Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

blog.alinelerner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#51

Post by lotsofmangos »

cp9 wrote: post #11
drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

>Maybe hire people with at least some demonstrated aptitude and invest in them instead how do you demonstrate this?

Give them a small project to do, something that should take about 3-5 days.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#52

Post by thaumasiotes »

spaghetti wrote: post #45
drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

Convincing yourself that future success isn't predictable is actually pretty easy. Regardless of how technically awesome someone is, there's a random variable that can dramatically affect one's future success: the candidate's co-workers. Anyone with a few months experience at a big company knows that a new hire's coworkers are, for the most part, selected randomly. When the co-workers match, everything can work out,…

> If the co-workers don't match, for whatever reason, the working relationship can easily fall apart.

> I don't know what the ultimate solution is.

Two approaches to this problem that might make sense are: (1) hire based on your current employees' recommendations; or (2) hire entire existing teams all at once.

Based on what I read, both of those are fairly popular approaches already.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#53

Post by ryanmarsh »

drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

This. I doubt anybody could have predicted my success. All indicators were that I would amount to nothing. Every adult seemed to think so. If they were to have looked closely, seen the potential and invested in me I think they would have been richly rewarded. I've generated wealth for people who didn't invest in me (to the tune that I'm jealous of it). For revenue generation I've escaped the labels I was given: lazy, undisciplined, uneducated. Those factors turned out to be poor indicators of my potential to create value for future employers.

If only I could figure out how to keep more of it for myself, but alas I'm lazy and undisciplined. ;-)

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#54

Post by majormajor »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #37
bkjelden wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an engineer on the other side of the table - I would much rather this be the case too. I would much rather join a company, devote myself to a problem, a team, and a product, and have the company reward me as such. Instead, engineers who are willing to jump are generally able to attain much higher compensation than those who stay put - so we're incentivized to do so, rather than investing ourselves in a company and…

> Instead, engineers who are willing to jump are generally able to attain much higher compensation than those who stay put - so we're incentivized to do so, rather than investing ourselves in a company and having the company invest in us. Notwithstanding the fact there are companies that under-invest in their employees, you make it sound like engineers are being forced to try to maximize compensation. The reality is…

At what point does people griping about poor compensation at startups stop being the fault of "greedy engineers" and start being the fault of investors/founders not being willing to allocate the right amount of money to labor? Software startups would still be super cheap, relative to most other things.

Based on the recruiting contacts I get, there are some startups with massive amounts of cash in the bank that are still stingy on the salaries but will go on and on about equity even when they've raised several rounds at ever-higher valuations. But, fortunately, there are also others that are starting to be willing to pay more cash at earlier stages. I'm far from convinced that this is a bad thing.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#55

Post by burnte »

drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learned all about memory, learning, human interactions, workplace management, etc, everything relating to how human psychology affects work. Part of that was how to hire the right people.

It turns out there ARE things that can strongly indicate employee competence and success, but nearly no one uses them. People like her get hired, and then management promptly ignores their suggestions. On one of her job interviews, while waiting for a manager to come in for the interview, she got to talking shop with the HR rep who was co-conducting the interview. They talked a little bit socially afterwards too, and the HR rep agreed with my wife that the interview went terribly because it didn't focus on anything of real substance. The HR rep said to my wife, "we've been looking for someone like you for months, and we've seen a few as qualified as you, but not many, and we've never made an offer to folks like you because they won't listen to me, I keep getting overruled, and we're still without that position filled." They can't fill the job because they keep ignoring the advice they're paying for.

One example is the interview. It turns out the interview as we do it is actually one of the WORST ways to hire people, because it rewards all the wrong behaviors over the real needed skills. Simply scanning a resume isn't great either, you need to engage with the person on theoretical tasks, like an audition, rather than simply conversation and crazy questions.

TL;DR We know how t hire people, experts have it worked out, but we don't want to listen to their advice.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#56

Post by mpdehaan2 »

majormajor wrote: post #54
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead, engineers who are willing to jump are generally able to attain much higher compensation than those who stay put - so we're incentivized to do so, rather than investing ourselves in a company and having the company invest in us. Notwithstanding the fact there are companies that under-invest in their employees, you make it sound like engineers are being forced to try to maximize compensation. The reality is…

At what point does people griping about poor compensation at startups stop being the fault of "greedy engineers" and start being the fault of investors/founders not being willing to allocate the right amount of money to labor? Software startups would still be super cheap, relative to most other things. Based on the recruiting contacts I get, there are some startups with massive amounts of cash in the bank that are st…

Totally agree on CEO compensation and not valuing the employee - often even the founders get screwed in those deals. This is the problem. The "dream of equity" doesn't pay out so many times that people shouldn't assume it's part of compensation.

I recall losing some relatively good engineers at various startups due to very small, in the end, not bank-breaking levels of compensation, we just couldn't compete with larger companies, when I really would have loved to hire them and maybe just hire less people.

Meanwhile, people who work at companies like Cisco in the area are able to command about 30-40% more in salary sometimes and have better hours.

If you find the right big company, your work can be quite as good as a small one, and you may have better hardware/software resources.

For me, I think the answer is mid-size to large startups right now, but small ones can be good. Can be. But they can go either way really quick.

I recall a similar thread somewhere about sales compensation, which gets super crazy at times, but sometimes getting an engineer who is going to work tons of hours $100k (who is going to make the product you sell or raise money for) at some companies can be really hard. It's not right.

They lose big to save a dime in the most important areas and blow it elsewhere.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#57

Post by 1123581321 »

burnte wrote: post #55
drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learned all about memory, learning, human interactions, workplace management, etc, everything relating to how human psychology affects work. Part of that was how to hire the right people. It turns out there ARE things that can strongly indicate employee competence a…

What are the things that can strongly indicate employee competence and success? I am sure it is a big topic, so a link to an article your wife would agree with would be as good as an answer. It's troubling to think that something is being done backwards, but it happens in so many areas that it seems nearly inevitable that it is also done in hiring.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#58

Post by JackMorgan »

burnte wrote: post #55
drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learned all about memory, learning, human interactions, workplace management, etc, everything relating to how human psychology affects work. Part of that was how to hire the right people. It turns out there ARE things that can strongly indicate employee competence a…

Does she have any suggested literature? I'd hire her AND listen if I had budget.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#59

Post by tsotha »

majormajor wrote: post #54
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead, engineers who are willing to jump are generally able to attain much higher compensation than those who stay put - so we're incentivized to do so, rather than investing ourselves in a company and having the company invest in us. Notwithstanding the fact there are companies that under-invest in their employees, you make it sound like engineers are being forced to try to maximize compensation. The reality is…

At what point does people griping about poor compensation at startups stop being the fault of "greedy engineers" and start being the fault of investors/founders not being willing to allocate the right amount of money to labor? Software startups would still be super cheap, relative to most other things. Based on the recruiting contacts I get, there are some startups with massive amounts of cash in the bank that are st…

What's the point of griping about compensation at startups? If you don't like the job offer, don't take it. Work at a big company instead.

If you have a more remunerative job offer from a big grey company and you still take the startup job they're pricing their offer correctly. Hell, they might be offering too much.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#60

Post by rustynails »

BadassFractal wrote: post #49
drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

Admittedly I suck at hiring and haven't been doing it for longer than a couple of years, but everything I've experienced so far has confirmed for me that there are simply too many variables at play for me to be able to predict someone's long term success at my company. I'd tend to agree with your conclusion too. It's possible I'll change my mind in 5-10 years, but for now that's where I stand.

I've hired quite a few people over the years and had an excellent success rate. I look for a few things,

1. Cultural compatibility. Ego generally not good. Wanting to work with others - good. I've knocked back "stars" because they'd try to derail a good team 2. Basic competency in the areas needed. If I need real-time knowledge or distributed systems, show me enough that you know the traps. 3. Ambition/commitment. If they're too ambitious they won't last. If they lack commitment, they won't strive.

Ultimately, it's about creating the culture where willing and capable people will fit. Someone mentioned about their wife being an expert and not being hired despite HR recommendation. I've seen this on several levels before, "I like this person so they should be hired". However, HR do not understand culture of teams, relevant skills, etc - although they will tell you that they do. "When I said they need to be able to program machine language, I didn't mean stacking vending machines". My example is flippant (I'm tired, not thinking), but the idea is there. HR don't have the knowledge in most organisations I've worked for.

Post reply on HN