Company in question: Kaonix - http://www.kaonix.com/
He got 1%, we can't hire him
221–230 of 594 posts
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#222[deleted]
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#223I disdain idiotic psych "tests". The mentality of "here's a few questions and now I know how you think or what kind of person you are" is, frankly, insulting.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#224Wow. The articles about completely idiotic hiring procedures never cease--because the reality of companies using idiotic hiring procedures never ceases--and each new submission is actively discussed here on Hacker News. How to hire good workers is already a solved problem, but most hiring managers don't do even minimal research to find out what best practice is.
I'm told that this Hacker News community disfavors repeated posting of FAQ posts as comments, but this is a Frequently Asked Question (what's really the best way to hire good workers) and over the last year or two here on Hacker News I've put together a post with a lot of references to the best research. A recent posting of that here on HN
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5227923
could help companies cure their idiotic hiring procedures. Read the FAQ if you haven't read it before. (Please let me know what you think of it, as I have been doing more research so that I can refine the FAQ and post it on my personal website.) There is no good reason for companies to do anything less than the best when setting up hiring procedures. Protect yourself by knowing what effective hiring procedures look like and how to find companies that use them.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#225When I was still at the university, our statistics class was used as a sample for a company creating such tests.
We had to fill out a test and hand a second form to someone who knew us well enough to judge our social behaviour.
The goal of this was to validate that the test.
When asked what would happen if the test was not valid, the company representative answered:
"There are 2 ways to handle such a proiblem: we can change the test or we can try again with another sample group. We prefer to change the sample group."
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#226I very much dislike the idea that you can't give special treatment to individual candidates. The job of a recruiter is to find the best candidate for the job, not to treat all candidates equally. Now obviously we can't go around discriminating against candidates based on attributes not relevant to their ability to perform (ie gender, race, religion etc), but that doesn't mean we can't make use of any extra informatio…
That was very possibly a white lie. In this egalitarian, self-esteem is paramount
era, many will be more comfortable saying "it wouldn't be fair" as opposed to "you FAILED."
Another employee vouching for you isn't quite the same thing.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#227Is the HR manager's name Catbert?
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's common with big companies in South Africa as well. It may have to do with how difficult it is to fire someone under our laws, but a few months probation is usually good enough, and fairer.
And here I thought my company was one of the few doing it in SA...
Software consulting places and body shops (unfortunately the line is increasingly blurry) don't generally do them. There was small software company in Jhb that used to send candidates for invasive IQ and personality tests to a psychologist, but they don't exist anymore.
Many big corporates have psychometricians on staff. At least one even has a department dedicated to psychometric testing.
There's plenty of demand for skilled developers so I don't understand why people put themselves through the humiliation. I expect that a lot of skilled people self-select out of these sorts of psychometric processes if they can, to the detriment of potential employers.
I also wouldn't be surprised if many of the tests contain an element of uncorrected racial/cultural bias, and the psychometric industry has been exploiting the inability of the government to enforce the law (Employment Equity Act), which makes discriminatory testing illegal.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or a recent job posting I saw for a Java tech lead: Required: Java Open source technologies Microsoft Visual Studio
This reminds me of a job posting I found around 2004, which had as requirement "at least 5 years of experience with C#"
Or job postings in 2009 which required at least 3 years of experience with iOS development.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#230Earlier 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.
It might be better to not respond to a disrespectful comment, but when responding, there is a need to respectfully disagree. When someone lowers the quality of the discussion, it is important for everyone else to make up for it. This also communicates the desired standard of conversation to the writer of the disrespectful post.