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

Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 185 posts

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#121

Post by dahart »

bluGill wrote: post #118
dahart wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is near-universal consensus that technical hiring is atrocious I hear this a lot on Hacker News, but not inside any companies. And when asked why people think it's atrocious, I rarely get a set of answers that agree on the specifics. I'd love to hear more about what metrics show evidence that hiring is atrocious, as well as what is making it atrocious for you. What does that mean in the pre-coronavirus contex…

Where I work hr won't let us ask any question that isn't scientificly proven to make a difference. It makes it hard to ask technical questions.

Oh that's fascinating! Can you talk about what questions are scientifically proven to make a difference, and/or the methodology of proving it? I've read bits and pieces here and there, but not seriously followed such research. I imagine that style, specific words, amount of follow-up, and even mood in the room can play important factors here in the "success rates" of certain interview questions...?

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#122

Post by bradlys »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #120
simonw wrote: post #48

If you want a really big competitive advantage, figure out how to hire great people who don't interview well.

that would really only be a big competitive advantage if great people who don't interview well were more numerous than those who interview at least adequately, or if those great people were greater than the great people who do interview adequately. I guess it would still be something of a competitive advantage though if you were a great person who got hired despite interviewing poorly you might be more grateful than…

> that would really only be a big competitive advantage if great people who don't interview well were more numerous than those who interview at least adequately, or if those great people were greater than the great people who do interview adequately.

It sounds like you're making it a zero sum game. Isn't it reasonable to assume that you could create an interview process that does well for both parties rather than one that is exclusionary? Isn't the issue with the current interviewing practices is that it is exclusionary and doesn't assess people correctly?

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#123

Post by bryanrasmussen »

bradlys wrote: post #122
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that would really only be a big competitive advantage if great people who don't interview well were more numerous than those who interview at least adequately, or if those great people were greater than the great people who do interview adequately. I guess it would still be something of a competitive advantage though if you were a great person who got hired despite interviewing poorly you might be more grateful than…

> that would really only be a big competitive advantage if great people who don't interview well were more numerous than those who interview at least adequately, or if those great people were greater than the great people who do interview adequately. It sounds like you're making it a zero sum game. Isn't it reasonable to assume that you could create an interview process that does well for both parties rather than one…

I guess, maybe it's possible, but as I have not have not had any eureka moment recently leading me to pursue a method for doing it, and have not read anything where someone had a moment that sounded to me like "hey that might work!" I am prone to cynicism - one of my failings.

If every variation of interviewing people try seems to lead to a sub-optimal zero-sum game I worry that interviewing is zero-sum and what one should try to do is to work the optimization angle. but like I said - cynic.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#124

Post by jaaron »

closeparen wrote: post #107
jaaron wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Double edged sword. Certainly helps to find great talent and build a cohesive team. Also tends to perpetuate our biases, create cliques and echo chambers. Makes it harder for new talent to break in. When I build my teams, I try to balance referrals with newly sourced talent far outside my network.

Judgement, taste, sensibility, intuition - this is what human professionals are for . The value of an experienced worker is in the biases he has accumulated.

Do you really not understand that when I say "bias," I mean prejudices against people that are irrespective of their qualifications for the job?

Of course I want to hire people for their technical and professional judgement. That's the whole point of the interview process: to attempt to measure technical knowledge and its application (ie- judgement). It's hard, but we have to try.

But if we google "bias in hiring [1]," all the results are around prejudices that have nothing to do with their performance on the job. In this context, bias means discrimination against certain genders, races, religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds and so on.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: perhaps you are unfamiliar with the generally understood definition of bias when talking about hiring practices.

Alternatively, you're selectively and intentionally feigning misunderstanding to advance a position that such prejudice and discrimination is acceptable.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=bias+in+hiring

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#125

Post by jmchuster »

simonw wrote: post #48

If you want a really big competitive advantage, figure out how to hire great people who don't interview well.

Do great people really interview _that_ poorly? It's certainly possible, but it seems almost an edge case that's not worth trying to exploit. Rather, I feel the main competitive advantage would be to become better at interviewing.

Learn how to evaluate people on their skills, rather than your own personal belief on how a problem should be solved. Understand how someone is thinking and approaching a problem, instead of a yes/no checkbox. Be able to determine what a candidate's strengths are and how you can best utilize them, rather than how to fit them into a pigeonholed role you have imagined.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#126

Post by dahart »

dahart wrote: post #95
grugagag wrote: post #15

It is true, and not that I am trying to be dishonest myself but I am not the same person while taking an interview. It's a sad that we can't be honest or humble but in this system we have to sell ourselves, fake enthusiasm for the hiring company is a must, do whatever it takes to pass the interview then think later if we take the position or not. If not, somebody else with the same capability or or less will snatch t…

> It's a sad that we can't be honest or humble but in this system we have to sell ourselves, fake enthusiasm for the hiring company is a must, do whatever it takes to pass the interview then think later if we take the position or not. If not, somebody else with the same capability or or less will snatch that job. As someone who’s given hundreds, maybe thousands of interviews, personally I would advise against this. B…

Oh you know what, I somehow thought you were saying that interviews are a gamble, I misread "gameable". My reply only somewhat applies, but allow me to fix it...

This is a pretty common concern, I've heard it before. But in practice I've never actually seen it happen myself. It's worry about what's possible, but not what's likely. The problem with worry about others gaming interviews is that it ignores what happens after they get hired. Someone who's faking it would probably be later revealed. It's usually easy to uncover exaggerations during interviews. And last but not least, the vast majority of people I've met haven't lied or cheated or tried to game the interviews.

I've had lots of interviews where people start by inflating or spinning their experience a little - there's nothing wrong with framing yourself from a positive angle. All it takes is a couple of follow-up questions to uncover the boundaries of their experience. This is one reason why the article here is wrong. Unstructured portions interviews serve the super important function of conversation about the candidate's experience. Standardized questions are not as good as casual conversation and follow-up questions, at helping me really get a sense for you and your experience and what interests you.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#127

Post by nawgszy »

fredophile wrote: post #82
edoceo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a gig to hire process for this. It works very well. I've been meaning to write more about it but I also get income for helping with hiring around this model so im a bit conflicted. The whole answer is long and complex. Basically: give candidate a proper task on your project and evaluate them based on that work - the "interview" is less than an hour, the "work" is longer (many hours (and you pay for it)) - provi…

That will work for some people but not everyone. At my current job I can't monetize work I do outside the company without approval. That means I can't go through you application process unless I quit first. Even if I was allowed to do this I don't think I'd want to. The time commitment of an extra project on top of my normal workload is not something I want.

Well, then you can just work out a deal to not monetize it.

Your objection is of course valid - extra workload on top of a normal job probably has its limits. But the fact one is willing to pay those who are willing to be paid for such an interview doesn't suddenly make it a strict requirement ha.

I must say though, I also view the interview standard I've faced - quick phone screen, 1h tech screen, 4-6h onsite (probably online now) - as adding up to a lot of time very quickly, especially as the "onsite" time is of course awkward when it means you take PTO to go to an interview. In this sense, I'd probably rather have an ~8-12h coding task than a 4-6h onsite. Maybe even a higher factor

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#129

Post by dredmorbius »

fredophile wrote: post #82
edoceo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a gig to hire process for this. It works very well. I've been meaning to write more about it but I also get income for helping with hiring around this model so im a bit conflicted. The whole answer is long and complex. Basically: give candidate a proper task on your project and evaluate them based on that work - the "interview" is less than an hour, the "work" is longer (many hours (and you pay for it)) - provi…

That will work for some people but not everyone. At my current job I can't monetize work I do outside the company without approval. That means I can't go through you application process unless I quit first. Even if I was allowed to do this I don't think I'd want to. The time commitment of an extra project on top of my normal workload is not something I want.

An employment process which prohibits common methods of job searching might well be found anticompetitive and hence unenforceable. Or straight-up illegal.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#130

Post by flak48 »

fredophile wrote: post #82
edoceo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a gig to hire process for this. It works very well. I've been meaning to write more about it but I also get income for helping with hiring around this model so im a bit conflicted. The whole answer is long and complex. Basically: give candidate a proper task on your project and evaluate them based on that work - the "interview" is less than an hour, the "work" is longer (many hours (and you pay for it)) - provi…

That will work for some people but not everyone. At my current job I can't monetize work I do outside the company without approval. That means I can't go through you application process unless I quit first. Even if I was allowed to do this I don't think I'd want to. The time commitment of an extra project on top of my normal workload is not something I want.

What if they donated to a charity of your choice instead of paying you.
Post reply on HN