We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else • Hacker News Board

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#341

Post by ska » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 11:41 AM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #317

ska wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sure, we are deeply into an inherently subjective area. But I believe you are being obtuse here. I've never met a large group of programmers who wouldn't have rough consensus on their "better" colleagues. Begrudgingly, perhaps, but it is there. Human beings naturally self-organize this way all of the time, the metrics are definitely imperfect but pretending they don't exist or are somehow meaningless is just pe…

> "The claim was more that "greatness" in part, at least, necessarily comes from within." That goes into the whole nature vs. nurture debate, and you can probably find arguments for both. Playing Devil's Advocate, I'd suggest there are traits that help you become a great programmer, but those can be learned traits. For example, "thinking like a machine". You're a much more effective programmer after you can build a m…

In my opinion what you are referencing is necessary but not sufficient, but we've probably taken this as far as it is useful (if not further)

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#342

Post by jakobegger » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 12:57 PM UTC

sadlion wrote: post #308

RogerL wrote: post #20

tl;dr: The only measure of on the job performance is on the job performance. The only thing that matters to your company is also on the job performance. Why not focus on that? It is utter voodoo. I came up in the late 80s. Interviews were maybe 2 hours long. You might be handed a piece of paper with a problem to aggregate some information distributed in a few different arrays and print them out. You know, write some…

I recently had an on-site interview at a big SV tech company. I had 4 interviews and 3 of them flat out told me they haven't read my resume. I didn't do as well on the whiteboard hazing but I'm confident that I could have solved them if I had more than 30 minutes to come up with an efficient solution. What disappointed me was, 3 of the interviewers had no idea about my background and weren't able to extract my streng…

If you want to get a job as an app developer, the easiest way is to build the kind of app you'd like to work on and show it to people. If an interviewer sees that you can deliver exactly what they need, you're an instant hire.

Don't complain that interviewers haven't read your resume; it is your job to tell the interviewer about the relevant parts of your resume and why they matter for the job you are applying to.

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#343

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 1:27 PM UTC

p4wnc6 wrote: post #336

sokoloff wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I give an employee a $100 Amex gift card as a spot bonus, I do gross that up. If I pay relocation expenses, I require receipts (at which point, it's non-taxable for most situations, so doesn't need grossing up). It's not that I disbelieve the new hire, but rather that I have to make it accountable in order to make it non-taxable. If I pay cash comp (whether as a signing bonus, periodic bonus, commission, in contem…

> If I pay relocation expenses, I require receipts This might be a deal breaker for me if I was interviewing with someone. It's not that I care about the accountability part, it's more that a ton of relocation costs are unforeseen incidentals, or are private expenses (like first month's rent ... it's not your business what I choose to pay in rent), that should be covered by just paying cash to the new hire. Making th…

It wouldn't end up as a deal-breaker. In the discussions leading up to it, you'd object to providing receipts, indicate that you're trying to cover other types of costs, and I'd respond with, "OK, we'll call it a signing bonus," and then negotiate the exact [pre-tax] amount.

I (and I assume most hiring managers) have broad discretion on the amount of a signing bonus. For an engineer I want, I will never care about the difference between a $5K and a $10K signing bonus (or if we're talking about bonus in lieu of relo, the difference between $15K and $25K). It's a one-time expense to me, comes out of a different budget, and yet candidates seem to really value them seemingly out of proportion to the economic benefit.

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#344

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

p4wnc6 wrote: post #124

marcosdumay wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are in the a-job-every-2-years treadmill, it may not make any difference. It probably depends on lots of factors, but I do like the consulting idea better.

> a-job-every-2-years treadmill This is already caused as much by companies as it is by candidates who are job hoppers. When I see a resume with short stints, it basically has no effect on me any more. If the person is good and I do my job to make them happy to stay, that's the best I can hope for. Pretending like either I can predict who the job hoppers are in advance, or that I should only hire people who magically…

Oh, absolutely. It tells nothing about the person.

It's only that, if one is on that position, there won't be much downside to take your offer. But if one currently has a stable job, there is.

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#345

Post by p4wnc6 » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #343

p4wnc6 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I pay relocation expenses, I require receipts This might be a deal breaker for me if I was interviewing with someone. It's not that I care about the accountability part, it's more that a ton of relocation costs are unforeseen incidentals, or are private expenses (like first month's rent ... it's not your business what I choose to pay in rent), that should be covered by just paying cash to the new hire. Making th…

It wouldn't end up as a deal-breaker. In the discussions leading up to it, you'd object to providing receipts, indicate that you're trying to cover other types of costs, and I'd respond with, "OK, we'll call it a signing bonus," and then negotiate the exact [pre-tax] amount. I (and I assume most hiring managers) have broad discretion on the amount of a signing bonus. For an engineer I want, I will never care about th…

It can vary a lot. I think $10k is a generous signing bonus if it comes in addition to relocation. $15k is around the smallest lump sum relocation I would consider reasonable though.

Some firms offer > $30k signing bonuses (some more than double that) independently of relocation. It's rare, but not exceedingly rare.

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#346

Post by abustamam » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 6:16 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #335

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it become more costly to fire bad hires since then? In my mind, a lot of the idiotic behavior in hiring is driven by the fact that it seems to be way more expensive to hire the wrong person than to hire nobody. The risk of litigation from firing someone seems real to a lot of places I've worked.

Usually it's fear of confrontation and laziness. If you're not discriminating against people, it's fine. I've had a few folks that I've had to let go folks, including folks in .gov with union contracts and motivated defenders. It is doable. End of the day, don't be a wuss. Setting up some hunger games "audition" is passive aggressive bs. If you're nervous, hire a contractor and get them on the payroll later. Or just…

That's what my current company did with me. Works really well. Some people are not okay with becoming a contractor first but sometimes that's the way things go.

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#347

Post by kafkaesq » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 6:21 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #261

wlievens wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peak at thirty? You're depressing!

In a sense, market worth of programmers does start to crest sharply by age 30 or 35, independent of intrinsic ability.

I've come to look at it this way:

The unadorned "developer/engineer" role[1] -- that is to say, not CTO or even Lead Engineer -- itself seems to tap out after 8-10 years, in terms of both salary and respect.

That is, in the average case, anyway. There are of course companies which pay upper-tranche (in terms of salary and respect) for very highly talented programmers who aren't in leadership or crossover roles. But these are a comparatively rarified stratum; by and large -- for the great majority of companies out there -- the "Senior Developer / Engineer" role definitely seems to plateau within about that timeframe.

So if you don't find yourself drawn to that category of engineer (and to those kinds of companies -- many truly gifted programmers I've known still pull down decidedly average salaries) -- and you find yourself wanting more salary (or respect / responsibility) -- you better start thinking of something else.

[1] Leaving aside distinctions between "developer" and "engineer", as discussed elsewhere recently, for the sake of simplicity.

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#348

Post by JBlue42 » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 11:43 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #305

RogerL wrote: post #20

tl;dr: The only measure of on the job performance is on the job performance. The only thing that matters to your company is also on the job performance. Why not focus on that? It is utter voodoo. I came up in the late 80s. Interviews were maybe 2 hours long. You might be handed a piece of paper with a problem to aggregate some information distributed in a few different arrays and print them out. You know, write some…

I think people (managers) have become scared of firing and so try to avoid all risk. Having had to do it is never fun, but it becomes easier the more you do. The first time I had to fire someone I tried everything I could to avoid it and made the situation worse by dragging out the whole process. The other reason is the company is not really looking to hire, just placate their current employees - "yes we know you are…

>"yes we know you are over worked, just hang in there while we hire someone to take off the load"

Which may be why people that are below par haven't been let go? A need to throw bodies at a problem rather than step back and give it some thought / work it out.

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#349

Post by JBlue42 » Sat, Mar 05, 2016, 11:46 PM UTC

mratzloff wrote: post #274

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it become more costly to fire bad hires since then? In my mind, a lot of the idiotic behavior in hiring is driven by the fact that it seems to be way more expensive to hire the wrong person than to hire nobody. The risk of litigation from firing someone seems real to a lot of places I've worked.

California has its own special brand of crazy laws, but in a lot of cases bad hires persist because poor managers (most) will do anything they can to avoid the confrontation.

Like what?

It's an at-will state so you can leave without notice and be laid off without notice. It seems that would cover the majority of circumstances and protect both employee and employer, for better or worse.

Re: We Hire the Best, Just Like Everyone Else

#350

Post by phamilton » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 1:21 AM UTC

kohito wrote: post #122

phamilton wrote: post #92

We used to ask "What makes this candidate weird?" during the decision meeting. It wasn't always a deal breaker, but it was very important that the team would be different after hiring someone. We hired quite a few non-CS grads, whether they came via a boot camp or were just self taught. We ended up with a ragged team of misfits and it was awesome. I've never worked on a team that was so effective at challenging assum…

Sounds like your team kind of backed into an insight psychological research has identified and Google has attempted to apply. Something called "psychological safety". "Psychological safety: Can we take risks on this team without feeling insecure or embarrassed?" - from re:work There's a great NYTimes article about it that looks at your hunch about the weirdness of the team members being the key to awesomeness. But Go…

An anecdotal effect of said environment. We stopped doing person based scrum. We were able to get away from the "justify my personal usefulness on the team" status updates. And it was awesome.