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

How to hire low experience, high potential people

worktopia.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 433 posts

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#351

Post by the_mar »

em-bee wrote: post #345
the_mar wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's your first job in the field? We still don't use personal experiences as shitty proxy for how you're able to handle work situations

right, but for someones first job i would also not expect any experience how to handle work situations at all. regardless of how i would be able to find out it seems a bit much to ask.

that's exactly the point I am trying to make? it's ok to ask about past professional experiences, it's not ok to ask personal questions about the past.

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#352

Post by tptacek »

tasubotadas wrote: post #344
tptacek wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our process runs mostly through email until the last challenge, which is interactive (for every role in the company we simulate some kind of design or problem solving exercise on Slack with an random member of our team, which is then rated based on a rubric by a panel that reviews the transcript; it differs from an interview in a variety of ways, most notably that the team member delivering the exercise doesn't ever…

Could you give some exercise examples? How complex do you make? Does it feel like doing work for you?

It feels like what working here feels like, but it is strictly not doing work "for" us.

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#353

Post by geor9e »

gwbas1c wrote: post #347
geor9e wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus you get a bunch of free work out of every applicant if you delegate real issues out as work-sample tests :P I'm pretty sure the new Audi A8 cup holders are from my mechanical design engineer third round volkswagen interview a couple years ago

It's nearly impossible to scope useful, shippable work that can be accomplished in a job interview. Otherwise, you're asking for 20+ hours of work, which means that only fools / suckers will do your interview. Do you really want a company full of fools and suckers?

Shippable, goodness no, but a 1-hour-limit prototype already solving a problem you haven't even begun thinking about? I'd take that. I tend to start over from scratch after the first prototype anyway. You're interviewing people anyway, your choice is either real issues or fake issues, and fake issues get your nothing.

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#354

Post by bhattid »

wolverine876 wrote: post #308
theonething wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Wow, that is still upsetting you?" If not a jerk, then grossly lacking in sensitivity, empathy and tact.

At first I agreed with you, but then I remembered: Where is our sensitivity, empathy and tact for the person who said that, who may have their own trauma and own issues? The reality, the beauty of human relationships is that they are between people with all these issues and dimensions, all the nuance and detail that make up human beings. In the wild, there's no laboratory people - no clean, perfect specimens in simpl…

Well said. In addition to that, I think a speaker's intended meaning is also important to consider.

imo, people often take what people say literally or default to a first-instinct interpretation, rather than trying to understand what the speaker is attempting to convey. I try to interpret what people say charitably (a few of my friends think much too charitably), but I really believe that the vast majority of people seldom intent any malice in their comments.

In the example, it might have been intended in an empathetic way - "Damn, sorry, I didn't realize you were still hurting. I would have extended a shoulder to you if I realized". Or a pragmatic way - "I think the situation isn't as bad as you think, want to talk about it?" It could have been bluntly honest (personally, I typically appreciate honesty over politeness) or a totally aloof statement made on reflex. It could also just have been someone being a jerk, but I suppose the point of my rambling is that there's a myriad of ways to interpret a comment, and it's largely based on both the speaker's experiences and how they communicate.

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#355

Post by TehCorwiz »

joenot443 wrote: post #328
TehCorwiz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the interviewer probing private traumatic experiences in a largely one-sided interrogation?

Surely you can understand the difference between a voluntary interview and an involuntary interrogation? This is a pretty poor comparison, I think.

I agree, and personally would have no qualms about walking away from an interview I didn't like.

Would you choose to leave and walk out of an interview if you objected to something? how would you feel? Would you feel like you were walking away from an opportunity maybe? What if your situation was less than ideal?

I think you would find that many people don't feel the same independence or freedom that you and I seem to. Especially if they're not already comfortable financially.

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#356

Post by Uinchuling »

hdhdhsjsbdh wrote: post #337
Uinchuling wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a workplace full of people with charming, easily-shared backstories and nuclear families but no yucky problems Are you suggesting that this is bad ? What do you hope to gain by seeking out obnoxious people with traumatic backstories and broken families with yuck problems? Misery loves company?

Why should someone’s present self be defined by things entirely out of their control (e.g. childhood trauma)? You seem to assume that “obnoxious people” and “traumatic backstories” go hand-in-hand; on the contrary, some of the most obnoxious people are those who have never faced anything in their lives other than minor and routine inconveniences. Neither person is inherently superior to the other, I’m just saying tha…

You were the one to make the link between "charming people", good childhoods and lack of "yucky problems". And, while I would agree that there is a strong correlation, it's true that it's not perfect.

Obviously performance is also a critical factor but your comment gave me the impression that you don't see any value (or even harm) in targeting charming people without yucky problems. They do indeed sound like "perfect" colleagues to me!

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#357

Post by njbooher »

losteric wrote: post #129
lysecret wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or weeded out honest people.

It’s literally selecting for people who can tell the best stories. Not great for any company dependent on moving fast with autonomy, with a genuine mission. Plus “looking for grit” really means “looking for someone to work long hours (typically without good odds of realizing fair equity)”… super unethical to even attempt to be selecting for people with trauatic and toxic Pasts. If they wanted to select candidates for…

This whole thing read like a sociopath selecting for people they can exploit.

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#358

Post by ok_dad »

ska wrote: post #299
ok_dad wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asocial? I guess autistic people are out! I assume you’re young: there are many reasons people might be perfectly good at a job but not want to socialize with those people, or any other people. This whole thread makes me sad as an unemployed autistic person. HN folks are horrible hiring managers! Edit: and now downvoted for showing you losers that your personal model of the world and the people in it might be lacking…

I suspect you may be interpreting this a bit too broadly, and it's obviously personal for you. Part of work is, nearly invariably, social. Not wanting to get Friday beers with the team shouldn't really be a factor. Not being able to communicate smoothly and effectively with them in a work context absolutely is. I suspect the poster you are responding to is focusing on the latter, and you on the former.

That’s a good insight there, thanks

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#359

Post by DoughnutHole »

ska wrote: post #300
conro1108 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a similar shape but with quite different conclusions - low drive + low aptitude: never hire Hammerstein thinks some use can be made of these folks - low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise Hammerstein has this group as high leadership positions - high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth These are the ones who Hammerstein avoids - high drive + high…

> Hammerstein thinks some use can be made of these folks In a military context it's plausible "don't hire" isn't an option.

Well he seems to advocate getting rid of the stupid and industrious.

The stupid and lazy can be put to work and will probably get something harmless done, they just can’t be trusted with anything challenging.

The stupid and industrious are an active danger wherever you put them in the hierarchy.

Re: How to hire low experience, high potential people

#360

Post by eszed »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #276
eszed wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ability to function during emotionally-difficult circumstances can be a job requirement. (Likely not software engineering, hence the scorn on this forum!) It's unlikely the interviewers are curious about the interviewee's story, but if a question about a traumatic experience makes someone freeze up then they may not be able to perform certain roles.

> if a question about a traumatic experience makes someone freeze up then they may not be able to perform certain roles What certain roles are needed to plunge into reliving the time they were raped or assaulted? When they were a war refugee? And while reliving being assaulted to navigate a professional space??

Off the top of my head:

- HR professionals deal with a ton of shit, including assaults.

- First responders, obviously.

- Message board moderators?

- Customer service of any kind. (The Karen memes are irritating, and really, really mean, but I swear I recognize every one those interactions from my years in those kinds of jobs.)

- I was trauma-dumped plenty of times during my teaching career, as well as been loudly - even potentially violently - blamed (by students) for all of the problems they're having in class (or maybe even life, lol).

Maintaining professional aplomb in emotionally volatile situations is a critical part of jobs which deal primarily with people, rather than things - and is more relevant to engineering sorts of roles than many engineers realize.

Look, I'm not defending those particular questions - and far less the particular people asking them. I'm offering an alternate point of view about why they're being asked. It'd be great to see posters on this forum suggest some better ways to evaluate the traits at which they're aimed.

Post reply on HN