Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#41

Post by RicStrong » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC

tathagatadg wrote: post #24

What I find funny is how little time and effort is put in writing the job description. The interview process is mostly very generic and the questions hardly in alignment to the role. As a profession we try hard to be correct about creating clear specs that can be translated to unambiguous steps for a machine to execute, but when it comes to hiring - we write ambiguous specs, toss it over to recruiters who are poorly…

I'm actually assisting with a startup in building a solution for things like this, so your comment really struck home!

And as somebody with a past in technical recruiting, I really like your thinking. Indeed you're right: many recruiters are poorly equipped to actually understand the roles. We have non-coders as the first or second tier gatekeepers for development roles, which does not seem ideal.

Sometimes I'd get different signals from the job descriptions than the senior recruiters or hiring managers, which was frustrating. Other times, the requirements in descriptions were way too broad: like the team had an idea of what they wanted, but couldn't get it down on paper in a concise way.

Resumes can be a challenge, too: many engineers don't always give full details of their work. Perhaps because they're tired of getting recruiters reaching out for irrelevant roles (that happen to have a keyword match somewhere). Perhaps they don't have the time to always be updating and polishing.

A two-front solution could be really great. We need developers to write their best resumes, and we need employers to write their best job descriptions. Having them 'speak the same language' on concise accomplishments, metrics, technologies will make more automated matching a lot (a lot) easier.

And then, of course - build the interview process around the shared skills / technologies / etc.

Hopefully I'll have something to share here soon, or perhaps do an ask HN to chat more about making hiring developers easier for everyone

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#42

Post by dahart » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 3:59 PM UTC

maxaf wrote: post #9

codingdave wrote: post #2

The process is aimed at fulfilling a business need that they are experiencing. Unless you know everything going on internally, it is difficult to judge whether the hiring process is bad, or simply not matched to your expectations. As to why it seems fearful, there is a huge price to pay if you make a bad hire in any company, but it is exaggerated when you make a bad remote hire, even more so if they have never worked…

Your comment is chock full of flawed and patently false ideas. Firstly, I have yet to encounter a company with a hiring process that is actually, provably, repeatedly tied to any of that company’s business needs. Designing a working hiring process is harder than the software work that the hiring is for. It’s no surprise that results usually seem arbitrary and ineffective. Secondly, and following up on my first critiq…

> Your comment is chock full of flawed and patently false ideas.

Whoa, what triggered and justified that response? I don’t know if the parent was edited, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.

> Firstly, I have yet to encounter a company with a hiring process that is actually, provably, repeatedly tied to any of that company’s business needs.

What do you mean? Why do companies hire then?

> an ineffective hiring process usually leads to the hiring of candidates who are good at interviewing, not at the actual work. These are the literal “bad hires”

This hasn’t been true in my experience. Why would someone who’s good at the work not tend to be good at interviews?

I’ve interviewed hundreds of people and hired dozens. The number one reason for a candidate not getting a position is that there was another better candidate. More often than not, it has nothing to do with how good the candidate is, nor does it have anything to do with how good the company’s interview process is. After that, there is usually a large number of candidates that are young and shooting above their weight, hoping to get in somewhere with almost enough qualification. Occasionally, that works. I haven’t bumped into anyone yet that was great at interviewing but not good at the work, but like many companies, I’m using the interviews to try and find out if they’ll fit it, and if they’re truly interested, and if they’re good at work.

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#43

Post by hysan » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

davtbaum wrote: post #17

Most 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…

> Most 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.

I agree that I've seen this to be true for senior roles, but what I've noticed on many job descriptions is the reluctance to say they are looking for a senior engineer. I've gone through quite a few phone screens where it becomes immediately apparent that the company is looking only for a senior but the job title and sometimes description looks like it was written for a mid or even junior position. So I can completely understand where OP's view of the hiring process comes from - you go through the initial test round, get to speak to them, then find out that they have extremely specific requirements. If you happen to be unlucky enough to go through many of these, it can really mess with your perspective on the hiring process.

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#44

Post by RicStrong » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

jcadam wrote: post #40

All 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 th…

I really hope there's a big push for remote roles. If that's where the talent wants to be, companies should be able to stay competitive.

Plus, it's much better for the environment. If you can do you work from home, why not?

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#45

Post by anotheryou » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #23

steventhedev wrote: post #19

In 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,…

In the under-performing scenario, wouldn't the company have to pay part of the unemployment benefits (up to ~50% of the salary) for a year or so?

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#46

Post by ChuckNorris89 » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

anotheryou wrote: post #45

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

In the under-performing scenario, wouldn't the company have to pay part of the unemployment benefits (up to ~50% of the salary) for a year or so?

No, you and your employer pay monthly contributions to the social security system, as part of your income taxes, and in case you get laid off, your unemployment benefits come from that pool.

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#47

Post by ausjke » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

steventhedev wrote: post #19

In 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…

for startup the hiring is US is tough, thought about hiring from Europe (remote) then got scared away by the labor law there.

checking at Asia now, not because they're slightly cheaper(they still are, though to a less degree), but at least the labor law seems more reasonable, so yes, outsourcing not for just saving some money but mainly because of the employment rules are more reasonable for both sides.

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#48

Post by anotheryou » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

jcadam wrote: post #40

All 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 th…

My biggest problem was that companies can't compete with a good European unlimited contract.

Most want to hire you as a contractor. Contracting I'd have to at least double my salary to take home the same amount of salary and insurances and out of germany it's basically illegal to be a full-time contractor for just one company.

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#49

Post by codingdave » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #42

maxaf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is chock full of flawed and patently false ideas. Firstly, I have yet to encounter a company with a hiring process that is actually, provably, repeatedly tied to any of that company’s business needs. Designing a working hiring process is harder than the software work that the hiring is for. It’s no surprise that results usually seem arbitrary and ineffective. Secondly, and following up on my first critiq…

> Your comment is chock full of flawed and patently false ideas. Whoa, what triggered and justified that response? I don’t know if the parent was edited, but it seems pretty reasonable to me. > Firstly, I have yet to encounter a company with a hiring process that is actually, provably, repeatedly tied to any of that company’s business needs. What do you mean? Why do companies hire then? > an ineffective hiring proces…

> I don’t know if the parent was edited

Nope, no edits. I'm not sure where the bitterness is coming from either, aside from the obvious that they aren't pleased with how recent interviews have gone.

Re: Ask HN: Why are hiring processes flawed and testing random standards?

#50

Post by anotheryou » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

At least I can weed out companies with bad hiring practices. They team can't be much better than how they hire.

Having a remote interview with really bad audio, no word on their product, no small talk, just questions without discourse or feedback on my answers? - No thanks.

I'm a bit torn on assignments and trial days. I think they should simply be paid.