We only hire the trendiest • Hacker News Board

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#461

Post by fweespee_ch » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:01 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…

> - poker face -- does this person seem to be playing it close to the vest in the interview or otherwise have very low levels of openness? This is a big warning sign and an instant do not hire.

You do realize many people are just naturally hard to read right?

I'm so hard to read people have made comments about how, if I was going to a wedding, they couldn't be sure if it was mine based on how neutral my delivery is.

The only time I'm easy to read is when I'm visibly irritated and/or angry.

This is also part of why people think I have a temper, they miss literally all the warning signs for weeks/months/years so to them it comes out of "nowhere" despite the fact I've verbally expressed unhappiness to varying degrees. However, the neutrality of the delivery causes them to assume I don't care that much [so they continue, repeatedly].

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#462

Post by pklausler » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:03 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…

A key distinction is that daters who are really good at identifying the right life partners are rarely on the market.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#463

Post by BrandonM » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:03 PM UTC

knappe wrote: post #431

awinder wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dating only has many meetings if you don't tank the first one.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#464

Post by grandalf » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:03 PM UTC

rntz wrote: post #446

grandalf wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 candida…

> 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. As a practical matter, how do you detect this kind of "evasiveness", and differentiate it from (say) plain old introversion or nervousness?

Good point. I certainly require more than a few moments where I sense it before I feel confident in considering someone's behavior evasive.

Suppose you're having a conversation with someone and in 15 minutes one of you chosen at random is going to have to trust the other with his/her life. What kinds of signals indicate that the person is trustworthy, understands the potential future, and is accurately representing him/herself?

There are some people where I never feel the kind of connection I'd want to feel in that scenario, and others where I feel it fairly early on in the interaction. Just a kind of straightforwardness, not extraversion or social comfort.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#465

Post by wrong_variable » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:05 PM UTC

borkabrak wrote: post #371

Holy cow, was this a refreshing perspective. I'm one of those underrated engineers who has had trouble getting past nearly every phase of the hiring process at various times. It's frustrating because I'm pretty smart and very passionate about building software, especially tools. This bias against having the wrong keywords on your resume is incredibly unproductive,I agree, but I would guess it's a result of how little…

Do you happen to be somewhere near London ?

write a message in this thread if you are interested in writing front-end javascript or backend go.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#466

Post by grandalf » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:06 PM UTC

mdpopescu wrote: post #459

grandalf wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be more specific about openness. It's not bad to be socially introverted. Many of us are somewhat, especially in comparison to the average member of the population. But imagine you're at a restaurant with your team and someone orders a dish you've never tried. Do you simply decline to try a bite? Or do you try a small bite in case you might like it? I find that openness to new experience correlates highly with g…

Replace dish with drink (or worse, joint). Do you still think people who "decline to try" have a problem? That they should try in case they might like it? I'm really NOT keen on trying chocolate-cover ants, thank you.

Nobody should try anything they are uncomfortable with, and I think involving substances in the workplace (except in moderation) can be risky.

But why not try one ant? I'd try one.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#467

Post by solipsism » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

pklausler wrote: post #458

Cerium wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the company I work at when we interview we tend to ask tougher and tougher questions until the candidate either starts spouting BS or replies that they don't know. BS is a no-hire.

An ability to state "I don't know that" without shame is a strong positive signal of intellectual maturity, but I'm not sure that I'd want to press it out of a candidate by asking an impossible question, if it had to get to that point. The process that you describe isn't one that I would feel comfortable using, but I like the objective.

No one said "impossible". Just harder and harder. I think this is okay, especially if the interviewee knows that's the plan. Make sure they shed the notion that they're expected to know everything that is asked of them, let them know that your plan is to challenge them.

A developer who can't accept a challenge that stretches his/her boundaries a little bit is probably not a developer you want.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#468

Post by IamFermat » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:08 PM UTC

My experience is that cultural fit is important but more important is attitude. There's a set of can-do attitude that will almost always fix the cultural issues unless it's a very distinct cultures. Most cultures are just about being open, etc. But so few are actually hungry and have can-do attitudes.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#469

Post by pklausler » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

solipsism wrote: post #467

pklausler wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ability to state "I don't know that" without shame is a strong positive signal of intellectual maturity, but I'm not sure that I'd want to press it out of a candidate by asking an impossible question, if it had to get to that point. The process that you describe isn't one that I would feel comfortable using, but I like the objective.

No one said "impossible". Just harder and harder. I think this is okay, especially if the interviewee knows that's the plan. Make sure they shed the notion that they're expected to know everything that is asked of them, let them know that your plan is to challenge them. A developer who can't accept a challenge that stretches his/her boundaries a little bit is probably not a developer you want.

I completely agree that I want to hire programmers who want to constantly learn and improve, but I'm not sure that I should expect them to do so during a stressful high-stakes interview.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#470

Post by p4wnc6 » Mon, Mar 21, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #450

p4wnc6 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> appears to be “strategic” The key word is appears which is just a game of status and certification.

Somehow, I don't think we're going to find any agreement here, when your comments consistently dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as having an invalid perspective.

I am striving to back up my disagreement with cogent points. The excuses that are used to justify the anti-human way that we allow HR-type thinking to structure our working lives are something I am passionate about criticizing.

There are a lot of time-honored HR-type tactics used to try to justify and proliferate these anti-human patterns, and I do wholeheartedly acknowledge that my belief is that attempts to defend them are fundamentally invalid.

In the sense of principled sociological understanding of bureaucracy, such as in the book Moral Mazes, it's probably the aspect of technology culture that I am most interested in.

You are surely correct in at least some cases where my comments are expressed poorly or come with too little supporting information, but I strive for that to be the minority.