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

Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

ramblinjan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#31

Post by bcbrown »

ramblinjan wrote: post #20
bcbrown wrote: post #2

I especially liked this part: > If you need someone who can hit the ground running right away, test them with the exact tools they’ll be using on the job. If you need someone flexible who can learn anything, test them on something new and unique. If you need someone with a level head, try to frustrate your candidates and ditch the ones with short tempers. Edit: Except for deliberately frustrating candidates.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to give it some thought because it seems like I failed to explain this well enough (though I may just straight up be wrong about it altogether). The candidates who ended up frustrated weren't feeling that way because we were jerks to them (I don't think). Maybe what I'm getting at is don't be afraid to push people to the limit a little bit in a task, because their reactions to it sa…

What I liked was the philosophy of deciding what personal traits are relevant for this job, and then specifically interviewing for those traits. The edit was because people seemed to be keying off the "frustrated" part, and that wasn't what I was trying to call attention to.

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#32

Post by ramblinjan »

bcbrown wrote: post #2

I especially liked this part: > If you need someone who can hit the ground running right away, test them with the exact tools they’ll be using on the job. If you need someone flexible who can learn anything, test them on something new and unique. If you need someone with a level head, try to frustrate your candidates and ditch the ones with short tempers. Edit: Except for deliberately frustrating candidates.

Made a slight edit. Thanks for the feedback.

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#33

Post by ramblinjan »

aml183 wrote: post #14

It's not an issue of time, but expectation. If it is clearly known that it will take 5 days to respond then the developer won't be peeved. The most important part of the process is to be transparent.

Made a small edit based on your comment. Thanks!

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#34

Post by vonmoltke »

petesalty wrote: post #6

Hiring fast is actually really important. It sets a really good tone with candidates and forces you to have a hiring process with good decision points and processes. At Voxy we had a 1 week turn around goal from receiving a resume to having on offer on the table. Didn't always work out like that because of candidates, and vacations and what not, but that was the goal. The day of last interviews we either said no than…

While admirable, doesn't that strongly bias Voxy to local candidates?

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#35

Post by ramblinjan »

fecak wrote: post #22
ramblinjan wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. I tried to be pretty conservative so it didn't feel like I was fudging numbers to make a point about speed in earlier rounds, but I wonder if I should clarify. I'll definitely include this when I write more for an audience of applicants. Resumes are soooooo boring, so anything to stick out is a big deal.

I was hoping not to seem pedantic on this, but it's potentially a key detail to a reader and I wouldn't want anyone to think they have 5 minutes to make an impression when the reality is much closer to 5 seconds to make an immediate positive impression. Then you likely get some more review time once the initial gut reaction is over. Nicely written article BTW.

Thanks!

Definitely didn't take it as pedantic. Thanks for the reminder about the impact this could have on an audience I didn't think about. I added a small disclaimer.

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#36

Post by throwaway729 »

ramblinjan wrote: post #28
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #27

Where does this assumption come from that rejecting the majority of candidates leads to better results? At some point you're just cutting into the bone and rejecting candidates that are perfectly acceptable. The more candidates you reject, the more time you waste and the more people come out of your interview with a negative experience of the company. These costs can easily outweigh the cost of a bad hire. Nobody wri…

It depends on your definition of "perfectly acceptable." Almost every job in every industry with a hiring cycle rejects "a majority of candidates," especially when there's limited space. > These costs can easily outweigh the cost of a bad hire. How so? You're right that I've relied a good bit on the anecdotal, but aren't you doing so a bit here? Bad hires are ridiculously costly--especially on a small team--because t…

> Hiring more people because of loss aversion also falls prey to the trap of "more people = more productive"

Although perhaps true, I don't really see how this is relevant to what CoolGuySteve said.

CoolGuySteve isn't recommending anything about the number of people that are hired for a particular role, or the rationale for picking that number. Rather, he's just observing something about the cost of being overly picky about the previously fixed number of people that are hired for a particular previously fixed set of openings.

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#37

Post by ramblinjan »

throwaway729 wrote: post #36
ramblinjan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on your definition of "perfectly acceptable." Almost every job in every industry with a hiring cycle rejects "a majority of candidates," especially when there's limited space. > These costs can easily outweigh the cost of a bad hire. How so? You're right that I've relied a good bit on the anecdotal, but aren't you doing so a bit here? Bad hires are ridiculously costly--especially on a small team--because t…

> Hiring more people because of loss aversion also falls prey to the trap of "more people = more productive" Although perhaps true, I don't really see how this is relevant to what CoolGuySteve said. CoolGuySteve isn't recommending anything about the number of people that are hired for a particular role, or the rationale for picking that number. Rather, he's just observing something about the cost of being overly pick…

I'll have to think some on this. I really was not trying to take the brutal "we only hire the best" nonsense that a lot of companies do.

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#38

Post by Zikes »

ramblinjan wrote: post #19
Zikes wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you need someone with a level head, try to frustrate your candidates and ditch the ones with short tempers. Interviews are a two-way street. If as a candidate I'm given an unrealistic expectation that's intended to frustrate me, I'll get the impression that's how the company normally operates and choose to look elsewhere.

This is a great point. When I talk about intentionally frustrating candidates, it's mostly based on a technical interview we would do that a lot of people would struggle with. It hit the critical thinking itch, I think, and some people can't handle that. Y'all have me thinking that this section could use a little revision, though.

There could be reasonable ways to accomplish that. Knowing how well a candidate handles frustrating situations is definitely worthwhile, I just think there should be a lot of caution about how the situation is presented so that the candidate doesn't get the wrong impression.

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#39

Post by ploxiln »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #27

Where does this assumption come from that rejecting the majority of candidates leads to better results? At some point you're just cutting into the bone and rejecting candidates that are perfectly acceptable. The more candidates you reject, the more time you waste and the more people come out of your interview with a negative experience of the company. These costs can easily outweigh the cost of a bad hire. Nobody wri…

Other professions hire based on pedigree and looking+sounding the part. I personally prefer a hard skills test.

But of course I would, the latter scenario favored me much more than the former when I was not-yet done with college, and also when I was looking for my second job in a new city.

There's always some complaint in these kinds of threads about whiteboard coding. I love whiteboard coding! I did it a fair bit outside of interviews, just to collaborate with coworkers, in my first and second jobs (but not recently). I did it in Google interviews. (No, they didn't ask any puzzlers about manhole covers or blenders.) It was fun, I'd do it anytime.

Re: Hiring Processes Are Also Engineering Processes

#40

Post by bbcbasic »

ploxiln wrote: post #39
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #27

Where does this assumption come from that rejecting the majority of candidates leads to better results? At some point you're just cutting into the bone and rejecting candidates that are perfectly acceptable. The more candidates you reject, the more time you waste and the more people come out of your interview with a negative experience of the company. These costs can easily outweigh the cost of a bad hire. Nobody wri…

Other professions hire based on pedigree and looking+sounding the part. I personally prefer a hard skills test. But of course I would, the latter scenario favored me much more than the former when I was not-yet done with college, and also when I was looking for my second job in a new city. There's always some complaint in these kinds of threads about whiteboard coding. I love whiteboard coding! I did it a fair bit ou…

How much whiteboard coding do you do once you are hired? I'm not talking design but actually writing a sort algo with all the curlies in the right place, on a whitebaord?
Post reply on HN