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

91–100 of 594 posts

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

#91

Post by flexie »

Xylakant wrote: post #73
antirez wrote: post #14

Improving a company 101: * Get rid of HR people. * Profit.

I respectfully disagree. Get some decent HR people and don't give them the last call on hiring decisions. Make it clear that HR is supporting the process, but not leading the process and that the last call is with the department/team that is looking for a hire. Let HR take all the tedious tasks of hiring from the developers, such as all the legalese, handling employee benefits, sick reports and all associated paperwo…

I don't think there is a need to "respectfully disagree" to a disrespectful comment. Just like there are terrible dev teams there are terrible HR departments, and this sounds like one of them.

But as you mention, if developers were to handle everything related to hiring, firing, sick reports, vacation, benefits, contracts, compliance etc. that HR does, I doubt there would be any profit.

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

#92

Post by LukeB_UK »

On the topic of technical tests, the company I work for has a good approach. They'll set the technical test for you to do at home (the same one for everyone), then you submit it and they review it. Based on that, you have a phone interview in which you have to talk through what you did and why you did it, being asked questions about certain bits and your choices. They also talk through some other bits to try and gauge your knowledge. If you pass that stage, you then go on to a face to face interview.

Might not catch everyone who tries to cheat, but will help.

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

#93

Post by antirez »

flexie wrote: post #91
Xylakant wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respectfully disagree. Get some decent HR people and don't give them the last call on hiring decisions. Make it clear that HR is supporting the process, but not leading the process and that the last call is with the department/team that is looking for a hire. Let HR take all the tedious tasks of hiring from the developers, such as all the legalese, handling employee benefits, sick reports and all associated paperwo…

I don't think there is a need to "respectfully disagree" to a disrespectful comment. Just like there are terrible dev teams there are terrible HR departments, and this sounds like one of them. But as you mention, if developers were to handle everything related to hiring, firing, sick reports, vacation, benefits, contracts, compliance etc. that HR does, I doubt there would be any profit.

The problem with HR is that they do tasks they are not qualified to as a mission. It's the role that's broken, note the teams.

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

#94

Post by legedemon »

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…

I think I was in a really fortunate position when I was able to negotiate this at my second company. Interestingly, at my first company, asking an existing employee to take the written tests in the specified time-frame was a standard practice. They were also encouraged to provide subjective evaluation.

On a very positive note, our HR director was someone who had removed psychometric tests at a number of organizations before he came to us.

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

#95

Post by mathattack »

"Also, there were some candidates who managed to get 95% and above - but would then just be absolutely awful during the interview - we would later discover that they were paying someone to complete the technical test on their behalf."

I wondered about this when I see test scores inconsistent with actual ability. The truth does come out.

In general tests (or interviews) for new hires should be tougher than for existing employees. You want each new hire to bring something new to the table.

The OP suggests that you can't beat interviews. I believe that even better is seeing someone in action (which they did) and getting references from someone you trust. This is why employee referral programs are so good.

Once HR gets into the mix of "Fairness to the candidates" as opposed to "Fairness to the company" it gets a little strange.

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

#96

Post by Torn »

tehwalrus wrote: post #70
mgkimsal wrote: post #64

"The psychometric test was supposed to produce a "true" reflection of how someone saw themselves, and I was told it couldn't change over time - i.e. whatever it determined was fixed, immutable and infallable." 20 years ago I took the Meyers-Briggs test multiple times (well, once a year for 3 years). My numbers changed a little bit each time - I was fairly strong I and N, but very weak 'T' and 'J', to the point where…

remember that MBTIs have no evidence base - they can be helpful in allowing someone to "see" jobs they might be happier in, as they did for me, but they don't necessarily measure anything statistically significant about a personality.

It's obviously pseudo bullcrap; what's astonishing is that the hiring manager in the article is dogmatically following it and ignoring the advice of the senior technical people involved in the hiring process

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

#98

Post by robin2 »

antirez wrote: post #14

Improving a company 101: * Get rid of HR people. * Profit.

I once had a job at a software company where an HR manager was hired to introduce a new "Performance Management" system, where people were scored on their "behavioural competencies" and "technical competencies". I learned from my line manager (before he quit) that the HR manager regarded behavioural competencies as more important than technical competencies, because anything technical could be picked up on a week's training course. (She also didn't understand the difference between a qualification and a certificate that you get for having attended a training course.)

Now, I'm just a software engineer, but I can't really get my head around the idea a software company hiring lots of supposedly smart people, subjecting them to this sort of nonsense, and then make it obligatory to take it seriously. To me, that sounds like a recipe for trouble.

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

#99

Post by enry_straker »

gringofyx wrote: post #30
aes wrote: post #22

1. Writing a blog post about this - good 2. Naming and shaming the company - better 3. Quitting your job and letting them know about it - even better

If I had the money to fight the lawsuit, I'd be right there. Also, I formally let them know I disagreed with the psychometric testing. Double also... I used to apologise to new hires for the psychometric testing, and tell them "this is not how the real-world works, this is a micro-community"

Fight the smart battles - and know the parameters of your influence ie don't be labelled as public enemy no.1 by dis-agreeing visibly.

Personally i think hr's role in selectin should simply be one of co-ordination and documentation, nothing more. Selection should be done by the team that needs them, with even the managers of the team playing a supporting role ie team decides not even the project manager. That requires a strong CTO/CIO type person and supporting CEO etc.

But, more importantly, by allowing HR to label you as a dis-ruptor and someone who threatens their own influence, it will be tough for you in the long run

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

#100

Post by gringofyx »

redpola wrote: post #84

It's really not my attention to offend/troll, but I found it amusing that whilst reading the blog post I found myself thinking "The grammar of this article is so bad, I wonder if the author's first language is English"... just as I hit the same question in the text. :) To add something constructive to the discussion: I've hired tens of developers over the years. Recruiting is by far the most black art I've ever suffe…

I'm a little offended - I wrote, the community upvoted - is grammar more important than the story?

Additionally, it's hypocritical to comment on ones grammar and then use bad grammar yourself.

Post reply on HN