Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup • Hacker News Board

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#51

Post by twic » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:25 PM UTC

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…

> spend a few hours dredging up people they worked with from our networks

What if there aren't any?

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#52

Post by withdavidli » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #35

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…

Exactly. Here's an example: I once had a chat over coffee with a hiring manager for a smallish company that seemed interested in me. We talked about my background and accomplishments, went over a few example problems to see how I'd work through them, discussed a little about the company and the project. Everything was going great, and he seemed pretty pleased. At the end was a handshake and "You seem great for the jo…

Someone needs to train that hiring manager. They gave you no heads up about the process. There might even be a chance the hiring manager didn't know you would have to interview afterwards if the company was small enough. Did you contact the manager afterwards? If the company doesn't have a defined process the manager might have been able to talk to HR to directly give you the offer.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#53

Post by geoelectric » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

Mentioned in a comment or two, but want to highlight. Be up front with salary ranges, especially if you want people to come in and pair, etc.

I had a great initial process with a promising startup who wanted to graduate to a "we'll pay you contract rates to work with us a couple of days" sort of evaluation.

Since I was a FTE elsewhere and would have had to take PTO, I asked for a comp talk first. While I had no expectation to make the same salary I already was, I discovered their high end was way under what I'd calculated as a max pay cut I could take and still pay bills. It probably would've gone above water a round or two of funding later, but I would potentially have drained my savings waiting around. Unless I were founding, that would've been unacceptable.

I'm glad I forced the talk first or else that would've been a frustrating end to the process. My basic take is the more you ask as part of your evaluation process, the more you need to make sure it's even a possibility for both sides.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#54

Post by kafkaesq » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #35

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…

Exactly. Here's an example: I once had a chat over coffee with a hiring manager for a smallish company that seemed interested in me. We talked about my background and accomplishments, went over a few example problems to see how I'd work through them, discussed a little about the company and the project. Everything was going great, and he seemed pretty pleased. At the end was a handshake and "You seem great for the jo…

Had a similar-ish experience once -- meeting the hiring manager for coffee, knowing this would be a prelude to a standard onsite interview (which I was fine with).

And it was a very productive discussion. We talked about a lot of some pretty high-level stuff, both technology-wise and business-wise -- possible failure modes in their fraud detection process; customer acquisition strategies moving forward, etc.. Not in a fuzzy, "whatever" way -- but in a serious, analytical way. You know, high-level, adult stuff.

The weird part? When I got the schedule for the interview (btw several more hours in length than the "couple of hours" we had initially talked about -- but we'll let that slide for now), the first thing they wanted be to do was come in at 9 AM for a session on "logic problems" -- you know: pirates, gold coins, poisoned wine bottles -- for a whole hour.

To which I wanted to say, "Wait -- didn't we just have a conversation in that cafe demonstrating exactly the level of critical thinking skills you're looking for (arguably at a much more nuanced level, in fact), and applied actual, real problems -- not silly, made-up puzzle problems?"

But of course I felt too shy to just come out and say that. So made up some excuse about "accepting another offer", instead.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#55

Post by georgespencer » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

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…

It's a great question!

Firstly by taking a bigger sample of references it's more likely we will find commonalities in the negative points.

Secondly we get different perspectives on negative traits. The man you fired who hates you because you were a micromanager is balanced by the woman who was your boss and wanted you to keep close to the person underneath.

Disqualifying things are generally not specific. It's a multiplicity of people saying "do not hire this person."

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#56

Post by godzillabrennus » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 10:26 PM UTC

fecak wrote: post #13

18 year agency recruiter here. The problem with most recruiters today is that they are so concerned with controlling the process that they get in the way of letting two adults have a dialogue, and the recruiting industry is inundated with junior level people who don't know what they are doing. The theory is that if the recruiter has a high level of control over both candidate and client, the odds of a positive outcom…

June, is a startup working to make the communication between employers and candidates more easily accessible.

http://www.joinjune.com

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#57

Post by nrjdhsbsid » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #40

poikniok wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow this truly sounds horrible, glad I have never had to go through something like this.

What in particular sounds horrible? It's been a very effective way of making sure we ramp up hires quickly because we have opinions from multiple people who worked with them.

References are stupid to rely on. Opinions are just... Opinions. If a shop was asking around for what is essentially gossip about me I would run for the hills.

Some real problems relying on references that aren't really fixable too:

#1 good luck getting references from anyone they weren't friends with. If you "find your own" you're a special kind of evil if they're still employed. You could make someone lose their job without even making an offer. It's lose-lose

#2 It's so easy to fake references that the people you don't want will have you talking to "the king of timbuktu". The best references will come from the biggest liars

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#58

Post by rz2k » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 11:27 PM UTC

georgespencer wrote: post #43

rz2k wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do agree with what you're saying, but also know of instances in finance where people have been fired for theft, then fired for the same thing again, because people were too wary of giving any information other than period of employment. Similar stories also occur among managers that move from one small town government to the next.

The laws that these people are benefiting from are meant to protect people like whistleblowers, those who fought back against discrimination, or just personality conflicts from following people the rest of their careers, but there can be a risk even when this extra background information is above board.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#59

Post by user5994461 » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 12:51 AM UTC

fecak wrote: post #13

18 year agency recruiter here. The problem with most recruiters today is that they are so concerned with controlling the process that they get in the way of letting two adults have a dialogue, and the recruiting industry is inundated with junior level people who don't know what they are doing. The theory is that if the recruiter has a high level of control over both candidate and client, the odds of a positive outcom…

> the recruiting industry is inundated with junior level people who don't know what they are doing.

Agree. That's killing it for me.

The typical message from a new recruiter who dropped out of school or just pivoted to that less than 2 months ago, trying to sell positions (s)he no clue about at companies (s)he doesn't want to tell.

> A recruiter should also be helpful in providing guidance on situations like these.

Agree. I think recruiters should be

1) good middle men negotiations. To advise and prevent the rookie mistakes. Most candidates have very little experience with that (Think, like guys who'll message their dates 12 times in the day because she didn't answer yet.)

2) good contract and professional advisors. It can get really tricky to arrange job offers and contracts, like arranging the start/leave date and notice periods with whatever special stuff apply to your circumstances, at 3 simultaneous competing companies that you know you'll only stay at a single one in the end.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#60

Post by user5994461 » Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 1:12 AM UTC

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…

> A million different ways of doing things -- but referencing is so often overlooked and I've never understood why.

Because it's worthless.

There is a 1% chance that you'll find out that "that guy" was a drug dealed and he was let go.

The other 99%. It's impossible to know if you're calling a friend of him, if you're talking with an ex-grumpy manager who's backstabby (that may be why the guy left in the first place), if you're reaching someone at all (do you seriously expect employees to have valid phone numbers from people they've worked with 5 years ago and the numbers are still valid??? wtf), and of course you can't get nor trust references for the current company (you're not only rattling him out but the reference may have a serious incentive to lie to you in ways you can't possible understand).

And last but not least, all consulting and sweat shops will ask and insist for name and references of everything, not to hire you BUT to go harass your companies as potential customers for their services.

IMO: references are optimizing against everything they're supposed to help with. Never do referencing. Stop interviews when people insist on references.

[P.S. Answering reference requests is a liability that's putting you at risk (and it's forbidden in a lot of places). Don't do it. The only acceptable answer is "That guy has worked with us around . That's all I can tell you."]