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

271–280 of 594 posts

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

#271

Post by 6d0debc071 »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #264
jerf wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You explained why they should have input, not why they should have final say .

We tend to say anyone involved in the process can veto and I'd extend that to HR if they'd shown themselves to add to the process. Work permit issues are entirely a reason to veto and they're better placed to spot that sort of thing that the dev team, similarly issues around references and the like. The issue here isn't with HR per se, it's with a bad HR department overreaching, but personally I'd be just as skeptica…

> We tend to say anyone involved in the process can veto and I'd extend that to HR if they'd shown themselves to add to the process.

IIRC there was a woman a few months back with Valve who couldn't get the staff she needed because of that sort of veto setup.

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

#272

Post by johnohara »

alan_cx wrote: post #168
gringofyx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Most technical types are disconnected from the realities of sales, marketing, finance, law, etc, etc

So are most HR types.

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

#273

Post by Fuxy »

ttt_ wrote: post #180
lutusp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are there good HR departments? That depends. Are they staffed by psychologists? If yes, then no. Psychology and psychological testing are losing credibility very rapidly right now: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201305/the-...

Not all psychologists see eye-to-eye on the tests issue. In the case mentioned in the article, even a professional that truly trusts the tests should have taken into consideration: 1) make his own assesment and check against the test score, 2) realize that the test is supposedly validated against a sample, and if the candidate falls out of that sample (non-native english speaker), the test should probably be disregar…

What are you talking about psychology is awesome i am quite interested in the field however HR's use of psychology by just ticking boxes is not correct. They don't understand it so they are unable to apply it without ticking boxes. That form is completely useless in London for example where about 50% of the population is a non native English speaker.

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

#274

Post by Dylan16807 »

ajuc wrote: post #105
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people say "doing fizzbuzz" rather than just programming? Fizzbuzz is just a trick question to see if new programmers know how to use the modulo operator or not.

You can solve fizbuzz without modulo operator: bool divisible_by(int a, int b) { return a==((a/b)*b); } It doesn't require anything more than knowledge about what division means, and I think it's fair play to require such knowledge from programmers.

Or even if you don't know anything about integer math, you can use repeated subtraction. Or ask for help on finding a multiple and do the rest of the structure yourself. Or keep a counter to 3 and a counter to 5 and reset them when they fill up.

Definitely not a gimmick question about whether you know about modulus.

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

#275

Post by rayiner »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #264
jerf wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You explained why they should have input, not why they should have final say .

We tend to say anyone involved in the process can veto and I'd extend that to HR if they'd shown themselves to add to the process. Work permit issues are entirely a reason to veto and they're better placed to spot that sort of thing that the dev team, similarly issues around references and the like. The issue here isn't with HR per se, it's with a bad HR department overreaching, but personally I'd be just as skeptica…

If you're trying to separate "face to face" performance and put that in the domain of HR, and "technical test" performance and put that in the domain of the technologists, then you're going to have a bad time. That prospective hire who did great on the face to face isn't going to spend part of every work day chatting with HR...

Between your technical people and your technical management, there should be enough people skills to function coherently and effectively as a team. As such, those people together should have enough people skills to figure out whether a prospective candidate has the people skills to function effectively in the team. If those people see people skills as exclusively the domain of HR, well then you made prior mistakes in hiring that cannot be remedied with further mistakes.

This is exactly the sort of mission confusion that results in HR departments overreaching. If HR sees itself as "the people people" and its role as evaluating candidates for "people skills" and engineering's role as evaluating candidates for "technical skills" that's an unworkable division of labor and will invite improper encroachment from HR into the hiring process.

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

#276

Post by wffurr »

tokenadult wrote: post #224

Wow. 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 repe…

Surprising and disappointing that the best methods were only barely over 50% correlation with performance on the job.

What does the algorithmic whiteboard coding tech interview count as? Does it qualify as work sample and brain teaser combined with interview? I suspect it's too far removed from what software engineering is actually like to be a good work sample, and the prior knowledge required to solve algorithm problems doesn't make it a great brain teaser either.

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

#277

Post by krisoft »

josso wrote: post #229
felixr wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not that impossible. Maybe they were trying to poach Apple employees. :)

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

#278

Post by jmilloy »

Sometimes, the vocal majority on hn is highly skeptical, going above and beyond the call of "duty" to point out unsupported conclusions, anecdotal evidence, etc. Other times, they grab their pitchforks and attack the enemy (government, management, corporations, patent law) without so much as a glance at the data.

1. Are you certain that all technically qualified candidates will fit in with every company? Do you have data that supports this opinion?

2. Assuming there are some "poor fits", are you certain that the HR department and its tests are unable to accurately detect poor fits? Do you know what the sensitivity and specificity of the tests are?

3. Given that there will be some false positives (incorrectly labeled as "poor fit"), are you certain that losing these false positives harms the company more than hiring the true positives would (because you don't detect them)? Do you have data that supports this opinion, for various objective measures of harm or success?

Consider that these programs may be data-driven, which your anecdote is not, and therefore a) this person might actually be a technically qualified yet poor fit for the company and you just can't tell and b) this person could be an acceptable false positive, and that judging a program due to a specific instance is vacuous. My gut reaction is that, probably, the best hiring program allows several people and departments with various expertise should each have veto power.

Finally, hackers are traditionally anti-authoritarian, and that is both good and bad. Failure to realize that, and to admit that authority may have some value that even you, brilliant computer programmer, can't personally vouch for, is one of the aspects of our community that I would love to see change.

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

#279

Post by cllns »

rayiner wrote: post #261
tootie wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well there are obviously certain areas where they should have final say (e.g. this candidate is great, but here illegally and not authorized to work in this country). They should not have final say over a candidate based on personality or communications skills. They should be a source of input (i.e. this guy is an asshole, because he was very rude to the guy who helped him scheduled his callback interview, or perhaps…

To be fair, you did say:

> There is absolutely zero reason why HR/recruiting people should have final say on a candidate. None.

Now you're saying:

> Well there are obviously certain areas where they should have final say

Post reply on HN