The Way We Hire Is All Wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#11

Post by skolor » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 9:34 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #2

While I do agree that the interview process is arbitrary, I think that having a 50% success rate indicts far more than that. If "success" is a coin flip, that means that EVERYTHING inside a company failed--interviewing, hiring, training, management, everything. If even one of those things was working, the success rate should be better than a coin flip.

I'm a little unclear what "success" is. Does the quote just mean within 18 months 50% of employees have left the company? Surely it doesn't mean that 50% of employees are getting fired after 18 months. A median employment length of 18 months seems low but ultimately within a reasonable range to me.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#12

Post by datashovel » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 9:37 AM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #6

What a bizarre and compelling story. Glad to have read it. Meanwhile I think the hiring problem/solution is staring us right in the face. What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? Isn't it perhaps weird that there is an assumption companies and employees should bind their fates together, and, if it doesn't work out, one or both parties is pretty screwed because of…

I don't know if I'm convinced "making contract work the default" is the right solution. But I do agree the lines should be blurred in terms of how companies approach their "hiring process". Companies won't change unless they perceive the change as bringing benefits to the company (ie. saving or making money). I think there will need to be some major success stories before we see widespread adoption of dramatically new hiring policies.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#13

Post by jib » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 9:40 AM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #10

One thing I've wondered is why companies hire people one at a time. Barely anyone works alone on anything, yet to decide whether to hire someone, you invite people individually through a funnel process and expect them to be able to work together. The best teams are not necessarily the ones with the most Ivy Leaguers on them. Why don't more companies let the applicants self-organise, and then hire the best teams?

Because often you are not hiring a team, you only have so much work/budget. And if you do, odds are you will need to break up the team a short while afterwards for some other needs. And you want to merge them into existing teams anyways, to not lose institutional knowledge.

I think almost all "hire a team" hirings happen as aquihires - if the team has proven that they can deliver something over time - great, buy their company.

I dont see how ability to organise as a team could be done in a short enough time that you could evaluate them on anything other than "is someone in the group good at organising a team". At which point I'd probably just want to hire that guy anyways, because I know I can split them off and have him organise another team too.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#14

Post by whiddershins » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 9:47 AM UTC

fuzzygroup wrote: post #9

crdoconnor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many companies hire contractors and then turn them into permanent employees.

I'm a startup founder and while this had been our initial approach to evaluating new engineers, our payroll company, PayChex, has specifically advised us to NOT do this. Why? Because it sends a red flag to the IRS to come after us for taxes for the period when they were a contractor. Crazily enough PayChex has told us that the real solution here is for us to "sign" the person over to a contracting company so we can h…

IANAA && IANAL but maybe you shouldn't take your payroll company's word for this. I would guess if you meet your tax obligations and employment law obligations you should be ok. Maybe get a second (and third) opinion??

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#15

Post by exo762 » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 9:48 AM UTC

> In 2012, for example, consulting firm Leadership IQ announced it had tracked 20,000 new hires over time and discovered that 46% of them had failed within 18 months. In other words, most recruiting practices are about as effective as a coin toss.

This does not take into account amount of candidates that have been rejected.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#16

Post by ericd » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 9:54 AM UTC

fuzzygroup wrote: post #9

crdoconnor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many companies hire contractors and then turn them into permanent employees.

I'm a startup founder and while this had been our initial approach to evaluating new engineers, our payroll company, PayChex, has specifically advised us to NOT do this. Why? Because it sends a red flag to the IRS to come after us for taxes for the period when they were a contractor. Crazily enough PayChex has told us that the real solution here is for us to "sign" the person over to a contracting company so we can h…

I really wouldn't not hire because of the chance of being audited, that seems like a pretty disproportionate response. May add complications, but if you're that worried, you can always hire people full time on an explicit trial basis.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#17

Post by khuey » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 10:07 AM UTC

fuzzygroup wrote: post #9

crdoconnor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many companies hire contractors and then turn them into permanent employees.

I'm a startup founder and while this had been our initial approach to evaluating new engineers, our payroll company, PayChex, has specifically advised us to NOT do this. Why? Because it sends a red flag to the IRS to come after us for taxes for the period when they were a contractor. Crazily enough PayChex has told us that the real solution here is for us to "sign" the person over to a contracting company so we can h…

What's wrong with going back and paying the employer side taxes on the contracting period for those that convert?

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#18

Post by onion2k » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 10:14 AM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #10

One thing I've wondered is why companies hire people one at a time. Barely anyone works alone on anything, yet to decide whether to hire someone, you invite people individually through a funnel process and expect them to be able to work together. The best teams are not necessarily the ones with the most Ivy Leaguers on them. Why don't more companies let the applicants self-organise, and then hire the best teams?

One thing I've wondered is why companies hire people one at a time.

Because people leave one at a time.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#19

Post by fsloth » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 10:15 AM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #6

What a bizarre and compelling story. Glad to have read it. Meanwhile I think the hiring problem/solution is staring us right in the face. What would the world be like if contract/freelance/part time/short term work were the default? Isn't it perhaps weird that there is an assumption companies and employees should bind their fates together, and, if it doesn't work out, one or both parties is pretty screwed because of…

"I cynically suspect the current concept of full-time work evolved to suit employers, it allows them to manipulate and scare employees, especially when (for example) health insurance is at stake. "

Before, getting paid _daily_ was the norm. Getting money for the whole month at a time is way more predictable.

Employers typically are financially much better suited to weather out economic slumps than individuals are.

On the average, it's to the employees benefit temporary employment is not the norm.

"employers naturally have more data about salaries and so forth, in general most employers have many employees, while most employees only have one employer. That is inherently asymmetrical."

This is very true. Unions are a one such leverage balancing mechanism.

Re: The Way We Hire Is All Wrong

#20

Post by fsloth » Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 10:17 AM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #10

One thing I've wondered is why companies hire people one at a time. Barely anyone works alone on anything, yet to decide whether to hire someone, you invite people individually through a funnel process and expect them to be able to work together. The best teams are not necessarily the ones with the most Ivy Leaguers on them. Why don't more companies let the applicants self-organise, and then hire the best teams?

"Hiring a team" is typically called outsourcing or consulting.