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

What happens when you stop relying on resumes

blog.alinelerner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 195 posts

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#161

Post by tome »

tikhonj wrote: post #46

First of all, I definitely agree that resumes are woefully overused and overrated. They have structural problems and incentivize people to use "negative selection" criteria where people are eliminated based on not having a specific feature rather than selected for excelling on something¹. This article neatly demonstrates that resumes are not necessary and that not using them can unlock new sorts of candidates. Howeve…

> breaks in their work history

I find this a funny one. At one previous job the head of HR would highlight "breaks in work history" on the CV with a pen, three months here, six months there, as though that meant something.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#162

Post by davemel37 »

NhanH wrote: post #144
analog31 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, I don't think there's a conclusion to be made about the actual method used here. I suspect that it worked because it was different, not because it carried a fundamentally strong signal. If everyone did this, project descriptions would be gamed even more than resumes—it would select for people who prepared for the selection process² more than anything else. I find myself almost irresistably drawn towards the…

> I don't know a solution. What strikes me is that as broken as the system seems, we still manage to hire good people most of the time. Interestingly, the simplest conclusion would be that everyone is good, most of the time . So if we throw hiring out the windows and pick employee randomly, we might still get to the same result. Which actually isn't too outrageous, since if we have 10% unemployment, wouldn't it mean…

True, but the costs (both direct and ancillary) of making a bad hire are so high that anything we can do avoid making the wrong hire would be worthwhile.

You might be right that randomly picking candidates might be just as efficient, but I can't imagine anyone taking that risk.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#163

Post by Mimu »

I fail to see how someone building games at 14 or own one of the most successful Minecraft server could not pass the resume filter.

Not saying the process described in the article is bad, even though I believe anything can be gamed, but I don't really see a big difference. Main change is the way recruiters looked at what they got, resume or essay wouldn't have change a lot I think.

Maybe off topic but if companies want the best people, maybe THEY should write the essay explaining why people should join instead of sitting in their high tower waiting for minions to come.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#164

Post by Tloewald »

firebones wrote: post #151
rwallace wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it logically follows from simple economic principles: if you're competing with other companies for good candidates (which you are), your hit rate will go up if you look for signals that your competitors ignore or reject, because that gives you access to a pool that hasn't already been picked clean. So if most companies prefer candidates who have a college degree, look for candidates who haven't. If most companie…

What about resume styles that focus on "You should hire me if you need X..." with a listing of strengths rather than rote "Seeking a position that Y". Then the CV builds towards that with concrete examples. That'd be a strategy that would better suit both the hunters and the hunted.

Targeting CVs is already a good idea as a job candidate.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#165

Post by analog31 »

davemel37 wrote: post #162
NhanH wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know a solution. What strikes me is that as broken as the system seems, we still manage to hire good people most of the time. Interestingly, the simplest conclusion would be that everyone is good, most of the time . So if we throw hiring out the windows and pick employee randomly, we might still get to the same result. Which actually isn't too outrageous, since if we have 10% unemployment, wouldn't it mean…

True, but the costs (both direct and ancillary) of making a bad hire are so high that anything we can do avoid making the wrong hire would be worthwhile. You might be right that randomly picking candidates might be just as efficient, but I can't imagine anyone taking that risk.

Bad hires are certainly a concern. I think this is the reason why people buy screening products such as personality tests. Paying $100 for a screening test that promises to prevent the $100k cost of a bad hire seems like a pretty good bargain. It reminds me of Pascal's Wager, where you give a little bit to the church in order to avoid the infinite risk of hell.

The test seemingly has to be 0.1% effective, to pay for itself. The thing that's hard to imagine is that the test is even less than 0.1% effective, because it's a scam. This is also how things are sold like a $5 extended warranty for a flash drive.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#166

Post by vultour »

Something else piqued my interest in this article.

This lady claims that the company is fighting for candidates with Google, although the only thing they do (if i read it right) is provide an encrypted version of Dropbox. How does this require world class engineers? I've coded a file syncing app quite fast as a personal project once, and I don't think I could call myself even a regular developer. I do not believe such application would be even remotely as complex as anything Google does.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#167

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

davemel37 wrote: post #162
NhanH wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know a solution. What strikes me is that as broken as the system seems, we still manage to hire good people most of the time. Interestingly, the simplest conclusion would be that everyone is good, most of the time . So if we throw hiring out the windows and pick employee randomly, we might still get to the same result. Which actually isn't too outrageous, since if we have 10% unemployment, wouldn't it mean…

True, but the costs (both direct and ancillary) of making a bad hire are so high that anything we can do avoid making the wrong hire would be worthwhile. You might be right that randomly picking candidates might be just as efficient, but I can't imagine anyone taking that risk.

Why do you say that? In the USA employment is at will and is for the first two years in the UK.

Could you actually quantify these costs a good agency will ofter refunds if a candidate is let go shortly after hiring.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#168

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #125
a-dub wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically I goad them into complaining about past bad work experiences and then pay close attention for subtle clues that may indicate that they are systemically disrespectful or unwilling to compromise on things that don't seem worth fighting for. Were they bothered by people, situations or outcomes? Tell me about the most frustrating time when you needed a thing, or consensus on a thing, and you had to go through w…

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask with that last question. I can't tell if you're saying "you're out if you behave badly" or "you're out if you complain about other people people behaving badly"; "Nobody here is in the business of policing behavior and nobody wants to be" comes across as the latter.

That was my thought would you be fired if you stepped in to stop say racist or sexist behavior in the workplace.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#169

Post by moron4hire »

tome wrote: post #161
tikhonj wrote: post #46

First of all, I definitely agree that resumes are woefully overused and overrated. They have structural problems and incentivize people to use "negative selection" criteria where people are eliminated based on not having a specific feature rather than selected for excelling on something¹. This article neatly demonstrates that resumes are not necessary and that not using them can unlock new sorts of candidates. Howeve…

> breaks in their work history I find this a funny one. At one previous job the head of HR would highlight "breaks in work history" on the CV with a pen, three months here, six months there, as though that meant something.

I have talked to several HR directors (heh, though not as a job candidate, just people around in bars) who would see my last 3 years of very successful freelancing as a "break in work history". I'm probably unhirable at most of the places near where I live (Washington DC) but I'm actually fine with that.

Re: What happens when you stop relying on resumes

#170

Post by jqm »

codeonfire wrote: post #20

When people abandoned resumes like this it's because there is some corruption in their hiring process and lesser skilled management is attempting to hire down for political control. Their only goal is to go through the motions and stay employed. Some people don't want experts. They want to have the illusion of a functioning business unit. People with no formal training that have projects that sound impressive to the…

"lesser skilled management is attempting to hire down for political control"

There is often a degree of "will this guy show how little I really know and take my position" in hiring decisions.

One of the marks of a really good manager is being able to make use of people's abilities without being threatened by them. I've found this ability somewhat rare.

Post reply on HN