This is a great post!
We only hire the trendiest
471–480 of 728 posts
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Some people are vegetarians. Others are Muslim or Jewish and only eat halal/kosher foods.
Many groups are discriminated against (historically or presently), and members of those groups may not be too keen to open themselves up to unfair stereotyping. I've dated a girl who would never tell a prospective employer she was Jewish; she just wouldn't eat a pork dish and would probably seem evasive to you.
That doesn't even account for those who may just be squeamish or petrified of insects. Still others have embarrassing dietary restrictions.
It's hard to fathom when you have mainstream traits and limitations (it certainly was for me), but many people who consider themselves others are reluctant to give away information that could later be used to hurt them. Sadly, this reluctance is often justified.
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#473> Anyway, (1) is code for “Mike’s a .NET dev, and we don’t like people with Windows experience”.
To be fair, this is legitimate although poorly phrased. A more correct version might read: "We're interested in folks who have more experience with GNU/Linux and open technologies."
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#474I see wonderful symmetry here. There are TrendyCos (hot startup unicorns), BigCos (established companies like google or amazon or microsoft) and UnknownCos (not in the limelight so there is not much information about them). Likewise there are TrendyDevs (hotshots who produce one heavily github-starred framework after another), BigCoDevs (multiple years of experience at one of the BigCos, probably were responsible for…
There's no magic to it at all. Have every candidate work on programming problems related to the work you do at your company. Have every candidate work on the same problems, and let them do it from home. Build and iterate on a rubric for grading those challenges. It is amazing to me that almost nobody does this, but: almost nobody does this. They have programmers write code on a whiteboard, or on some whiteboard-codin…
I agree that this is "better" than the alternative, but it can be absolutely exhausting for candidates actively searching for a job. I feel like it's recently become much, much more common (from my small-ish sample of me and some friends).
My issue with this approach is fourfold:
1. Most companies have no idea how to structure a problem that is both informative to them and also not abusive to the candidates time.
2. Companies generally do this right after the recruiter phone screen, which most likely doesn't give the candidate enough information to decide if the next steps are worth their time.
3. Most companies still do a whole suite of normal tech screens after you work on a take home problem.
4. If you're actively looking, getting a bunch of these over a short period of time is likely. I know during my full time search, more than 50% of companies had a take home test right after the recruiter screen. Most of these were 4-8 hours of work each, due within the week.
A lot of startups structure it more like hazing or a barrier to entry than an evaluation criteria. I have some fun (read: horrifying) anecdotes from my recent search that illustrate the problems above, but I don't think any of my points are surprising.
A nice alternative would have been to simply have one or two projects completed that are straightforward to evaluate and walk companies through them, letting them ask me questions.
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If you have personal problems with people - check references. People will rarely state that such a person who causes problems is a "joy" to work with.
yeah, we do that too.
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#476I'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…
It's telling that in your list you never once mentioned "Actually possesses the technical skills required to do a good job."
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the sentiment behind this, but bear in mind that interviewing is a two way street - and the company is often spending a lot more on it than you are (of course, they can better afford it). That's worth possibly negotiating the amount of time or staging earlier parts with less impact. I wouldn't say no to an interview that is going to burn a day, but I also wouldn't go to one without a pretty good feeling that I…
you're asking me to feel bad for a company that probably has millions in seed funding for investing a day in a new hire? hah, no, not going to happen. I (and probably most people here) already have a job that pays me for the work I do, this company can either do the same or they can walk. The one thing that's not going to happen is for me to pity them for the money they are investing.
No, I didn't ask you to feel bad for them. I only pointed out that there is at least some symmetry in the situation. I don't know where you got the very odd idea that pity is/should be involved.
There is no reason that you can't have a mature interaction with a company where you both agree to invest some time and effort in a process that could benefit both of you. If it looks like a bad risk to you, don't go. If you are doing a competent job of this, you should know what an interview process looks like before you agree to the interview. If there are aspect of it you aren't sure about, you should ask about them. If their reasoning doesn't convince you - respectfully decline the interview.
The most valuable thing about an interview process is an exchange of information. Thinking about it too much as a time-for-money trade off can miss this point. Of course, if you can find a more time efficient way to exchange the same information, that's good all around.
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#478In interviews I actively try to down play the companies I've worked for and the things I've done with them. The reason I do this is that I don't want people to come in with unrealistic expectations and expect me to live up to them. I also don't believe in preparing for interviews. I'm ok with the rough edges I have. I want my imperfections to come through on some level. Yes I have a preference for certain technologie…
[deleted]
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#479Earlier 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…
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.
If you're going to do this level of hazing, save yourself some time and just have the candidates compete in a big Jeopardy match. Those that don't know will stay silent, those that know will answer correctly, those that don't know but answer anyway will be punished more than if they stayed silent.
Personally I'm pretty tolerant of a lot of BS, depending on the person. Sometimes it's just a cognitive quirk that someone uses BS to search around their brain see if they can trigger some association that lets them remember, or discover that they really don't know. Saying "I don't know" immediately is often the wrong thing to say (especially in interview settings) when the real answer is "I don't remember, let me rediscover / look that up", but not many interviewers let you look things up or will mark you down if you say you'd need a reference for X though you studied X some years ago in college like everyone else and might work it out (after wading through a bunch of BS and false-starts in general) if you had unlimited time and no pressure...
Re: We only hire the trendiest
#480In interviews I actively try to down play the companies I've worked for and the things I've done with them. The reason I do this is that I don't want people to come in with unrealistic expectations and expect me to live up to them. I also don't believe in preparing for interviews. I'm ok with the rough edges I have. I want my imperfections to come through on some level. Yes I have a preference for certain technologie…
If you don't prep for interviews then how do you handle all of the arcane theory heavy questions that a company like Google or Facebook will ask?