Someone else posted it, but it's here:
Company in question: Kaonix - http://www.kaonix.com/
Can we please blackball this company into oblivion from ever hiring any smart, capable, or talented developers?
He got 1%, we can't hire him
531–540 of 594 posts
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#532We don't have HR at my company. What does HR do in a well run company? What is their role?
I've implemented a new rule some time ago. If my first contact is an HR person or recruiter, I give it up. They can't even spell my name right most of the time so I don't really hesitate.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#533Earlier 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.
There are three buckets of people you don't want to hire: - helpless - depressed - jerks In my subjective experience: The top one has about %50 shot of being a character flaw, eg, no amount of confidence-building will help. The middle one has the most hope, if the talent potential is significant. The best in the field can be painfully shy as well as depressed. The problem is that depression (not shyness) hurts morale…
- people that put their percentage symbols in the wrong placeRe: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> I wonder why blame shifting seems so central to american way of thinking. FWIW, the story the OP told took place in the UK.
Where do you think those americans come from? ;)
But I expected it to be US, frankly. Didn't expect "personality tests" from UK.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#535There 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…
I think appearance of this kind of voodoo in the hiring practices is a sign that the company has jumped the shark. It may still have many years of good earnings and still be a lot of fun and profit to work for, but once these symptoms appear, it is not on the way up anymore but on the way down, since it is no longer rules by common sense but by black magic of "we do not need to think, we have policies, policies don't have to make sense, they are there to be followed".
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly valid. "X and I" is only valid if the sentence makes sense if you only used "I". This article makes one valid use of "me and X": > in an effort to score extra points with me and Carl. If you changed that to "Carl and I" then took out Carl it would be "to score extra points with I", which is disturbing and wrong.
Shouldn't it be "Carl and me"? I thought there were two rules for these phrases: subject vs. predicate (as illustrated in the parent post) and that you should put yourself last.
That you put yourself last is a question of modesty, not grammar :)
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#537There 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…
I understand why you think that way, but there are reasons HR-related folks get involved in these types of things. Note that I cannot speak for this particular company or their processes, but I can speak generally. Properly validated psychometric tests are valid predictors of job performance (by which I mean objectively and factually correlated with actual work performance), and a properly constructed work-relevant t…
>>> Properly validated psychometric tests are valid predictors of job performance
Here I have a problem - which job performance? Different jobs are obviously demanding different qualities - highly creative but impatient person may be an asset in job requiring instant creativity but a liability in a job requiring steady repetitive tasks and constant attention. So the test has to be matched to a position. But in the original article not only HR gave the same test to everybody, people who decide on positions don't even seem to have information or input on any correlation between position and test results. Given this, I highly doubt such application of testing can have any meaningful correlation with job performance.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#538Someone else posted it, but it's here: Company in question: Kaonix - http://www.kaonix.com/ Can we please blackball this company into oblivion from ever hiring any smart, capable, or talented developers?
OP here. That's not the company in question, and if they ever read this it could cost me my job - it was a previous employer - a travel company.
For the record, my interview at Kaonix was probably the best conducted interview I've ever had. Me and the CTO sat down and basically just chatted about technology - he had some technical questions but soon gave up on them when he realised they were a peice of cake for me. Kaonix should be praised for their approach - the other company, not so much.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#539Company in question: Kaonix - http://www.kaonix.com/
OP here - that's not the company in question
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I call it inexact because you can't use the classical way of proving theories right or wrong. There's no mathematical calculations you can do to figure out all the implications of that theory. The theories are based on observations of human behavior and they most likely do not cover all edge cases they are however the best we got at the moment in describing human behavior and motivations.
If this were to happen in physics we'd call it it a failed or incomplete theory.