homework programs during a typical job search.

Post reply on HN