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

561–570 of 594 posts

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

#561

Post by UK-Al05 »

theorique wrote: post #559
UK-Al05 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't catch psychopaths using tests like these. The whole point of being a psychopaths is that you can change the perception of your personality at will. So what your letting in is a subgroup of people who pass, and psychopaths.

That isn't actually what psychopathy means.

It's not what it means, but it is something they are capable of. They can be charming, and they can be horrible. They decide what they are going to be like, to fit into an overall selfish strategy. If being shy is an advantage, they will become that. If being confident is advantage, they will become that. They can gain your trust, then flip when it is an advantage to do so.

In these tests, they know what to say, what to do, to give a certain impression. These tests can't catch them, because they are not honest, and lack integrity(No consistent values, only ones that benefit them).

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

#562

Post by chiph »

crucini wrote: post #520
chiph wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their job is to protect the company from the risk that employees represent. If you get a moment, read "Corporate Confidential" by Cynthia Shapiro. Only 200 or so pages, and it's a quick read. But very enlightening.

Great book, but it will make you a bit paranoid about what you say/do at work. It did help me understand what HR is really doing.

I hope I never end up working at a firm where those situations are the norm. As they say, knowing is half the battle.

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

#563

Post by Ziomislaw »

minor_nitwit wrote: post #522
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…

Good post. These HR tests favor extroversion and obedience. In my experience, brilliant people are highly unlikely to exhibit these traits. I work with a guy who pounds on his desk daily, curses at code, has OCD, walks about aimlessly, is anti-authority, depressed, and is a self-described autistic. In other words, he's the type to score 1%. However, if you have any advanced math problem he can solve it in minutes, wh…

it would be better, but that would require competence from HR. In other words impossible.

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

#564

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Fomite wrote: post #448
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #253

I had lots of questions after reading this. So why was the test given, if it wasn't used to disqualify people? And who came up with this test idea in the first place anyway? Why was it important? In general, it's a mistake to substitute technical knowledge for ability to perform. You might be a freaking genius, but one that nobody can get along with. So how well this guy did during his technical evaluation is besides…

The notion behind tests like this is to get a feel for your personality, in order to assess "fit". Not necessarily to disqualify people but, for example, if you're not much motivated by money, but are interested in challenging problems, and you're being considered for a lucrative but dull-as-rocks position...it might not work out. That's the idea at least. In practice, I haven't been impressed by them at all.

I think maybe I did a poor job of explaining myself.

Yes, I understand the things the tests provide. These kinds of tests have been around forever. Personally I don't like them, most engineers don't, but that's not going to make them go away.

My question was about the organization itself. Why measure something if you're not going to do anything with it? So in your example, where you're not motivated by money, but its a job that pays well and is boring, why find that out if you're not going to use it to disqualify someone?

The question in general is this: why measure something if there are no consequences to what you measure? I wasn't trying to say the test was great, I was asking the reason the test was given in the first place. The way I see it, it would have to be disqualifying in some cases. Otherwise, there's no reason for the measurement. Unless the goal is just to create a lot of arguing, which it seems to have done very well!

I think the problem is we like to wave our hands around and say "well, the test informs the decision, but is not definitive". This is just another way of saying that we don't know what we are doing -- there is no plan.

This is probably the root of the author's discomfort. Either he doesn't understand what's going on as far as the evaluation, or there's no reason for it, or both. Don't know. All I know is the guy was smart. That's also not enough information. Lots of smart folks in the world that I'd never want to work with.

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

#565

Post by victoriap »

nknighthb wrote: post #408
mathattack wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose, HR unit for recruitment belongs to the Taylor's scientific management; where companies were machines and recruitment unit would efficiently find resources to fill the openings. Also, resources were abundant and job openings were scarce, so HR's non-smart screening made some sense.

Now, for the technology world, the valley, or any company where people with unique skills are needed, HR unit struggles to help the company to hire the right people. That's why we hear everywhere rants about HR, recruiters etc. The solution may be to focus on newer tools for hiring or in contrary to focus on pre-modern methods; like leveraging your existing connections, using conferences, hiring competitors etc.

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

#566

Post by diminish »

victoriap wrote: post #565
nknighthb wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I suppose, HR unit for recruitment belongs to the Taylor's scientific management; where companies were machines and recruitment unit would efficiently find resources to fill the openings. Also, resources were abundant and job openings were scarce, so HR's non-smart screening made some sense. Now, for the technology world, the valley, or any company where people with unique skills are needed, HR unit struggles to help…

From a skills perspective HR maybe struggling, but recruitment is more than finding the right skills. It includes background checking, psychological screening, screening for fitness to corporate culture etc. I don't claim all HR are more skilled than everyone here, but most of non-HR people are not experts in all aspects of recruitment neither.

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

#567

Post by Filligree »

UK-Al05 wrote: post #561
theorique wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't actually what psychopathy means.

It's not what it means, but it is something they are capable of. They can be charming, and they can be horrible. They decide what they are going to be like, to fit into an overall selfish strategy. If being shy is an advantage, they will become that. If being confident is advantage, they will become that. They can gain your trust, then flip when it is an advantage to do so. In these tests, they know what to say, what…

More specifically, the psychopaths that you're likely to run into in a tech company fall into this class.

There are certainly psychopaths who are hopeless at concealing the fact. These are typically the less smart ones, so you wouldn't meet them; they are more likely to be in and out of prison than your office.

There are also psychopaths who are just about perfect at pretending not to be, and have no intention of ever doing otherwise. You can work with one of those for decades, and never notice a thing unless something extreme enough to make 'acting normal' seem a long-term liability happens.

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

#568

Post by squank »

jamesli wrote: post #429
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…

Technical people also look for "signals" or "red flags" during interview. They ask themselves questions like, if the candidate is a good fit for the team, if I want to work with him, etc. HR people are not necessarily better in identifying these "signals". They might emphasize on "signals" that are not a big issue for technical people. Some technical people could be a little quirky. As long as it is not serious, it i…

I have a solution: Give HR hires a psychometric test that weeds out ones who like psychometric tests

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

#569

Post by Filligree »

dwd wrote: post #507
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.

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.

Well, they try.

I don't remember where I got the number, but apparently something like two-thirds of the regular army still end up unwilling/unable to aim properly when a combat situation actually happens. That's from the Great War, though; procedures may have gotten better since.

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

#570

Post by HelloMcFly »

smsm42 wrote: post #537
HelloMcFly wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 or…

> Here I have a problem - which job performance?

Job performance can be defined many different ways, and the most common in field studies is what is most common in the workplace: supervisory, and possibly peer, evaluations. It's not the perfect criteria, but the "perfect criteria" for many jobs exists only in the theoretical. When appropriate, "work performance" is also defined as sales numbers, widgets produced, time-to-complete, etc. It just depends on the study.

> So the test has to be matched to a position.

In many cases you're right (e.g., work samples), but not always. g-centric tests have demonstrated high validity across jobs and contexts. Tests for cultural fit (in which the desired outcome is typically workplace satisfaction and tenure) are typically validated across a wide range of jobs, and so they are applied across those jobs. Things like integrity tests and personality tests can have meaningful validity across jobs, even without seemingly job-relevant content.

Post reply on HN