Hire people who aren’t proven

>Google's interview best practices strictly focused on algorithms and data structure questions won't help you in your interview process.

They mostly don't help because they bear no resemblance to what 99% of developers actually do, even at Google.

Realism in dev job interviews is criminally underrated.

Internships are probably the best job interviews.

I think hiring has become more difficult now that programming has been discovered as a well paying mainstream career. When I started in the 90s most people I worked with had a passion for the craft but now I find we interview a lot of people who have a CS degree just for the career prospects but not out of interest for the craft.

I find it much easier to deal with someone who has no relevant experience but cares vs someone who had 10 years experience but doesn't care. Now someone who has 10 years AND cares is rare but pure gold.

> 1. Can this candidate do the job?

I'd go so far as to ask: "can this candidate learn to do the job?". In our recent job postings, I've started adding a specific paragraph after the desired qualifications stating more or less "if you don't tick all the boxes above but are motivated to learn and grow, please apply. We'll teach you what you need to do the job"

> 2. Will this candidate be motivated?

This. Even more than question 1. I've had a lot of good surprises with motivated candidates who didn't have all the expected qualifications. Some of my best hires were people whose CV didn't line up with what I was looking for but who demonstrated impressive motivation to get the job. On the other hand, I've often been disappointed with "perfect" candidates who didn't have the right mind-frame for the job. (Note: I'm not saying I'm expecting slavish devotion and "giving it 200%" every day of the week. But if your personal, intrinsic motivations don't align with the job's responsibilities, it won't work).

> 3. Will this candidate get along with coworkers?

Duh. But also, how do you actually test objectively for this without introducing bias? And how do you insure you're not creating a monoculture that will eventually harden into navel-gazing and dogma? I'm really of two minds on this topic.

> 4. What this candidate will be in three, six, twelve months from now?

Related to the rephrasing of 1. Can the candidate learn and grow? And will we provide the right environment for them to grow?

One of my favorite quotes is from an ex-manager who hired me when I was far from ticking all the boxes on the job description. "If you hire someone who has all the necessary qualifications for the job, they'll be bored in 6 months."