311–320 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a nauseating bias here against people who've had horrific childhoods. "Let me tell you about the years of physical/emotional/sexual abuse I've suffered though." That's just not going to happen - and if it did happen the interviewer is probably not going to come away with "What a brave person to overcome all of that!" but "What a damaged person, I don't need them around". Well done, you've weeded out people wh…
Even if the candidate doesn't have a horrific childhood, the question is totally inappropriate and irrelevant. Like "get up and walk out of the interview" inappropriate. This, and the general level of mysticism throughout (really? "Spike potential" WTF), causes me to dismiss the whole article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on the role you're hiring for. I suspect a lot of comments in this thread, echoing your sentiment, will be written from the perspective of sharp-end-of-the-stick engineers for whom the idea of working on ambiguous organizational problems is an abstract concept, far from their day to day. Not saying that's you per se, but this is HN after all. This crowd loves for things to be clear-cut, especially when the…
>It depends on the role you're hiring for. I suspect a lot of comments in this thread, echoing your sentiment, will be written from the perspective of sharp-end-of-the-stick engineers for whom the idea of working on ambiguous organizational problems is an abstract concept, far from their day to day. Not saying that's you per se, but this is HN after all. This crowd loves for things to be clear-cut, especially when th…
When I've interviewed developers and other technical people when I was in that business, I wanted to gauge if they'd be pleasant to work with, and vaguely "who they are," but that's about it. In a dev interview, I'd be suspicious of someone digging into what made me tick, if for no reason other than their lacking boundaries. But even in ambiguous green field coding projects, not having the most creative dev team could maybe result in longer design times, or overly prescriptive solutions, at worst, if they're technically competent.
Edit: (That said, in one technical role I was in, a technically competent new hire (that I didn't interview) tried to bring a machete into work on their second day for reasons we never found out, despite our working in the secure block of a government building with metal detectors, man traps, etc. But I think that's probably a bit of an outlier. ;-)
However, if I was applying for a job at a creative studio doing deep creative work on amorphous topics with comparatively ambiguous definitions of success, like making a movie, designing a large brand/visual identity from the ground up, or similar, I might not even accept a job if they weren't digging into what makes everybody on that team tick. The difference between mediocrity and excellence at that stage is almost entirely based on the creative capability of the team as an entity. Someone that doesn't jibe with it will be a drag on everyone at best, or unintentionally dousing the creative flames with an unhelpful attitude and momentum-killing diversions at worst.
People's intuitions around hiring aren't Bayesian enough. I think a good process reduces down to something like: - Are they smart? (understands quickly + communicates effectively) - Are they cool? (won't put poison in the keurig + pleasant to be around) - Are they high energy? (initiative + action bias) - Do they have the experience needed to be successful in the role? Those are pretty strong priors for success. If y…
I have a 4-quardrant way of thinking about this that's similar. - Y-axis is "drive" - X-axis is "aptitude" - low drive + low aptitude: never hire - low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise - high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth - high drive + high aptitude: hire on the spot There's an indirect way of testing for this which is to test for curiosity a…
Implication is that if you're high-slope, you'll eventually become high-intercept.
If you're a startup, you want to bias towards a mix of high slope, low intercept and positive slope, high intercept.
I think it's also worth pointing out that people can have negative slopes (due to social reasons, ego reasons), and that slope is not invariant over a person's career but often changes.
Ideally, you want to find people whose slope is positively-impacted by the environment of the company – a great hire is only a great hire if it's a great mutual-fit, in that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a ton of stories of a "cared for his dying aunt..." variety, 99% of the time when asked about personal stuff in the interview I am forced to lie, because otherwise the interviewer is coming out of that deeply scarred. So my perspective is that anyone who tells you a "cared for his dying aunt..." story is full of shit and definitely is playing you.
I agree probing into the candidate's childhood is probably a bad idea as an interview topic. However, for sake of argument, given that your story is true, shouldn't it also be evidence that those _not_ talking about "caring for dying aunt" is lying too? I mean, you told a story that didn't involve caring for a dying aunt, and that was a lie. We actually don't have evidence (either within your story, or in general I s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We wouldn't know if you've never touched it, only whether you can solve problems in it today.
So, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed a trend where the lower the position, the more invasive the questions become. I think it's a power dynamic - they can ask the questions because they know the applicants are more desperate. For example, before I was an engineer, I was scraping by on odd jobs after the 2008 crash. Around that time I applied for a job at Red Robin (basically a fast food restaurant for those who don't know). One of the quest…
I hope that stuff has stopped somewhat but it was definitely all the rage during the mid-late 2000s. I applied for Best Buy GeekSquad when I was starting my career and “failed” their stupid hour long online psych eval that was probably (or should be) illegal. Considering my intelligence and the trajectory of my career they would have been lucky to have me, but I am glad I didn’t get the job, so I would say these are…
That's kind of ignoring OP's point: people that are desperate for income will put up with abuse to get work. Of course they don't want to work there and the working conditions are often stink.
People's intuitions around hiring aren't Bayesian enough. I think a good process reduces down to something like: - Are they smart? (understands quickly + communicates effectively) - Are they cool? (won't put poison in the keurig + pleasant to be around) - Are they high energy? (initiative + action bias) - Do they have the experience needed to be successful in the role? Those are pretty strong priors for success. If y…
I have a 4-quardrant way of thinking about this that's similar. - Y-axis is "drive" - X-axis is "aptitude" - low drive + low aptitude: never hire - low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise - high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth - high drive + high aptitude: hire on the spot There's an indirect way of testing for this which is to test for curiosity a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think I'd be comfortable sharing this much personal information with a stranger on a job interview. Then lie and tell a good story.
> Then lie and tell a good story. They'll review your story with your references; better hope your mom has a good sense of humor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think a startup is a low-friction environment rather than a different kind of high-friction environment where the corporate person could be absolutely miserable and unprepared for execution with resource constraints?
It's the difference between being blocked by a wall (with 'no trespassing' sign) and being blocked by a muddy field. Some people find the former more stressful; some the latter.