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

We only hire the trendiest

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 728 posts

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#361

Post by HelloMcFly »

mbrock wrote: post #39

I sometimes think there's a built in pomposity in the whole attitude of hiring, looking for someone "good enough to qualify." Instead, I like to think of it as, we are looking for someone to help us , someone who has different experience and knowledge, someone who could tell us how we can improve. Then instead of this adversarial situation of selecting a new ingroup member, it's a solicitation for assistance with a b…

When I interview, I start with a description of the couple of team members they'll be working most closely with, for, or leading. After that, I like to ask "With your limited understanding of where we're strong right now, what do you think your biggest contribution to our team will be? what will we learn from you?"

I've not done any validation studies on the answer, but it's certainly the question that has led to the best conversation.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#362

Post by digler999 »

p4wnc6 wrote: post #299
steego wrote: post #270

Daniel Kahneman talks about an idea called substitution in his book Thinking Fast and Slow that I think really applies here. Here's the jist: When your brain is faced with doing a task that's going to require a lot of glucose it will look for shortcuts to save you energy. One of those shortcuts is your mind will look for an available heuristic, swap out the energy hungry analysis for the heuristic, and then signal yo…

The frustrating part is that even when this is brought up and openly described and discussed explicitly in the context of working towards a better and healthier hiring practice, manager and HR types still insist on the cargo cult nonsense. It goes further than just an inefficient heuristic or biases. It becomes codified, even venerated, standard practice, and gains an air of certified approval up the corporate ladder…

I can see HR's desire to follow some sort of procedure though. If you let any manager hire anyway they so desire, it could open the company up to discriminatory hiring practices. By having a codified (if ineffective ) "procedure", they can use this as a defense in a lawsuit and say "look, see ? Everyone gets hired the same way at this company, and the plaintiff was subjected to the exact same scrutiny as everyone else."

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#363

Post by runamok »

dominotw wrote: post #335
steego wrote: post #270

Daniel Kahneman talks about an idea called substitution in his book Thinking Fast and Slow that I think really applies here. Here's the jist: When your brain is faced with doing a task that's going to require a lot of glucose it will look for shortcuts to save you energy. One of those shortcuts is your mind will look for an available heuristic, swap out the energy hungry analysis for the heuristic, and then signal yo…

>When your brain is faced with doing a task that's going to require a lot of glucose it will look for shortcuts to save you energy. One of those shortcuts is your mind will look for an available heuristic, swap out the energy hungry analysis for the heuristic, and then signal your conscious mind that you did all the analytical hard work. Sorry I didn't read the book but I am curious if there is any scientific evidenc…

I have heard there are MRI studies that back this up. Basically people make instinctual decisions and the rational parts of their brains light up afterwards to rationalize the decision they have already made. I am on mobile but that should be searchable.

Humans are very good at pattern recognition and we're optimized for it. Real calculation takes time and energy and might make us less able to survive.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#364

Post by beachstartup »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #349
beachstartup wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

instead of asking them stupid, verbatim-recall questions, i give them a problem and ask them how they would solve it. i.e., "a customer reports his website is running too slow. describe how you would identify and solve the problem." it's a good sign when they start asking you follow-up questions, like "is it load balanced? is there a database?". it's a bad sign when they say, "just restart the server".

I got asked "what happens when you hit return in the browser?" After I had traced from the keyboard driver through libraries and runtimes to the browser event system, then back down thru the network layers to sockets, then thru IP events to land a packet on the remote router, they called a halt. Apparently nobody had actually answered the question before. IMO Its a good exercise for problem-solving, and plumbs experi…

well yeah, it's just one question. programming and devops proof is in the pudding. we just ask for code samples and a walkthrough, and go with our gut. maybe a few technical procedure questions.

in my experience it's the other things that will make or break an employee, like whether or not they have an actual work ethic, or is a closet drug addict, or gets too drunk and touches women inappropriately at company events.

these are things you can't test for in an interview or background check, and i find it strange that nobody ever mentions this kind of stuff because personal problems are the most common kind we run into. it's rare to hire someone totally incompetent if you yourself have extensive experience in the work you're hiring them for.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#365

Post by [deleted] »

grandalf wrote: post #345

I've found that the best predictors of a good hire are indications of the following characteristics during the interview/vetting process: - adaptability -- can this person deal with situations that are spontaneous and unplanned without losing his/her cool. - openness -- is this person instinctively scornful of new concepts/ideas or energized by the chance to be exposed to something potentially interesting. - resource…

[deleted]

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#366

Post by drags »

dominotw wrote: post #335
steego wrote: post #270

Daniel Kahneman talks about an idea called substitution in his book Thinking Fast and Slow that I think really applies here. Here's the jist: When your brain is faced with doing a task that's going to require a lot of glucose it will look for shortcuts to save you energy. One of those shortcuts is your mind will look for an available heuristic, swap out the energy hungry analysis for the heuristic, and then signal yo…

>When your brain is faced with doing a task that's going to require a lot of glucose it will look for shortcuts to save you energy. One of those shortcuts is your mind will look for an available heuristic, swap out the energy hungry analysis for the heuristic, and then signal your conscious mind that you did all the analytical hard work. Sorry I didn't read the book but I am curious if there is any scientific evidenc…

There's some evidence that a related effect may not be real: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#367

Post by ivoras »

"When I started programming, I heard a lot about how programmers are down to earth, not like those elitist folks who have uniforms involving suits and ties. You can even wear t-shirts to work!"

This alone dates the author to beginning in the eighties :D

Today, you basically must sport the "lumberjack" look to be cool :D :D :D

But seriously, yes, now as the industry matured, there is a dress code. It might vary from area to area, but it's there.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#368

Post by jayhuang »

grandalf wrote: post #345

I've found that the best predictors of a good hire are indications of the following characteristics during the interview/vetting process: - adaptability -- can this person deal with situations that are spontaneous and unplanned without losing his/her cool. - openness -- is this person instinctively scornful of new concepts/ideas or energized by the chance to be exposed to something potentially interesting. - resource…

Great points, though out of curiosity, could you expand on the last point?

As someone who has always topped performance ratings, gotten along well with colleagues (many of my past co-workers are close friends now), and provided meaningful to significant contributions to all the projects I've worked on AND has a reputation for having a poker face, I'm a bit concerned that it would be as bad as an "instant do not hire"

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#369

Post by dpritchett »

tptacek wrote: post #246
benmccann wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you done this? My worry would be that sooner or later you'll have a candidate who posts the assignment online ruining your weeks of effort. It also seems like it makes it much easier to cheat if you make it a take home.

Yes, I ran a process like this for several years. I ran recruiting for the largest software security firm in the US; before that firm bought us, I used this process to more than double the size of my company. When I left, to work on a recruiting startup, not one of the people I'd overseen hiring had quit or been fired. I'm religious about this topic for a reason. :)

Was the 0% turnover due to great teammates, great projects, or above-market comp? I've never seen 0%!

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#370

Post by pklausler »

steego wrote: post #270

Daniel Kahneman talks about an idea called substitution in his book Thinking Fast and Slow that I think really applies here. Here's the jist: When your brain is faced with doing a task that's going to require a lot of glucose it will look for shortcuts to save you energy. One of those shortcuts is your mind will look for an available heuristic, swap out the energy hungry analysis for the heuristic, and then signal yo…

Unless one is interviewing for a really specific set of capabilities for a particular job, it's best to try to gauge aptitude for programming positions instead. I believe that it's possible, with the right questions, to check for basic competence in a few areas and to avoid some bad hires. I have a few small problems in my repertoire that can be solved by any good programmer in 5-10 minutes, but can't be solved in even 45 by a candidate who lacks basic understanding of how to analyze a problem, deal with basic abstractions like indirection, etc.

I.e., I've given up on trying to distinguish the great candidates from the good ones, and now I just try to identify the people who just have no idea what they're doing. The error bars around the results of a 45-minute technical interview are just too damn wide, even with research and training, to do anything except try to prevent obviously bad hires.

Post reply on HN