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

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

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

#61

Post by tathagatadg »

RicStrong wrote: post #41
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 d…

That is just great to hear.

"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." - 100%! This is the market place that Linkedin has been trying to create - but hasn't worked very well, right? They have largely solved the problem of structuring the resume data - which is definitely useful, but I don't see much of that on the job description side. The matching algorithms can only rise up to the level of quality of the input data - the resume data, and the job description.

There are similar problems in the dating industry, but mostly you can be sure both parties are putting their best efforts for creating better input.

I think honesty is also a critical part of the equation. And if the Linkedin or indeed could encourage both sides to reveal what they value deeply - that would things more useful. May be a few why questions rather than just checkboxes and drop downs that can be filled quickly. Candidate: Why is remote working important for you? Job poster: Why is a self-starter important for you? That would help bring out the uniqueness for the candidates and helped the matching algorithms.

Will look forward to seeing your product on Show HN - best wishes!

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

#62

Post by TuringNYC »

mastry wrote: post #3

I have no answer to your question, but I can at least offer some sympathy and confirmation. I've been looking for a remote position for months and have been eliminated from consideration many times because I didn't have "X" months experience with specific technology "Y" - which could be easily learned by _any_ experienced developer. It's baffling ... and deflating.

You can look at this another way — a poorly managed company self selected themselves out from your consideration. Would you really want to work at such a company? Better that the company failed-fast and saved everyone the trouble of you having to endure a rigid environment.

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

#63

Post by RicStrong »

tathagatadg wrote: post #61
RicStrong wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

That is just great to hear. "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." - 100%! This is the market place that Linkedin has been trying to create - but hasn't worked v…

Thank you so much - and we can't wait to share!

For anyone who may be interested, https://www.rocketship.jobs/

If it can help even one person land a job, we'll be happy with having built something new and different!

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

#64

Post by Data_Junkie »

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…

Not democracy, politics. When there are too many for what we know how to do, we just pick what we know and like. Which in most instances is people like us. After enough cultural repetition it just becomes the way to do it. And they end up looking for themselves, but they don't know how to do the work so nobody like them is a good choice.

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

#65

Post by TuringNYC »

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…

>> > 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?

Sadly this is very common -- the bigger and more profitable the company the more common it is. Companies often hire for non-business related reasons for several major reasons:

1. Bench strength -- Hire top talent before you need it so you are ready to fire when you have a strategic project. Ideally, hire away talent your competitors might hire. In many ways, this is a good thing.

2. "Burn the Budget" - Divisions will often lose budget if they dont spend it, and they may lose it in future years when they need it ("well you got it last year and you didnt use it, so this year you dont get it...") -- so many divisions will hire to burn the budget and use it just so they dont lose budget when they really really need it.

3. HR - It is common for HR to institute Crazy-8s policies or some variant of it -- where you only get promoted if you have 8 (or N) people working for you. Naturally all sorts of non business related tasks suddenly pop up and people hire just enough to get promoted. This is very common in organizations where promotion and pay is linked to non business metrics (how much budget you control, how many people report to you) rather than business metrics (revenue delivered, revenue enabled, churn reduced, traffic increased, etc.) Often your boss themselves wants to be promoted and needs 8 middle-managers 8 under them to get promoted. And so on up the chain. Almost half the HR departments in my ~20yr career institute such a policy, whether it is internally known or not. It is of course more common in organizations which are not metrics driven.

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

#66

Post by dahart »

TuringNYC wrote: post #65
dahart wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> > 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? Sadly this is very common -- the bigger and more profitable the company the more common it is. Companies often hire for non-business related reasons for several major reasons: 1. Bench strength -- Hire top talent bef…

Aren’t those all “business needs” in a general sense?

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

#67

Post by TuringNYC »

dahart wrote: post #66
TuringNYC wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> > 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? Sadly this is very common -- the bigger and more profitable the company the more common it is. Companies often hire for non-business related reasons for several major reasons: 1. Bench strength -- Hire top talent bef…

Aren’t those all “business needs” in a general sense?

#1 is a business need.

#2 is a gray area.

#3 is business burn -- when an organization "needs" to hire loads of people to work on useless projects just to align to rigid HR rules, the business has stopped to drive operations and instead operations are driving the business.

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

#68

Post by repolfx »

jghn wrote: post #36
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…

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.

Do they get along just fine?

My experience of quite a lot of jobs has been that people, even managers, struggle to articulate what exactly they do, let alone what is required to do it well. If you can't clearly articulate that it's pretty meaningless to have any sort of rigorous hiring process to begin with.

Maybe that sounds over cynical, but I've watched as people from outside the tech industry encountered the concept of asking people to actually do a work sample in an interview for the first time. They thought it was the most crazy demanding and professional thing they ever heard of and immediately came to regard the team that was hired through that process as incredibly elite. Very few professions really challenge candidates in any meaningful way.

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

#69

Post by repolfx »

mastry wrote: post #3

I have no answer to your question, but I can at least offer some sympathy and confirmation. I've been looking for a remote position for months and have been eliminated from consideration many times because I didn't have "X" months experience with specific technology "Y" - which could be easily learned by _any_ experienced developer. It's baffling ... and deflating.

Did you get explicit feedback stating those reasons?

Usually when a job candidate is not selected they aren't given any information about why.

Post reply on HN