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

Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

devinterviews.pen.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 230 posts

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#51

Post by tptacek »

kenjackson wrote: post #45
ams6110 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but a 90-day "probationary" period is absolutely commonplace in the USA. Not sure I see much difference.

I've never seen that in the US. I should add that to our hiring agreements! But I do agree with the other poster. Most high quality devs I know, worth their weight, won't sign on for that. Their view is that its a slap in the face from day one, and disrespect like that from management never gets better over time.

Talk to your lawyer. It may not necessarily be a win to add that clause. You have the ambient right to fire someone (in almost every locale in the US) with no reason whatsoever. Why qualify it?

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#52

Post by dminor »

I once decided to skip the standard programming problem during the interview process, and I ended up regretting it extremely. The person we hired was nice, and a good "culture" fit, but couldn't code for beans. We had to let them go and I felt pretty bad about it.

Programming questions certainly aren't the be all and end all, but as a filter they are useful.

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#54

Post by swampthing »

tptacek wrote: post #26
staunch wrote: post #15

My current system is: 1) Simple programming challenge ( 2) Casual discussion-style interview to get to know how they think and behave. 3) Short term contract with a predefined project ( 4) Full time hire with salary + equity.

If (3) is working for you, great; however, bear in mind that it's a seller's market for talent right now. I'd neg an offer contingent on doing a 3 month contract first, and I'd advise my friends to do the same; why should I shoulder that risk, if there are 2-3 other good positions open that will take it on for me by offering FT right away?

Conversely, (3) might attract some programmers who want to work at a place that is very careful about who they bring on FT.

There are three risks compared to a FT offer - (1) the business goes south and they can't afford to bring you on FT (in which case you might be screwed even if you had gotten a FT offer), (2) you're not a cultural fit (in which case, it's the better outcome for everybody) and (3) you don't meet their standards.

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#55

Post by kenjackson »

tptacek wrote: post #51
kenjackson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen that in the US. I should add that to our hiring agreements! But I do agree with the other poster. Most high quality devs I know, worth their weight, won't sign on for that. Their view is that its a slap in the face from day one, and disrespect like that from management never gets better over time.

Talk to your lawyer. It may not necessarily be a win to add that clause. You have the ambient right to fire someone (in almost every locale in the US) with no reason whatsoever. Why qualify it?

Actually I was joking about adding. I have no plans to add such a thing. Our interview process has fortunately been solid enough that no one we've hired has been less than solid. And I think such a clause would backfire, since many of our best devs wouldn't have accepted on such conditions.

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#56

Post by okaramian »

Definitely agree with this post. I've been interviewing for the last couple months and one of the better/more fair interviews I've had involved a nice back and forth (mostly the types of questions posed in the article, including a lot of stuff about my outside projects).

Then they brought me in for a tech interview where they plunked me down in front of a computer to architect a small application for a type of problem I might encounter on the job. I thought it was fair and it probably gave them reasonable insight into how I code/think/present my solutions.

I've had a lot of "write a linked list" style and they're draining. The quality of the applicant being pulled in to do CS trivia is going to be all over the place since that type of an interview can be gamed fairly easy if someone has a desire to do so.

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#57

Post by swampthing »

tptacek wrote: post #48
ams6110 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but a 90-day "probationary" period is absolutely commonplace in the USA. Not sure I see much difference.

Virtually all employment in the US is at will, meaning you are continually on "probation". The difference between a contractor and an FT is that the contractor is 1099'd, pays both halves of FICA taxes, and isn't provided health insurance; more importantly, when the employer is as overt about the issue as "not hiring you full time", there's no implied social contract or norm ensuring you'll even end up getting the jo…

Try looking at it a different way - assume, you will have a full time job at either of these prospective employers. Do you want the one that makes FT offers immediately, or the one that makes them only after testing new people out for 3 months?

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#58

Post by tptacek »

swampthing wrote: post #54
tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If (3) is working for you, great; however, bear in mind that it's a seller's market for talent right now. I'd neg an offer contingent on doing a 3 month contract first, and I'd advise my friends to do the same; why should I shoulder that risk, if there are 2-3 other good positions open that will take it on for me by offering FT right away?

Conversely, (3) might attract some programmers who want to work at a place that is very careful about who they bring on FT. There are three risks compared to a FT offer - (1) the business goes south and they can't afford to bring you on FT (in which case you might be screwed even if you had gotten a FT offer), (2) you're not a cultural fit (in which case, it's the better outcome for everybody) and (3) you don't meet…

No, you've missed a key risk: (4) that the prospective employer continues to get resumes from people even after "filling" the position and decides on T+89 that you're great, but they can do even better.

During the 90 day contract, both you and the employer must technically still be "looking" (the company still has an FT headcount to fill, and the dev still doesn't have a job). But the company is inherently better positioned to deal with the uncertainty: companies hire many people simultaneously, and keeping a req open costs them nothing. Individuals, on the other hand, have a very hard time conducting a serious job search and doing their 100% on a full-time job simultaneously.

That is not actually a risk in the FT dev model, where the incentives are structured differently; it is instead very much more like the "up or out!" model of the Big 4 accounting firms or investment banks: you got the shot at the gig, now work your ass off to make sure you can keep it!

If you are a friend of mine and you are staring down the barrel of one of these "contract-to-hire" offers, take my advice: turn it down. We've been hiring nonstop for the past couple years, including for dev, and it is ludicrously, insanely good to hire good people. You hold all the cards, except (tragically) the one labeled "knowing what you're worth".

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#59

Post by tptacek »

swampthing wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually all employment in the US is at will, meaning you are continually on "probation". The difference between a contractor and an FT is that the contractor is 1099'd, pays both halves of FICA taxes, and isn't provided health insurance; more importantly, when the employer is as overt about the issue as "not hiring you full time", there's no implied social contract or norm ensuring you'll even end up getting the jo…

Try looking at it a different way - assume, you will have a full time job at either of these prospective employers. Do you want the one that makes FT offers immediately, or the one that makes them only after testing new people out for 3 months?

I want the one that makes FT offers, because I don't believe that the best programmers, who can write their own ticket in this business climate, would put up with this contracting bullshit. This approach to hiring is a cop-out. It says, "we don't know how to hire properly, so we're going to push the risk onto the candidates".

Re: Hiring Developers: You're Doing It Wrong

#60

Post by swampthing »

tptacek wrote: post #58
swampthing wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, (3) might attract some programmers who want to work at a place that is very careful about who they bring on FT. There are three risks compared to a FT offer - (1) the business goes south and they can't afford to bring you on FT (in which case you might be screwed even if you had gotten a FT offer), (2) you're not a cultural fit (in which case, it's the better outcome for everybody) and (3) you don't meet…

No, you've missed a key risk: (4) that the prospective employer continues to get resumes from people even after "filling" the position and decides on T+89 that you're great, but they can do even better. During the 90 day contract, both you and the employer must technically still be "looking" (the company still has an FT headcount to fill, and the dev still doesn't have a job). But the company is inherently better pos…

(4) isn't really a risk if the employer is following a consistent hiring procedure, since they will not have had the time necessary to evaluate your potential replacement. What sane employer is going to willingly pass up someone who's been vetted over 3 months (and determined to meet the standards) for an unknown?
Post reply on HN