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

You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

talent.works

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 254 posts

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#11

Post by dexen »

__s wrote: post #6
dexen wrote: post #2

re-post of my earlier post: > I'm not sure why companies over-list [job requirements] . It's not companies, it's the individuals. Consider this: in a corporate environment, a person that is responsible for hiring but that is not a stakeholder in the success of any particular project, is incentivized to prove that: - she or he made an effort ("I've posted N ads on top ten websites") - she or he didn't cause any partic…

Really well put from the corporate perspective I'll give a perspective from a small company: boss is doing hiring, asks what tech we use, try to explain that I don't care if they know React, if they've used Vue/Angular/FooBar4Ui2038, good enough. Then some explanation that we should put specific tech to attract people with that specifically, & we can select for people who have tangent experience. In the end we hired…

Thanks for the anecdote, your company sounds like a pretty cool place to live given its openness to learn at work.

>from the corporate perspective

Aside of a brief stint at 15k-large corporation years ago, my customers tend to be small & medium sized businesses (10...100 employees). They seem to suffer from the "corporate-like" cookie-cutter hiring practices just as well.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#12

Post by JustSomeNobody »

sethammons wrote: post #9
austincheney wrote: post #5

You can eliminate all kinds of selective bias and incompetence by first filtering candidates based upon a battery of personality tests. You don't have to know anything about the candidates until this pass through the initial filter.

Aside from personal experience, can you point to any data on this, and maybe go into some more detail? When I think of personality tests, I think of quack science. "Do you get angry a lot?", "Is it easy for you to get angry?", "Would you say it is difficult to make you angry?, and four other similar questions in a 200 question quiz. They ask the same thing multiple ways to try to know if you are an person categorizab…

By the 5th time you see the question, you're fuming so you shout, "YES! I ANGER EASILY!!!!"

Ahem... Sorry.

I worked at a place that was bought out and the new team immediately made everyone take a battery of these style tests. A few days later they did a mass firing based on the results. I survived long enough to find work elsewhere.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#13

Post by tazard »

electricslpnsld wrote: post #10
scarejunba wrote: post #4

Perhaps companies over-list requirements because everyone knows requirements are not ANDed together. There is a scoring scheme that combines all of these, and the quality of the requirement. And let’s be honest having spent “5 years of Python” at a Google is a different story from having spent “5 years of Python” at an Infosys. To be honest, I’ve never seen a job description that exactly lays out what you’re going to…

> And let’s be honest “5 years of Python” at a Google is a different story from “5 years of Python” at an Infosys. I don't think I've ever seen an ad from Google that spells out years of experience in any given technology. Their requirements are incredibly terse, usually along the lines of 'BS/BA in Computer Science or equivalent, experience in some programming language'.

I read that a different way. I understood it as an ad from Company X which lists '5 years of Python' as the requirement. Candidate 1 has 5 years of Python at Google, and Candidate 2 has 5 years Python at InfoSys.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#14

Post by dexen »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #8
dexen wrote: post #2

re-post of my earlier post: > I'm not sure why companies over-list [job requirements] . It's not companies, it's the individuals. Consider this: in a corporate environment, a person that is responsible for hiring but that is not a stakeholder in the success of any particular project, is incentivized to prove that: - she or he made an effort ("I've posted N ads on top ten websites") - she or he didn't cause any partic…

It's been my experience that the worst hires are fakers who for whatever reasons do not consider themselves able to point to real capabilities, therefore they tailor their resumes to say they have done all of that stuff you are asking for and maybe a bunch more stuff. The ones who won't - perhaps because they respect their personal qualifications enough to expect that they will get hired somewhere just might decide n…

>they respect their personal qualifications enough to expect that they will get hired somewhere just might decide not to apply for the job

From my experience people judge the company both by the hard facts, and also by the feel (impression, emotions) the first contact conveys - usually an ad, or word-of-mouth information. Potential employees will skip over word-of-mouth offers and ads that don't convey the kind of workplace they imagine themselves at.

While we may abhor stereotypes, there's often a kernel of truth to them; different professions attract predominantly different characters. The first contact better be tailored to either the prevailing character - or perhaps to the long tail, depending on the current state of jobs marketplace.

Point in case, first contact for sales associate ought to be much different - literally "make mad money, meet demanding sales targets, enjoy strong coffee & fast growth!" than for a highly skilled production worker - "good morning, consider joining team of experienced people like yourself; we offer efficient organization, well-supplied workspace and regular working hours, discounted meals and parking space.".

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#15

Post by Topolomancer »

scarejunba wrote: post #4

Perhaps companies over-list requirements because everyone knows requirements are not ANDed together. There is a scoring scheme that combines all of these, and the quality of the requirement. And let’s be honest having spent “5 years of Python” at a Google is a different story from having spent “5 years of Python” at an Infosys. To be honest, I’ve never seen a job description that exactly lays out what you’re going to…

It's also partially caused by the fact that most of the time, HR people write those ads (maybe with some input by the division). A lot can get 'lost in translation' here.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#18

Post by gvand »

austincheney wrote: post #5

You can eliminate all kinds of selective bias and incompetence by first filtering candidates based upon a battery of personality tests. You don't have to know anything about the candidates until this pass through the initial filter.

Nice one, after all those sweatshops trying to interview like if they were Google (w/o any of them ever working there) the next logical step would be having random people administering "personality tests" found after a few minutes of googling or searching on wikihow ;D

Competence is hard to assess without having to ask hard open technical questions. The alternative I hope you are not seriously proposing, going with gut feelings or "personality tests", is actually the epitome of surrendering to bias. Don't do it, resist.

Re: You Only Need 50% of Job “Requirements”

#20

Post by CSMastermind »

electricslpnsld wrote: post #10
scarejunba wrote: post #4

Perhaps companies over-list requirements because everyone knows requirements are not ANDed together. There is a scoring scheme that combines all of these, and the quality of the requirement. And let’s be honest having spent “5 years of Python” at a Google is a different story from having spent “5 years of Python” at an Infosys. To be honest, I’ve never seen a job description that exactly lays out what you’re going to…

> And let’s be honest “5 years of Python” at a Google is a different story from “5 years of Python” at an Infosys. I don't think I've ever seen an ad from Google that spells out years of experience in any given technology. Their requirements are incredibly terse, usually along the lines of 'BS/BA in Computer Science or equivalent, experience in some programming language'.

Google doesn't list years of experience per technology but they do have hard tiers for years of experience and their salary bands. So they don't care that you have 5 years-of-experience with Python but you're not allowed to be an L5 without 5 years of industry experience.
Post reply on HN