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

501–510 of 594 posts

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

#501

Post by crucini »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #386
HelloMcFly wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often, at least in the work contexts, it doesn't matter if they can be gamed. Validity testing is done with the effects of gaming built-in, and there is some evidence that gaming has relations with performance benefits. A acquaintance of mine is finishing his dissertation on faking on personality and integrity tests, so I'll know more on that soon.

Yes, but in that context gaming is known and accounted for. My definition of gaming was manipulation without the proctor or evaluation showing any statistically significant deviation, which is virtually impossible on modern personality tests. The "gaming" becomes transparent and used to score the candidate, if it's present at all.

I appreciate your input, especially as counterweight to those who underestimate the sophistication of these tests.

However I question your absolute statement. What man can create, man can circumvent. (How's that for an absolute statement?)

Would you say that the people who created the test cannot game it?

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

#503

Post by crucini »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #404
enraged_camel wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've done that too, in the same situation. But I think it may backfire. Some investors may be nostalgic for their days in a startup. Others are still looking for that "startup edge" which differentiates from stagnant corporations.

If your clothing says "corporate", you may send the wrong message and drain some interest.

Obviously this varies by area and industry.

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

#504

Post by [deleted] »

RogerL wrote: post #417
B-Con wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's arguably backward. The MBTI was developed to help people place into jobs, but it has not proven itself to be a useful indicator of that. Conversely, all it is is a personality measurement. When you analyze the type system, it's actually a fairly decent one. (Probably the best we have today, but that doesn't mean much if you think they're all bad.)

Well, really, how different is it from the Chinese Ground/Fire/Water/Wind personality traits system? You can explain anything with it: Roger is Water with some wind, and B-Con is mostly Fire with some ground mixed in. We need more "ground" people for our team! What does that tell you that "hey, this team is pretty pie in the sky and chasing ideas that aren't likely to be monitized. Let's get a product manager in here…

[deleted]

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

#505

Post by valleyer »

gringofyx wrote: post #248
ddeck wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course, and if these formulations are valid British grammar, then I don't expect you to change them. That's why I asked.

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

#506

Post by lacksconfidence »

JonFish85 wrote: post #457
enraged_camel wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because like it or not, first impressions are incredibly valuable. If I am looking at giving you, say, $100k worth of business, and I walk in and it smells vaguely terrible, people are disheveled and the office is a mess, then right off the bat you're down a peg. Assuming you have a competitor that is clean & neat, with employees who are presentable, all things being equal I am more likely to choose them. You & your…

How did we get from comfortable to disheveled? No-one dresses up at my office but they do still smell like they take showers and wash their clothes.

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

#507

Post by dwd »

LaGrange wrote: post #355
foobarbazqux wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with psychometric tests is that they're easy to game by answering them with the values the company is almost certainly looking for. Any company issuing a psychometric test is looking for obedience, hard work, discipline, profit orientation, civility, non-threatening creativity, etc. etc. etc. So what you get by discouraging a broad diversity of personalities is a mix of people who actually have those spec…

Actually, spotting and weeding out sociopaths is one of the points. I know that you may believe that you're a good judge of character, but actually a smart sociopath (not the norm, btw) is likely to be able to game you just as easily as the test.

In the case of the military it can be the opposite: they weed out applicants who they are not confident will pull the trigger every time they are asked to.

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

#508

Post by karlkatzke »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #435
ChuckMcM wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

You basically shift responsibility to HR people (who don't know shit about candidates) and they only hire mediocre bets to avoid blame. That's because they're not sharing wins from stellar candidates but they take blame for bad ones. I wonder why blame shifting seems so central to american way of thinking. You'll give talent away to avoid it.

> they're not sharing wins from stellar candidates but they take blame for bad ones.

It often seems like hiring stellar candidates involves circumventing HR policy. HR responds, instead of asking how they can help be part of the solution in the future, by incorporating new policy. Hiring stellar candidates, therefore, creates a situation where it makes it harder to hire stellar candidates in the future. There is no "win" in that game.

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

#509

Post by parennoob »

bitwize wrote: post #336
columbo wrote: post #198

I used to work for a company that writes and administers these tests. This company broke the cardinal rule. #1 - Only give personality tests in their native language. This is unacceptable , a personality test is NOT a language aptitude test. Personality tests will have questions like this: True or False I am happy when others are taking advantage of me. Non-native speakers may not appreciate that "taking advantage" i…

The correct answer, in any case is "True". Employees who object to their bosses taking advantage of them are a liability risk and are automatic no-hires.

(Assuming this is not sarcastic, though I suspect it is)

I have no idea what sort of company hires only people who answer, "I would be perfectly happy if my boss took advantage of me, but it sounds like an extremely insipid place full of yes-men that I would not want to work at.

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

#510

Post by karlkatzke »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #389
LaGrange wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, spotting and weeding out sociopaths is one of the points. I know that you may believe that you're a good judge of character, but actually a smart sociopath (not the norm, btw) is likely to be able to game you just as easily as the test.

Well, my main objection is to hiring people on the basis of their character, whether it's with a test or not. Assess for whether or not the person can do the job and make you a profit.

Can you spot the person who interviews well, but is a skilled sociopath who will destroy the morale of your team, causing other skilled talent to leave?

That's the value of these tests (when properly applied): They allow an evaluator to make statistically accurate predictions of specific types of behavior. The key is the two words: statistically and specific. A single composite score will not tell you anything, but the idea that there's a 68% chance that the person you're about to hire is a schizophrenic kleptomaniac should give you pause.

Post reply on HN