Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better • Hacker News Board

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#31

Post by angdis » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:45 PM UTC

jonnathanson wrote: post #22

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."

It doesn't work for gainfully employed professionals! This is how you select university students for entry level positions and interns.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#32

Post by lordbusiness » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 4:48 PM UTC

To be honest, this is arrogance on the employers part to the absolute extreme. Interviews are two-way streets.

When I interview, I am as much interviewing the company, if not more than they are interviewing me.

With the shoe on the other foot, how about candidates vet employers for suitable work environments, measuring them on things such as provision of ergonomic workspaces, quality of perks promised, finesse and speed of HR practices (do they pay on time, is just the tip of the iceberg there), acumen of core founders (it sucks when you start a job and realize the founders are actually utterly incompetent), etc.

This isn't a workable practise in either direction.

Also, if you cannot ascertain if the candidate is able to perform the job function through a simple conversation then either A) the employee representing the company isn't qualified to make the assessment, or B) the role specification isn't clear to the company.

I'll accept that mis-hires happen, again, in both directions, but this is age-old and won't be solved by this one-sided approach.

We're talking about human beings, who need to work for food. When we cut away all the stuff about 'roles' and 'careers' and 'value', what we're really talking about is a human paying another human to do a job.

And that's fine, as long as we don't pretend it's something it isn't.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#33

Post by ftpaul » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:05 PM UTC

seanstickle wrote: post #14

What I find disturbing about this is that lean concepts, from Deming to Toyota to software dev and so forth, is meant to benefit both the company and the customer — reduce waste, increase flow, make products and services that people want and that make companies money. "Lean recruitment" is a bastardization of the term, as it's basically a cool-sounding way for companies to exploit job-seekers in a way that doesn't ma…

So, what do you suggest? What is necessary to improve the recruitment process?

PS: Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, use tryouts to test candidates, you can se more at http://hbr.org/2014/04/the-ceo-of-automattic-on-holding-audi...

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#34

Post by seanstickle » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:39 PM UTC

ftpaul wrote: post #33

seanstickle wrote: post #14

What I find disturbing about this is that lean concepts, from Deming to Toyota to software dev and so forth, is meant to benefit both the company and the customer — reduce waste, increase flow, make products and services that people want and that make companies money. "Lean recruitment" is a bastardization of the term, as it's basically a cool-sounding way for companies to exploit job-seekers in a way that doesn't ma…

So, what do you suggest? What is necessary to improve the recruitment process? PS: Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, use tryouts to test candidates, you can se more at http://hbr.org/2014/04/the-ceo-of-automattic-on-holding-audi...

When Hercules cleaned out the Augean stables, he wasn't then obligated to refill them. Just because I can see a problem and criticize a fumbling attempt at a solution, it does not follow that I have an alternative.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#35

Post by johnny99 » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:48 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #16

>2. Bring in remaining candidates over the next 2-3 days and have them go through the job that they will be performing if they were to be hired. >... >4. Bring in final candidates (select few) based on multiple days of feedback, have them perform the same job again for one day and make the final decision. So if I'm doing arithmetic correctly, you're asking candidates to participate in a trial run for a total of 3 to…

Middle-aged dad here (not a recent grad). I agree that asking 3-4 days of a candidate is too much. But if the ask is more reasonable (one or two days, perhaps spread out), the candidate is paid market rates or higher, and the project is well-defined, I think this can benefit both parties. The last point is important: doing this requires work on the part of the company, and the participation of a member of the engineering team for both guidance and evaluation.

I did this myself before starting my current gig and was glad I did--I started the job confident that I liked the work, and the people. And by paying market rates you essentially get a small signing bonus. Consulting rates should be higher than the equivalent salaried hourly.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#36

Post by johnny99 » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 5:51 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…

The cost of a bad hire is incredibly high. If pairing for a day (I agree with general sentiment that more than a day or two is too much to ask) reduces the chance of that, this could be very worthwhile.

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#37

Post by erroneousfunk » Wed, Nov 05, 2014, 6:09 PM UTC

Bahamut wrote: post #23

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 re…

Maybe they're screening for people who never take vacations and have the vacation time to burn? After a week for the holidays, a week of vacation in the summer, and a couple of three day weekends/miscellaneous days, I certainly don't have time for three day interviews...

Re: Lean Recruitment – Hire faster and better

#38

Post by jlaswell » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 1:53 PM UTC

Iftheshoefits wrote: post #27

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 directe…

I do have to agree to your point on the use of 'independent contractor' here. It'd be interesting to see what they are basing that on.

My state provides some 'tips' for small businesses. One is employee types, and this sort of a relationship is not an independent contractor. They make a point to say that simply calling someone an independent contractor has no baring on their status, exactly as you have said.

Thanks for the reminder.