Live data from Hacker News

Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

benjiweber.co.uk

41–50 of 168 posts

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for startups, new grads with good portfolios and ok grades > new grads with good grades and ok portfolios likewise, new grads with a story of upward trajectory & energy > new grads who coast on what their parents/school setup the bet being made is they'll put in the hard work and achieve the personal growth to progress quickly, and they'll roll with the uncertainties of startups. grades do hint at the hard work, and…

The best programmers I know never had a portfolio.

portfolios = projects they can reference

if they don't have impressive projects.. maybe not so good?

when i think of the best cs ugrads i've known, and would be great at startups:

* cool projects outside of classes, especially self-initiated, like doing their own startups

* cool libraries or algs that got popular or, not quite as good, published

* hardcore mode attempts at class projects, e.g., well beyond extra mile for OS's + graphics, or took grad-level courses for the same (=> w/ accompanying projecs), or new to CS and are proud at winning some class competitions despite that

it changes outside of cs

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#42

Amazes me how little data-driven recruiting is. Just as the author puts it, a good hire is for culture ad, and that means being explicitly aware of what's missing. Tough stuff to really look inside and see what's missing. Most hires I see are either out of desperation or because the recruiter had a good chemistry with the candidate. A 1h interview means 0,3% of the time I will work with that person in one year. Talk…

I've both taken and been at a company that administered personality tests as part of the interview process. I found the results fairly useless to be honest. Although I did manage to score so low on one part of the assessment that an interviewer seemed to question my basic ability to function in society.

Personality tests are broken - there is no way a functioning human being will answer them truthfully. Not for the lack of trying... our subconscious will try to protect us and we'll answer in a way we imagine it is socially acceptable.

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#43

Too complicated. Tell weaker performers they're top talent and let their impostor syndrome do the rest.

You know the scene in the dark knight where joker kills Gambol, then tells his men they work for the joker now? Oh and by the way there’s only one position open. Snaps a pool cue in half, throws it on the ground and tells them to make it quick. Same thing pretty much.

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best programmers I know never had a portfolio.

What? The best programmers you know got that way without accumulating a body of work?

Different people have different ways of learning and working. Some people build a bunch of stuff. Others build toys, others may just focus on their primary jobs and don't have a portfolio of things they can share.

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#45

Amazes me how little data-driven recruiting is. Just as the author puts it, a good hire is for culture ad, and that means being explicitly aware of what's missing. Tough stuff to really look inside and see what's missing. Most hires I see are either out of desperation or because the recruiter had a good chemistry with the candidate. A 1h interview means 0,3% of the time I will work with that person in one year. Talk…

>Amazes me how little data-driven recruiting is.

I'm a founder of a rectech startup. I see four big problems in most companies:

1. Turtle speed. The hiring process takes 45 days, and most of the best candidates get hired by someone else, usually before the hiring manager gets around to interviewing the candidates.

2. Arbitrary process. Candidates get a completely different set of questions, completely different interviewers and completely different resume screenings as different recruiters and hiring managers do things completely differently.

3. Overscreening. Screened by the job board (knockout questions). Screened by the AI in the ATS. Screened by the recruiter. Screened by the hiring manager. Then a phone screen. Then a first interview (which is really another screening). Only then can we try to hire the half-of-a-candidate that made it through the process. Most of this screening isn't cultural, it's people trying to read between the lines on a resume to figure out why Lucy left a job six years ago after being there for four months.

4. Assessments applied after steps 1-3 to confirm executive bias instead of early in the process where the data from assessments could actually be used, you know, as data to compare and fit candidates.

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#46
First we must ask the question: how can we demoralize people the most effectively? An obvious place to start is to just ignore all their prior work. Since we're starting from scratch we need a baseline to gather where their technical skills are at. So you should ask them to do some kind of coding assessment task. Tell them not to spend more than an hour on it. Chances are good the most desperate will spend way more on it because they need the job. If you're lucky they'll even do it without asking for payment.

Spice it up a little! Why not throw in some real work that no one in your company wants to do? You can even ask the applicant to read your organizations repo code and write technical reports on it. That way, later if you do decide to hire them (unlikely) it will reduce your on-boarding costs... and if not... then fuck it, tbh. This isn't about making people feel good. It's about making sure you do what everyone else does. 'We've found that the assessment task is a good signal.'

Speaking of signals, how about you ignore the whole resume and focus on what matters. We both know resumes are largely a waste of time and people only get moved up in interviews for making plenty of eye contact. So make sure to fail everyone who doesn't stare at you the whole time. This is how to assess technical skills the most accurate way possible and its known the vast majority of managers fail people in interviews for not staring at them enough (staring increases productivity.)

Finally, you don't want to forget the computer science tests. At least four years in school and tons of debt is a lot to stomach compared to people who learned practical skills in their own time at a cost of almost nothing. Though chances are almost zero you use computer science knowledge in your job it's best to make sure you fail every self-taught developer who can't immediately balance a binary dick tree. It shouldn't concern you how many developers are self-taught and won't fit in your talent pipe line after doing this. Your hour long algorithm interviews are sure to make sure that only people who want to feel smart get hired.

If you put these measures into place you're sure to build the most mediocre organization possible. But there are other ways to improve the process. Experiment with calling your company 'remote' but only hire from certain timezones; Make sure the interviews happen in person. Hold as many meetings as possible. If there's one thing engineers love it's meetings that break up focused concentration time in their day. Even better if the meetings are only done at certain times in the day as that will be as hostile as possible to a remote working environment.

I want to make sure you don't have any funny ideas in your head about remote working. It might seem to offer flexible time management but people are ultimately children and its up to you to put in place measures to prevent this. If you do this right you can even manage to exclude people with chronic illnesses that would have otherwise been able to fit in your talent pipeline through remote work which I think is really something.

I hope this post has been helpful to other recruiters and hiring managers out there. Peace

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#47
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's well considered by a lot of people in the industry that a prospective's grades and even which school they went to aren't a good predictor of skill.

Unless you have them actually work with you for a month, they're certainly the best predicators available for new grads with no portfolios right? FWIW, the most effective colleagues I've worked with all scored really high on standardized tests. They're a great predictor imo

I'll speak from perspective of average CS in E. Europe

people who were the best at my year were mostly focused on jobs / real world software development and just wanted to get degree, so just pass the exams and projects effortlessly

but I've been studying at weekends, so I may be biased.

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best programmers I know never had a portfolio.

portfolios = projects they can reference if they don't have impressive projects.. maybe not so good? when i think of the best cs ugrads i've known, and would be great at startups: * cool projects outside of classes, especially self-initiated, like doing their own startups * cool libraries or algs that got popular or, not quite as good, published * hardcore mode attempts at class projects, e.g., well beyond extra mile…

>if they don't have impressive projects.. maybe not so good?

lol, you realize that for I'd say almost all projects the interesting part/core is small % of the whole, meanwhile the rest is just boring code that needs to be done?

ofc it's not the nicest thing that you arent completing your side projects and just doing the interesting stuff, but you may have experience in industry, so you know how to do that boring ass stuff anyway

Re: Don’t hire top talent; hire for weaknesses

#50
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally hire the people with the best grades and test scores from the top universities. Idk how much better you can get than that.

It's well considered by a lot of people in the industry that a prospective's grades and even which school they went to aren't a good predictor of skill.

Is the school thing a strictly American phenomenon? In New Zealand for instance all that tends to matter is which city/town you want to live in and whether the institution offers the field you want to major in (medicine for example is only offered by Otago IIRC).

I've only been asked for grades once in the previous 12 years where at which point I withdrew my application.

Post reply on HN