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

Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

m.brianmcmanus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#41

Post by georgespencer »

avitzurel wrote: post #31
georgespencer wrote: post #24

I'm absolutely amazed that there isn't a single mention of referencing in here. It's by far the most important thing we do in our hiring cycle. Here's what we do, which is a little different: 1/ We'll spend in the order of 5-6 hours with a mid-to-senior hire before we recruit them. We pick one topic from their CV (the project they're proudest of or happiest with), and dive into it in huge detail: everything from the…

Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them out". This does not mean I disagree with you. We had someone working for us, we're connected on LinkedIn. That person since then switched multiple jobs and I know for a hard fact that he'd never get a job if the company just called people working with him. No way.

> Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them out".

I totally used to think that too, but whenever I've asked people about our process they say - "sure when you're making an offer, make it contingent on references and do a bunch of them."

I never revoke an offer unless we find out something truly bad at reference stage. Everyone has their foibles, and it's just useful to have more information about how to work with them.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#42

Post by rz2k »

georgespencer wrote: post #24

I'm absolutely amazed that there isn't a single mention of referencing in here. It's by far the most important thing we do in our hiring cycle. Here's what we do, which is a little different: 1/ We'll spend in the order of 5-6 hours with a mid-to-senior hire before we recruit them. We pick one topic from their CV (the project they're proudest of or happiest with), and dive into it in huge detail: everything from the…

That sounds unbelievably risky for the people giving the references to have long, nuanced conversations about someone's potential weaknesses in a new job. I can imagine many ways these conversations could be made off the record, but the people providing the references are at the mercy of your interpretations and how their statements are later represented. Even if you don't hire the person for entirely different reasons they could end of being held liable for loss of earnings if it's decided that some of the information was untruthful, unsubstantiated or illegal.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#43

Post by georgespencer »

rz2k wrote: post #42
georgespencer wrote: post #24

I'm absolutely amazed that there isn't a single mention of referencing in here. It's by far the most important thing we do in our hiring cycle. Here's what we do, which is a little different: 1/ We'll spend in the order of 5-6 hours with a mid-to-senior hire before we recruit them. We pick one topic from their CV (the project they're proudest of or happiest with), and dive into it in huge detail: everything from the…

That sounds unbelievably risky for the people giving the references to have long, nuanced conversations about someone's potential weaknesses in a new job. I can imagine many ways these conversations could be made off the record, but the people providing the references are at the mercy of your interpretations and how their statements are later represented. Even if you don't hire the person for entirely different reaso…

> That sounds unbelievably risky for the people giving the references to have long, nuanced conversations about someone's potential weaknesses in a new job.

I don't think I said anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong) that we're asking anything to do with their ability in the new job. We're asking about how they performed in their previous job.

> the people providing the references are at the mercy of your interpretations and how their statements are later represented.

I think this is a major reason why people don't reference. I'm always honest with my references. A competitor hired away a disastrous hire I made a few years ago. I met the CEO a few months later, after the guy had been let go from there, and said "Why didn't you just call!" -- he'd have saved a bunch of time and money.

> Even if you don't hire the person for entirely different reasons they could end of being held liable for loss of earnings if it's decided that some of the information was untruthful, unsubstantiated or illegal.

If you're an adult about it then there's not a lot which can put you off a hire at the referencing stage. You just have to recognise that not everyone gets along, and everyone has different sensibilities and cultural pros and cons. The point of our referencing is that we want to work with this person, so we want to be prepared to help them excel and hit the ground running.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#44

Post by TheOneTrueKyle »

jiaweihli wrote: post #34
Clubber wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the same way. A full day interview is just silly, multiple day interviews, no way. Look at my resume, meet me, decide, make an offer. If it doesn't work out, fire me, but don't play this silly game of multiple interviews with multiple people that don't really talk to each other or coordinate. It makes the company look like they don't know what they are doing and/or are indecisive. You can keep that.

I strongly disagree with this. I've been on the other side of the fence, trying to hire people for an early-mid startup (5-40 people) as an early employee. There are more people than you'd expect who can talk the talk but can't code at the same level. In the majority of companies, I'd bet there aren't too many openings for engineers in such a narrow role. If you don't want to work with an 'idea person', would you wan…

Yeah, I'm not wasting vacation time on your multi-day interviews.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#45

Post by jiaweihli »

ryandrake wrote: post #36
jiaweihli wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with this. I've been on the other side of the fence, trying to hire people for an early-mid startup (5-40 people) as an early employee. There are more people than you'd expect who can talk the talk but can't code at the same level. In the majority of companies, I'd bet there aren't too many openings for engineers in such a narrow role. If you don't want to work with an 'idea person', would you wan…

Look at it from the candidate's point of view. Depending on what company I'm working for, I get 10, maybe 15 crappy days of paid time off that I have to split between vacation, sickness, and YOUR interview. If you take an entire day of my time, I can only do that max 10-15 times in the year, and that's if I don't get sick and have no vacation. I'm going to highly favor a company that does not make me blow one of thos…

Yeah, I get that. There's not a good way to interview for many companies within only PTO.

Something that's worked well for me in the past is to secure at least 1 good offer - compensation you feel comfortable with, recognizable brand, but still an offer you're willing to walk away from - and then give notice.

Then, after leaving, spend additional time (up to 4 weeks) interviewing with all the other companies you want to. Keep in mind that many companies offer a sign-on bonus, and using it to cover this in-between time is high-return, likely more so than buying a new car/vacation/entertainment system.

You can be upfront about this break in your interview loops - "I'm no longer working at company X, but I have a very competitive offer from company Y and considering several other ones." There's no guarantee you'll be able to keep all the offers you receive (many of them will explode), but you should have a steady pipeline.

Whenever you feel comfortable, you can exit the pipeline, and begin negotiation with the outstanding offers you have. Last I did this, I went onsite ~15 times among even more interview loops.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#46

Post by pklausler »

There are recruiters out there that concentrate on very specific technical areas, keep in touch with senior people, and still fulfill a necessary function pairing up qualified people with new opportunities. These folks can save all kinds of time and risk when you're looking for somebody with very specific skills. Some are pretty well known in the industry (e.g., you call Julia when you need a compiler writer) but I wonder whether they're eventually going to go the way of the professional high-end travel agent.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#47

Post by ptero »

georgespencer wrote: post #41
avitzurel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them out". This does not mean I disagree with you. We had someone working for us, we're connected on LinkedIn. That person since then switched multiple jobs and I know for a hard fact that he'd never get a job if the company just called people working with him. No way.

> Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them out". I totally used to think that too, but whenever I've asked people about our process they say - "sure when you're making an offer, make it contingent on references and do a bunch of them." I never revoke an offer unless we find out something truly bad at refe…

So, is the reference checking goal to look for truly bad things that would disqualify a candidate? If so, are you trying to see if the candidate is an ass who was not acting this way during the interviews? This, to me, is the only way that could in principle be caught during referencing, but I wonder if it actually does.

I thought someone (a reference) who would badmouth a colleague to a prospective employer would not be a reliable source of the information. This is an honest question -- I do wonder when you find disqualifying things what do they look like?

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#48

Post by avitzurel »

ptero wrote: post #47
georgespencer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because most people worth a dime interviewing for you are actively working for a different company. By asking and calling references you're "flushing them out". I totally used to think that too, but whenever I've asked people about our process they say - "sure when you're making an offer, make it contingent on references and do a bunch of them." I never revoke an offer unless we find out something truly bad at refe…

So, is the reference checking goal to look for truly bad things that would disqualify a candidate? If so, are you trying to see if the candidate is an ass who was not acting this way during the interviews? This, to me, is the only way that could in principle be caught during referencing, but I wonder if it actually does. I thought someone (a reference) who would badmouth a colleague to a prospective employer would no…

To me, references are like a polygraph. It's a nice thing to have but in a politically driven world, it can also be vindictive.

I listened to a podcast a while back about bankers that were given horrible references by vindictive bosses because they didn't cooperate with some loan policy or something like that.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#49

Post by twic »

felixgallo wrote: post #27
adwww wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had conversations with recruiters where I've initially sounded interested, then changed my mind because it just sounds like too much hassle. They simply can't understand that I would give up when I realised there were three interviews, or that I needed to spend a day doing a test. Sure if I did well in one interview the other two would likely be fine too, but equally... I could just go to another company that sa…

On the downside, then you're working at a company that hires its staff by bar conversations, rather than by attempting to determine competency and mutual fit.

A rigorous interview process is a huge plus for me. Not because I'm a masochist, but because I want to work with people who are at least as good as me. A company that hires after a conversation in a bar is likely to have a much wider range of abilities.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#50

Post by twic »

ryandrake wrote: post #36
jiaweihli wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with this. I've been on the other side of the fence, trying to hire people for an early-mid startup (5-40 people) as an early employee. There are more people than you'd expect who can talk the talk but can't code at the same level. In the majority of companies, I'd bet there aren't too many openings for engineers in such a narrow role. If you don't want to work with an 'idea person', would you wan…

Look at it from the candidate's point of view. Depending on what company I'm working for, I get 10, maybe 15 crappy days of paid time off that I have to split between vacation, sickness, and YOUR interview. If you take an entire day of my time, I can only do that max 10-15 times in the year, and that's if I don't get sick and have no vacation. I'm going to highly favor a company that does not make me blow one of thos…

Perhaps my openness to longer interviews reflects the fact that I get 25 days of leave a year. Plus public holidays. And sick leave.
Post reply on HN