Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better • Hacker News Board

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#21

Post by hox » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 3:57 PM UTC

So the comments are focusing on the candidate, but how exactly does this reduce the "expensive" up front cost of resume review, phone screens, and on-site interviews cited? The described process still performs reviews and screens, but instead of 1-4 or so man hours per employee of engineering time "wasted" during interviewing, you are instead slowing the entire team down for multiple days to effectively onboard temporary employees.

Sorry, this makes next to no sense from the candidate's viewpoint or the company's.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#22

Post by jonnathanson » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:01 PM UTC

How is this process supposed to work for candidates who are currently employed, and for whom even scheduling the time to sneak away for interviews is a real challenge? If I'm going through this process, what am I supposed to tell my boss? "Hey, remember how I got sick the other morning? Well, I'm going to be sick again all day Thursday, and if that goes well, all day Friday."

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#23

Post by Bahamut » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:01 PM UTC

This article seems to give tips to companies, but some of the suggestions are pretty disrespectful towards the candidates themselves. I am likely not going to be interested in a company that asks for more than a phone screen and in-person interview - they're time consuming, and assumes that the candidate has the time to burn at their current job. I have plenty of companies to choose from that are likely to be more respectful to me.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#24

Post by VLM » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:01 PM UTC

"who will fit well within the organization"

Don't want any minorities to slip thru our carefully crafted filter, only "bros". Because a fraternity ^H^H^H company exclusively staffed by bros is awesome.

"who will be loyal through ups and downs"

Being gullible isn't necessarily a sign of productivity or quality. But for a very weak manager, better someone gullible than not. Of course a weak manager is going to fail anyway, so it doesn't matter in the long run. So yeah... go ahead and select for a trait only losers select on, what could possibly go wrong? (and see above WRT only hiring "frat bros")

"who will perform the best at the job."

LOL a one day interview is going in the wrong direction, so we'll go further in the wrong direction by making our interviews three days.

I know, I know, we're digging ourselves deeper into a hole, so lets just shovel a hole three times deeper and see if that sole change makes things better.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#25

Post by VLM » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:04 PM UTC

joelwd wrote: post #20

ftpaul wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is focused on tech jobs. What is for you, a "job that has a lengthy ramp-up time"?

To clarify, I'm speaking as an inexperienced electrical engineer. I feel like anything I could do the day of hire with no time spent familiarizing myself with the product could just as easily be demonstrated in an interview with less time wasted.

Thats a real technology job, not "I'm writing a CRUD app for a marketing experiment that will change the world"

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#26

Post by mareofnight » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:20 PM UTC

hox wrote: post #21

So the comments are focusing on the candidate, but how exactly does this reduce the "expensive" up front cost of resume review, phone screens, and on-site interviews cited? The described process still performs reviews and screens, but instead of 1-4 or so man hours per employee of engineering time "wasted" during interviewing, you are instead slowing the entire team down for multiple days to effectively onboard tempo…

I don't think there's anything actually "leaner" going on here. If anything, it's the reverse - much higher investment of effort up-front for supposedly avoiding risk of bad hiring choices and effort replacing them later.

I think the word they're looking for here is "internship". That's a longer duration and more expensive, but probably(?) less distrustful to the regular team.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#27

Post by Iftheshoefits » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:30 PM UTC

jlaswell wrote: post #12

For those stating this would cause candidates to work for free: "During this time, all Wonoloers would be considered as independent contractors and get paid for the job performed. Wonolo would take care of payroll as well as other administrative HR burdens involved." This could also clear the air of expected compensation from the start. Regardless, I do think the idea behind this approach has merit, but it could also…

Every single role I've had as an "independent contractor" through a third-party has involved contract verbiage substantially similar to this: "Contractor is an employee of ConsultancyX. Contractor is not an employee of WidgetCorp. Contractor will perfom duties on behalf of ConsultancyX as assigned by supervisor employed by WidgetCorp at the times and places specified by WidgetCorp using tools and equipment as directed by WidgetCorp". I've been required to work on-site, using the client's equipment, during their normal hours of business, and been required to adhere to and sign client's various compliance standards: that is, I've been acting in the same capacity as employees of the client, but been required to sign documentation explicitly denying this fact ("contractor agrees he is not an employee of WidgetCorp").

That is to say, it's a farce. The consultancy pays the employee/contractor, but the contractor is acting, by any reasonable interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations, as an employee of the consultancy's client. The involvement of the third-party is superficial and, in my opinion, borderline fraudulent. There is such an imbalance of power in the US that very few employees would actually dare to challenge it, and as a result the downside for challenging it (implicit blacklisting) carries far more weight than the upside (marginal compensation for the disparity in treatment).

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#28

Post by dreamweapon » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:33 PM UTC

Pros and cons to the team doing the hiring aside, this 2-3 day thing is almost definitely a deal-breaker to anyone who currently has an actual job (you know, the passive job seekers everyone says they're desperate to hire).

But for the perennially unemployed, sure, why not? What have they got to lose?

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#29

Post by BornInTheUSSR » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:35 PM UTC

I am currently in the process of hiring myself and I don't think there is any way senior engineers will go for such a prolonged process.

What we do instead: filter through resumes, pick ones that we like for a 15-30 minute phone screen followed by a 1 hour conversation with the entire team if we decide to move forward.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#30

Post by albertoavila » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:36 PM UTC

ftpaul wrote: post #15

teixeira wrote: post #11

I'm confused, because the best are working for someone already or for themselves. How can they come in for 2-3 days?

In tech almost everyone are employee (for someone or themselves). They can take vacation time, PTO or make some extra hours everyday (moonlighting).

Most of them can, but few would, I for one feel it's outrageous to expect candidates to work 3 full days as a recruitment process, I'm sure I can find something better without having to take half a week off.