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

401–410 of 594 posts

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

#401

Post by rafcavallaro »

Fuxy wrote: post #333
lutusp wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think you should ask yourself some hard questions about psychology. It's true that psychology's current practices are rather unreliable, but it's not obvious how to solve that problem, given the field's subject, the human mind. If the target were the brain, that…

If you're trying to say psychology is not an exact science I agree. You can't use psychology to make exact predictions of how people will behave however the more you learn about psychology the better you get at figuring out people and make a educated guess what motivates them. For instance i find myself using MBTI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator ) a lot when meeting new people and tailorin…

There is no such thing as an inexact science. If it is science, it is exact; if it is inexact, it is simply confirmation bias fodder.

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

#402

Post by mathattack »

dragonwriter wrote: post #321
rayiner wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on how big your company is, but for anything under say 5,000 people: > Is the CEO out in the market calibrating salaries every day? HR should not be setting compensation. That's a business question and something the business people need to understand and deal with. > Does the CEO have time to analyze optimal organization designs? Organizational structure is also a business question. It goes directly to wha…

> HR should not be setting compensation. That's a business question and something the business people need to understand and deal with. I read "out in the market calibrating salaries" as gathering market information which serve as an input for management in making compensation decisions.

Exactly what I was trying to get across. It's HR's job to come up with general salary trends by seniority, geography and anything else that management wants.

It's management's (really the CEO's) job to apply it. Is it a company that want to pay median salaries with lots of benefits? Low base relative to the industry, but lots of bonus and equity? Lots of cash? All these are the CEO's decision, but they shouldn't be the ones gathering the data.

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

#403

Post by mathattack »

nknighthb wrote: post #382
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…

> their role is to get resumes in front of the real decision makers I worked for a while for Company A, which was founded by a team that included senior engineers and senior management from larger company B, licensed technology from B, did critical contract work for B, and at one point was supposed to become the primary manufacturer of B's products. Company A shut down. My resumé went into company B's HR department,…

This sounds like a case of bad (Too centralized? Too incompetent?) HR, rather than an issue with having an HR department. You get what you pay for with recruiters, and more broadly HR. If you go to the lowest price resource for Java programming, HR or Accounting, expect to pay the price later.

But you did the right thing too, which is working around HR to get your name at the top of the stack. There isn't anything nefarious about doing this. You're creating your own referral, which is the best source of employees for a company.

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

#404

Post by blisterpeanuts »

enraged_camel wrote: post #349
JonFish85 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget enforcing dress codes and other such nonsense policies in the "employee handbook." I personally don't have a problem with this. Someone has to be responsible for making sure that the office doesn't look like a sty / homeless shelter. When investors/customers/interviewers stop by, there's a certain level of professionalism that needs to be present. So if there's a rule that people need to wear a top, they…

If I were a business owner and a customer judged me for allowing my employees to wear comfortable clothes around the office, I would not want them as a customer. Same with investors. Why? Because them caring about outward appearances would signal to me that they have a fundamental lack of understanding about what factors are relevant to running a successful business. Don't get me wrong: if an employee is visiting a c…

I agree with your sentiment, but on the other hand, what's the big deal to put your best foot forward when a VIP is visiting?

When I was in a small, casual start-up, they asked us to dress nicely for just one day to impress some visiting investors. None of us had a problem with it; we all had a stake in the company's continued health. It seemed like the natural thing to do, and I'd do it again if needed.

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

#405

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

"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."

And yet they often do. Consider that for a moment and wonder why it is so common, especially in technical companies.

What I have found over the years is that technical people hire people they think are great without regard to the HR "signals" and then one day they get screwed. Maybe they hire someone with anger management issues, maybe they hire someone whose antics expose the entire company to a crushing lawsuit. Or many they hire someone who, in short order, irritates all of the other employees such that there is a huge morale crash and exodus. Basically their hiring on technical merits and/or interview results in a very bad outcome. And then someone they know and respect says "Gee, an HR person would have spotted that right away, why didn't you listen to them?" or worse "Gee if my HR person had let that person through I would fire them on the spot."

You see in both cases something a bright technical person might be actually unable to see, could be the difference between a "good hire" and a "bad hire." And that is how HR people get into positions of power over hires and fires.

1) The hiring manager has someone else to fire (and blame) when a hire goes badly.

2) The hiring manager has some 'cover' over the things they don't readily see (like emotional issues).

Of course since the whole emotional/psychology thing is so opaque to some folks it is really hard to judge if the person they have providing that visibility is good or not. Sort of like someone who knows nothing about technology hiring a consultant, or someone who knows nothing about cars hiring an auto mechanic. One has to take things on faith a bit that the other person knows what they are doing and try to come up with ways to re-assure yourself that this is true.

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

#406

Post by joe_the_user »

This:

"Often what would happen is the first ten minutes or so would be socially awkward for the candidates since they would soon realise that they're technically all working against each other, but they also had to work together."

is quite as bad as this:

"As a young man, in the late 1920s or early 1930s, the narrator lived in the South. Because he is a gifted public speaker, he is invited to give a speech to a group of important white men in his town. The men reward him with a briefcase containing a scholarship to a prestigious black college, but only after humiliating him by forcing him to fight in a “battle royal” in which he is pitted against other young black men, all blindfolded, in a boxing ring." [1]

But it's getting "up there". The complex technical interview and the "do stuff for us for free" thing is bad enough but "start cooperating with your opponents in a 'there no right answers but we'll be failing you for some answers' situation is pretty despicable just to start.

Part of me hope they wind only with only really bad candidates, serves them right for putting on such a circus.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Man#Plot_summary

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

#407

Post by samrift »

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…

Even with this, should they have the final say? I don't think so.

They should give you the risks -"he has a criminal record of fraud, and will expose us to some lawsuits that could close the doors. In addition, we will have to quit doing business with our 5 top customers". But that's not a decision. It's information.

They can give you their capabilities - "I am unable to come up with a way for us legally employ them in the U.S." or "It will cost us approximately $500K to manage the legal end of hiring them." This is not a decision, it's information.

They can give you personality notes - "He was extremely rude and insulting during the initial phone calls, and asked me to perform a sex act for money. I believe he will be a personality cancer in this company". This is also not a decision, it's information.

When you actually trust and value your HR department they no longer feel the need to be gatekeepers. They are a valuable source of information during the hiring process. Of course, you have to trust your hiring managers to make the right decisions based on this information.

Policies that give multiple departments "final say" or veto powers are put in place because the individuals are not trusted... which points back at poor hiring or promoting.

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

#408

Post by nknighthb »

mathattack wrote: post #403
nknighthb wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their role is to get resumes in front of the real decision makers I worked for a while for Company A, which was founded by a team that included senior engineers and senior management from larger company B, licensed technology from B, did critical contract work for B, and at one point was supposed to become the primary manufacturer of B's products. Company A shut down. My resumé went into company B's HR department,…

This sounds like a case of bad (Too centralized? Too incompetent?) HR, rather than an issue with having an HR department. You get what you pay for with recruiters, and more broadly HR. If you go to the lowest price resource for Java programming, HR or Accounting, expect to pay the price later. But you did the right thing too, which is working around HR to get your name at the top of the stack. There isn't anything ne…

"Too centralized" is exactly my point. An "HR department" is a monolithic unit that operates in its own bubble. It doesn't understand what anyone outside its bubble does. It's an inherently poor vehicle for staffing the rest of the company. The people screening resumés should have some meaningful criteria by which to judge them, and it's just impractical when they spend all their time in administrative-land.

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

#409

Post by meowface »

noir_lord wrote: post #388
eieio wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is "Big Corp" though? I work at MS and they certainly don't do tests like this - and from my understanding neither does Google, Amazon, Facebook (is fb a "bigcorp"? perhaps not yet..). Dunno about IBM - wouldn't be surprised either way I guess. I'm an Amazon employee and I can confirm that I didn't have to take any kind of personality test when I applied here. I was also encouraged to apply to IBM via a friend…

When I was younger I applied a few places that had those McDonalds type tests, they are so completely trivial to subvert. The questions basically where a thinly veiled attempt to figure out how pliable and compliant you where. They should have just had one question "Do you like having a roof over your head?" because lets be honest you don't work those kinds of jobs because you enjoy them. All this psychometric stuff…

To be fair, they likely get a lot of applictions, and some portion of those applicants may be mentally ill in some way, possibly on drugs, or may otherwise be truly abysmal employees who don't care about anything. Tests like those can weed out people who clearly shouldn't be considered.

They have no place at a serious company hiring for a technical position, though. Usually 10 or so minutes of face-to-face talking is more than enough to tell you if your candidate is mentally ill, on drugs, or a major asshole.

Post reply on HN