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

He got 1%, we can't hire him

codingjohnson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 594 posts

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#31

Post by gringofyx »

amirmc wrote: post #26

Thought experiment: For those running companies and hiring people. Would you take the time to occasionally run your interview processes over your existing employees? I'm not talking about involving them, I mean actually putting them through it. It would be one way to sanity-check that the process is selecting for the things you want from those coming from outside . As a company grows, the non-technical systems and po…

Here here, I'll second-that. Most management types are disconnected from the processes that their staff are instructed to follow. I've ran through application demos and walkthroughs with senior managers before where at the end they ask "Why do we do that?"

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#32

Post by Peroni »

rdl wrote: post #6

I don't get it -- was this at an operating company hiring people, or at the author's recruiting company (which seems to be a depressingly common way to hire people in Europe)? If a recruiting company is so incompetent as to require personality profiling, and worse, enforce it so rigidly, it would explain why Europe lags so far behind the US in tech startups, despite having at least as many (if not substantially more)…

it would explain why Europe lags so far behind the US in tech startups

The primary reason Europe lags behind is the substantial lack of investors & VC's.

The case highlighted by the author is typical of large corporates but if you look at any decent tech company in London for example, this case would sound ridiculous and extreme.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#34

Post by James_Duval »

cperciva wrote: post #10
Piskvorrr wrote: post #2

Yup, nothing worse than a HR monkey with a meaningless number. "Bow before my all-powerful metric, puny mortals!"

More generally, there's nothing worse than a social scientist who has illusions about being a scientist.

I was going to ask, somewhat facetiously, whether Asimov wrote "social science fiction" rather than science fiction.

Fortunately, I googled the phrase before embarrassing myself. Turns out he all-but-invented the phrase to describe his own work.

I suppose he had no such illusions.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#35

Post by gringofyx »

Peroni wrote: post #32
rdl wrote: post #6

I don't get it -- was this at an operating company hiring people, or at the author's recruiting company (which seems to be a depressingly common way to hire people in Europe)? If a recruiting company is so incompetent as to require personality profiling, and worse, enforce it so rigidly, it would explain why Europe lags so far behind the US in tech startups, despite having at least as many (if not substantially more)…

it would explain why Europe lags so far behind the US in tech startups The primary reason Europe lags behind is the substantial lack of investors & VC's. The case highlighted by the author is typical of large corporates but if you look at any decent tech company in London for example, this case would sound ridiculous and extreme.

Agree with the first bit.

Doubtful about the second bit - beaurocracy seems to become magnified in London.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#36

Post by Peroni »

rdl wrote: post #16
gringofyx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was at a (large/medium sized) company I used to work at, not the company I work for at the moment (recruiter). To be honest my interview for this position was just a really good conversation - my interviewer started out with a bunch of technical questions and eventually I said to him "Don't you have anything harder?". And then after that we just chatted about tech, it ended with him saying "I'll give the good news…

I wonder if recruiters recruiting recruits for recruiting are substantially better at it than when the same recruiters recruit for clients -- the way real estate agents tend to be substantially better when selling their own houses vs. for clients, and how doctors tend to make better medical decisions (less painful, better holistic outcomes, less cost) for themselves or family vs. regular patients. Maybe part of it is…

I wonder if recruiters recruiting recruits for recruiting are substantially better at it than when the same recruiters recruit for clients

Here in the UK that's called 'rec to rec' and I promise you, they are generally shockingly bad. If you think tech recruiters are incompetent and greedy then you would be horrified at the standard of rec to rec.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#37

Post by lifeisstillgood »

nomedeplume wrote: post #19
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #3

> The problem here is that we didn't have the final say. Yup ... There is going to be a real big shift in the next twenty years. We look at things like Developer Anarchy and say "what let the programmers run the company?" - but that's the wrong idea. It's let those with software literacy run the company - just as 500 years ago those who were literate took over running companies For a while we shall see parallel organ…

I recently spent a year working for an "elite" Silicon Valley startup company. The VP engineering had read enough Joel Spolsky to get through the door.. but he didn't practice software literacy. I would love to work for a shop, even in an underling capacity, that really gets software dev right. It would be worth delaying my startup dreams just so I can do it right at scale.

Count the number of people in senior mgmt and in all positions who can do fizzbuzz. Greater than 50% in all cases - great. Greater than 50 % for all but less than 20% in senior positions - get out. Anything less - run for the hills.

It's not saying its important - everyone in Hollywood says the story is the thing - but only Pixar seems to live by it. See any talk by Ed Catmull

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#38

Post by naahuc »

This reminds me of an article I read a while ago. In essence it warned of hiring people that think the same as everyone else on your team, as you will get stuck with the same opinion almost every time. It advocated hiring different thinking employees to achieve a broader view to any given problem.

These psychometric tests seem to go against that advice by only selecting people with very similar personalities and thought patterns, thus stinting the company.

Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him

#39

Post by rlpb »

I don't understand why HR should have a role in decision making to hire candidates. I'd find them useful in: 1) providing guidance; 2) ensure that all hiring is done legally and ethically; and that's about it. It is the hiring manager's responsibility to make sure his team delivers, so it should also be the hiring manager's decision on who is hired.
Post reply on HN