We only hire the trendiest • Hacker News Board

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#431

Post by knappe » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

awinder wrote: post #396

munificent wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - rationality -- can this person admit to being wrong and speak about it authentically... can I imagine this person admitting to being slightly wrong and even very wrong about something and handling it gracefully. I think this is a super important characteristic for a great employee to have, but I don't know how reasonable it is to expect to see much of it in an interview. In an interview setting, the candidate is…

On the rationality point, I've definitely been one to talk openly when asked about times I've failed / would have done something differently. I've looked at it as a no-loss scenario: if I'm talking with a company and they can't accept that no one is perfect, then I'd rather not work for that company anyways. Interviewing in a sense is kinda like dating, one way to really screw things up is if you're both looking for…

There is one rather big key difference in dating versus interviews. You only get once chance to find out _everything_ about a company during an interview. Whereas dating has many "meetings". This is the real problem with interviews. They're an all or nothing.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#432

Post by Grishnakh » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

bbarn wrote: post #391

ghurtado wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be a joy to interview.

Actually, this is exactly the type of person I like to interview. One that's already thought ahead and read the posting and decided if it was even close to a fit lifestyle-wise for them, and technically.

Thank you. When I look for a job, I'm not looking for the very top salary (usually those go to the very top performers, which I'm not, I'm good but not top 1%, or are companies which expect too much time), but there are a good number of companies out there trying to get good people for bottom-of-the-barrel salaries. I don't want to waste my time on those places. They usually have other big problems in addition to poor pay too.

Honestly, I wish every job posting included the following: - salary range (and an honest one too, not one where they post a mediocre low and a great high, but then never actually offer the high number to anyone and just offer the low number by default) - work location - sometimes it's not that easy to figure out where a company's office is located, or they have multiple locations. The address is important, because it determines my commute time. - office environment - is it open-plan, cubicles, offices, shared offices, etc. Some photos would be good. - computing environment - do you use Windows (7, 8, 10), MacOSX, Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, RHEL, etc.)? A combination? (RH in a VM for development, Windows for email/Office). What version control do you use? (git, SVN, or (ugh) ClearCase) - standard benefits package: insurance company and regular single-guy premium, number of days off/year, etc. - a fairly detailed explanation of the actual work involved in this position: what technologies you'll likely use, what the project is, etc. - number of people in team, how team works together (Scrum/Agile, waterfall, etc.)

If companies would just post all this info with their job requisitions, it'd save everyone a lot of time. I see posting filled with paragraphs and paragraphs of flowery crap about how wonderful their "collaborative team environment" is or their corporate philosophy or whatever, but the things I listed above are what are important to me in a job and what will determine if I'm happy in that job. Spare me the flowery prose about how wonderful your company is; I'll make that determination on my own.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#433

Post by pjmlp » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #426

pjmlp wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, some of us that were already into computers when Sun was a startup got bored of it. Your answer is a typical example of UNIX CLI users that need to express themselves as being more intelligent than GUI users, while forgetting that some us do have enough CLI experience and decided to grew out of it. I can use macros and key + mouse combos in FPS style across many GUI applications and if I ever need a CLI, Powersh…

Mouse use has a much higher risk of CTS and other work-related injuries. [1] I've worked at startups and enterprise environments, and what has always remained constant at every Microsoft/Enterprise company is the troves of obese, unhealthy, arthritic middle-managers that can barely use a computer anymore because they got lazy and succumbed to using GUIs to get their basic work done. Now, they are stuck on MS because…

> By surrendering to the mouse and the GUI, my older co-workers are low-quality producers, exceedingly lazy, and otherwise slowly dying.

I could say the same for the co-workers from a very well known fortune 500 I worked for. They were all using HP-UX.

> My console emulator has looked the same for the last ten years. Innovation hasn't slowed me down at all.

Yep that says it all. Hardly the example of what innovation means.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#434

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

koevet wrote: post #110

"Contractors are generally not the strongest technically" Where does this come from? I actually see a contractor as someone who had experienced way more "war stories" than the guy who has been sitting in the same chair for 10/20 years. As a contractor, you are exposed to more technologies, more business sectors, different working cultures.

Depends on the area of expertise and how you buy that expertise.

Many contractors are really installers, and are great at bootstrapping a product or service. But... they know little or nothing about the actual running of the thing they setup. They don't get how to integrate their product's magic with your ITSM system, or what metrics to monitor, etc.

On the developer side, I've seen more than my share of consultants who are high-priests of whatever methodology/language/framework religion they preach, but have a hard time delivering value.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#435

Post by bpchaps » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

pkamb wrote: post #423

> who was tragically underemployed for years because of his low GPA in college. Is this really a thing? Just don't list your GPA...

Sometimes they flat out just ask, though. When I interviewed at google, they asked me my college GPA. After telling them I left college before getting a degree, they just repeated the same question. Silliness.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#436

Post by smellf » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

SonicSoul wrote: post #415

smellf wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why it's a problem is because when a coworker is always in his or her own little bubble and you know nothing about them it is harder to get along with them and thus harder to work with them. And by the same token, if you like and get along with the people in your environment, then you'll be happier and thus more productive.

I don't believe in this at all. Some of the most effective people I've worked with were people that quietly worked in their own space for 4 hrs before lunch and 4 hrs after lunch. Some of them socialized with coworkers after hours, some didn't. At least in engineering field I don't believe it is important to be that open with people unless maybe you're in sales and need that social vibe all day to keep in state. Engi…

Sure, those people who keep entirely to themselves may be highly effective programmers. But they will likely not be effective communicators, and unless they are their own manager and work on teams of one, they are going to be less effective overall than someone who can communicate.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#437

Post by mooreds » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #275

mooreds wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. I definitely wasted time interviewing underqualified people. But I wasted time interviewing some overqualified people too (because of salary/location expectations that should have been communicated up front). Actually, all of interviewing feels like wasted time (you have this burning need, and you want to fill it yesterday, or better yet a month ago, and yet you have to go through this process and learn about all…

>But I wasted time interviewing some overqualified people too (because of salary/location expectations that should have been communicated up front). Well that's your own fault as the job advertiser, and when I say "you", I mean almost all companies that advertise jobs. You almost never state the salaries to be paid, so tons of peoples' time gets wasted by pointless interviewing which gets followed up with insultingly…

Why should the company lead with what they are willing to pay? Why is it on the company and not the possible employee? Why shouldn't every phone screen begin with the possible employee saying "this is my salary range" and politely exiting the call if the screener won't validate that the salary offered is within that range?

When I buy a car, the person selling the car sets the price. I can take it or leave it.

When I rent a house, the landlord sets the price. I can take it or leave it.

When I'm selling my labor as an employee, why am I not the person setting the price that the company takes or leaves?

I'll tell you why, because the first party to state a number in any negotiation is at a disadvantage, because the counter party suddenly has more information.

Now, there's a valid case that the employer/employee relationship is asymmetrical enough as it is (one employer -> many employees) that the company should give up that negotiating point, but if I ran a company, I'd want to justify that. (There's also a case to be made that, especially with knowledge work, the employee has an asymmetrical advantage because they know how hard they are working, and it's hard for the employer to know.)

That said, when I enter into a new engagement to sell my labor, aka an interview, I do my best to make sure they want to buy my time before I set a price. It's negotiation.

Edit: I love the parent comment even though we disagree, upvoted.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#438

Post by grandalf » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #378

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…

> - rationality -- can this person admit to being wrong and speak about it authentically... can I imagine this person admitting to being slightly wrong and even very wrong about something and handling it gracefully. I think this is a super important characteristic for a great employee to have, but I don't know how reasonable it is to expect to see much of it in an interview. In an interview setting, the candidate is…

Just to clarify, I do not suggest asking about mistakes a person has made. That is both a hint that I'm looking for a flattering narrative and not quite true. I'm looking for someone who can think back and identify the things he/she was wrong about. What were the false assumptions, how did those come to light, how would you solve a similar problem differently after that experience, etc.

In other words, is the candidate someone who has a rational meta-process going on about his/her decisions and is able to refine his/her approach based on learnings. I'm ideally looking for small things that show clear evidence of that kind of thought process.

As for body language, I agree, and I think my choice of the term "poker face" was a bad way of describing a certain kind of evasiveness which can indicate bad motives or bad people skills, either of which can make the person a bad hire.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#439

Post by SonicSoul » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:41 PM UTC

smellf wrote: post #436

SonicSoul wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe in this at all. Some of the most effective people I've worked with were people that quietly worked in their own space for 4 hrs before lunch and 4 hrs after lunch. Some of them socialized with coworkers after hours, some didn't. At least in engineering field I don't believe it is important to be that open with people unless maybe you're in sales and need that social vibe all day to keep in state. Engi…

Sure, those people who keep entirely to themselves may be highly effective programmers. But they will likely not be effective communicators, and unless they are their own manager and work on teams of one, they are going to be less effective overall than someone who can communicate.

ahh, I get it. It's the openness while interacting, not necessarily eagerness to initiate interaction. I agree with this.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#440

Post by tracker1 » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

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…

Regarding your last point... sometimes, it's a matter of being professional. You don't want to go on a diatribe about all that was wrong in a former position or company. It depends on context of course, but in the end, sometimes there are reasons not to be completely open.

In my personal life, I try to live unfiltered. Not mean, and work more to filter on sensitive subjects, but I mean that let thoughts, even incomplete ones flow. Otherwise, I personally tend to stay in my head, and not let much of anything out. It's a balance.

I can't speak for others, but would say that your interpretation on the last point may not always be the correct one.