How Airbnb Rewrote Its Recruiting Playbook

Post by crdb » Thu, May 07, 2015, 12:49 PM UTC

trimble-alum wrote: post #13

dominotw wrote: post #8

I had the most humiliating experience of my life interviewing with AirBnb couple of years ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5300104

1. Don't pay for anything out-of-pocket for a fly-in interview without solid assurances you won't be screwed (What assurances do I have your accounting people won't give me the indefinite run-around?) or disbursement delays forever (When can I count on being repaid?). Expense reimbursements normally requires receipts, prior approval (specific person in HR or hiring mgr) and talking to accounting to submit the right f…

I know where you're coming from but I think this advice ignores the truth of such positions: that they are prestigious/well-paying/otherwise attractive enough to cause candidates to invest time and money into pursuing them.

For example, why does Google sometimes take close to a year to make a decision on a candidate? Because they can afford to, with a pipeline of thousands of qualified candidates enough of whom will be OK playing along with Google's timeline in exchange for the significant CV boost, higher salary, prestige, experience, etc. The same applies to university applications - a lot of people will spend fortunes in time and money to try and get into Harvard, Stanford or MIT because the upside of having these schools on the CV is so high. Both prestigious jobs and universities (whether or not they should) do open doors, allow you to raise more funding and faster, to get higher positions all things being equal, to get your CV read in a pile of 200...

So it comes down to valuing each position's Net Present Value (NPV) and the probability of it being a success, and deciding whether this is the most attractive use of your time and money. Let's say AirBNB has an NPV of (an additional) $3 million over the next 10 years thanks to the network and career boost, and you have a 5% change of getting it, the value of taking the interview is still $150k. Assuming you weigh negatives 9x as high as positives (can't remember where I read about this cognitive bias), if the interview has a total cost (including opportunity cost) of under $16k it is worth doing. Of course, at 5% chance of success per position, it's probably worth applying to more than just AirBNB.

Post by trimble-alum » Fri, May 08, 2015, 4:21 AM UTC

contingencies wrote: post #26

trimble-alum wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Don't pay for anything out-of-pocket for a fly-in interview without solid assurances you won't be screwed (What assurances do I have your accounting people won't give me the indefinite run-around?) or disbursement delays forever (When can I count on being repaid?). Expense reimbursements normally requires receipts, prior approval (specific person in HR or hiring mgr) and talking to accounting to submit the right f…

It's like you're saying "it's your fault, here's what you should have done". Someone came up with a good term for this sort of HN answer the other day, "hindsight snark" or similar. In fact, any way you look at it a company with decent cash and an ounce of self respect should not be out there screwing industry peers over for time and chump change when it wants to expand. Disclaimer: I've had similar experiences with…

Most interviewing are wasted time and money, on both sides of the table, that is the presumption, it's a numbers game, also on both sides. It's when a pattern of excess accumulates which builds resentment: candidates just gauging their market worth OR employers being too picky about the wrong things OR not following up to make things right.

How are accounting people supposed to know a reimbursement needs to happen if former candidates and/or hiring managers do not let them know? They're not mind readers. Hiring managers should be clear about whom pays for what and how to recoup any out of pocket, or resentment will spread. Also, it does show lack of professionalism on the company's part if they do indeed seem to screw candidates, even if it were an actual innocent oversight. It would be titanically stupid to habitually, intentionally cheat unselected candidates in the modern world, for the ensuing exposure risks deterring good candidates at least and risks lawsuits at work.

Furthermore, on the candidate side of the table, it signals wisdom on behalf of a candidate if they socially-appropriately limit themselves to risks of screwed. This is a hiring signal of value, whereas someone that hasn't a clue is usually not respected as seriously. (To be fair, many of the best employees in their fields can seem shy, humble and odd to most. This is why it's crucial for astute interviewers to be non-threatening and mutually explore 1. how good will this person be on our actual work and 2. will they not mess up the shop's mojo... Hazing doesn't overcome current business problems, it guards incumbents' sense of in-group entitlement)

PS: I've interviewed as an SRE manager at GOOG before and helped others with their projects there, but I've decided to stay "executing" (bizword bingo) independently on something else. The issue at GOOG is that their interviewing process is somewhat more pragmatic than most but still doesn't go far enough and is too ad-hoc/ineffective. Really though, I just don't respect their products enough to commit the emotional energy into someone else's ship. The advantage of small shops are like small towns: less chance of Tragedy of the Commons because there is nowhere to hide. Unlike most small towns, everyone in small shops must be able to pull their own weight.

Re: How Airbnb Rewrote Its Recruiting Playbook

Re: How Airbnb Rewrote Its Recruiting Playbook