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

241–250 of 594 posts

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

#241

Post by Xylakant »

drdeadringer wrote: post #232
Xylakant wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal anecdote: One of the first companies I worked to as CTO lost me because they didn't have an HR person. The person in charge let the contract renewal negotiations slip from scheduled meeting to scheduled meeting for more than 6 month and by the time the actual meeting took place all I could say was "Sorry, I just signed somewhere else." That was the shortest contract negotiation I ever had.

Question: Did you not bring this up yourself, to the person in charge? ... or were you possibly not so interested in continuing to work there, or maybe feeling that bringing it up was the sole responsibility of the person in charge?

I initially brought the issue up. I was unhappy with the way some things were organised and (not) part of my sphere of influence plus a set of other open issues. The initial thrust was to renegotiate, to set responsibilities and expectations straight.

We had an initial round of meetings and then the issue slipped with meetings getting pushed out further and further from the other side. So yes, I think that in this position the other person was in charge. In any case, even if I'd be responsible to push the agenda, a good HR department should not let an open (and known) issue slip. Quite, to the contrary, good HR should recognise situations like this before the employee ever feels the need to push for a contract renegotiation.

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

#242

Post by dbuder »

I'm surprised that tech companies are like this. Also I assumed everyone just lies, especially since they say honesty is really important. The questions are usually stupid and the "right" answers are not the truth.

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

#243

Post by driverdan »

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…

The worst part about companies using Meyers-Briggs (other than the pseudoscience beliefs around it) is that it's easy to manipulate. If you study the test and know what the company is looking for you can easily answer the questions to the the result you want.

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

#244

Post by aquadrop »

Some tests may be acceptable as early filters, if you have a lot of candidates for one vacancy. But opinion of a reliable employee after personal contact should overpower any test IMHO. It's just crazy how HR blocked the candidate. Also, if they knew he couldn't be with the company, why they even let him into the competition? Strange rules. And that bit about "special treatment" was kinda stupid, he already had disadvantage cause of bad English. By they way, in order to get 1% on any test I think you have to know all the right answers and respond conversely.

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

#245

Post by gutsy »

Ugh. I had to take tests like that when I was interviewing right out of college. The whole experience rubbed me the wrong way. I ended up telling them I smoked (they were 100% smoke free and you could be fired for testing positive for nicotine) just to get them to leave me alone as smoking immediately knocked you out of the running.

Not surprisingly, my company has hired several people from them and absolutely no one has a good thing to say about working there.

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

#246

Post by Ceddy »

Personality is so difficult to measure, so it is even more ridiculous that HR has not only come up with an ideal spectrum of personalities that would 'fit' the company, but also adjusted it such that candidates can be scored on %.

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

#247

Post by VLM »

RamiK wrote: post #129

So the company you work for is filled with engineers and the best hiring practice they could come up with is to give the final call on staff hiring to a humanities \ social "sciences" graduates... Maybe you should consider Google's old screening logic test. While being completely ridiculous and ineffectual in finding intelligent engineers, they still do a decent job at deterring the anti=authoritarians quite effectiv…

"Personally, I like the old maniac hiring. You take a complete loon and put him in-charge of the process. Have him do tarot card readings, crystal energy vibes tests, skull measurements... But instruct him to pass any person who keeps his mouth shut during all of this."

Um, thats exactly what the original post is doing... well slightly different technique and different carnival barker vocabulary, but...

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

#248

Post by gringofyx »

ddeck wrote: post #162
valleyer wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice that I said "as the subject of a sentence". It certainly works in the single case you chose. How about these: "… and me and Carl were quietly trying to weigh up which team …" "Me and Carl had a winner and …" "During the excercise me and a colleague, Carl, made ourselves available …"

Yes, those are incorrect. Perhaps it's just because I'm not located in the UK, but it really stands out for me. Those, the lack of periods and phrases such as: >and thinked the way most of the team already worked and thought

Hopefully, I've fixed the grammar.

Yes, that sentence in the first paragraph stood out to me too, but I really didn't expect for the article to gain traction.

I want to add that I can't suit everyone, there are things that annoy me about American English grammar that I can't change, and I wouldn't think about writing in the comments suggestions on how to fix it. Maybe that's just me.

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

#249

Post by tootie »

rayiner wrote: post #218

There is absolutely zero reason why HR/recruiting people should have final say on a candidate. None. It should be inconceivable, at a technical company, to hand over that much hiring power to a non-technical person. HR people are valuable in a company. But their role is to get resumes in front of the real decision makers, and to take care of all the stuff like W-2 forms and whatnot nobody wants to deal with, not make…

Well, HR does have final say-so in terms of logistics. Like does the candidate require sponsorship to work in this country, do they have a criminal record, did their reference say they were an asshole, are they asking for more money than we can afford. Even judging personality and communication skills is not outside their expertise. The lesson of this article is to not use personality tests.
Post reply on HN