Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hiring Is Broken?

software.rajivprab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 201 posts

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#51

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

oneepic wrote: post #38

This debate will keep happening for years to come, but everyone's just repeating the same talking points over and over. I have to sum up my thoughts like this: I really don't think we're ever going to find a perfect hiring method. You will always have a nonzero chance of false positives and false negatives, and there will always be downsides that piss people off. So, pick a reliable hiring method(s) (talk about exper…

> but we are still able to hire mostly good/trainable people

Wow, you're actually training people? Kudos to you, I haven't seen that in a looong time.

In my current area, everyone only looks for seniors or experienced devs. New grads without connections can suck it basically.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#52

Post by neogodless »

gridlockd wrote: post #43
GoToRO wrote: post #40

Well, none of the above. Anytime you try to gauge someone by counting, it's not going to work well. You need the best developer at your company, to do the hiring. Filtered by HR for personality and so on.

Your "best developer" probably doesn't want someone better than them on the job.

I consider myself an above average developer. In the right situation, I'd even strongly suggest that I can be a 10x developer. But there are so many things I either don't know or could massively improve upon. I joined a team where I feel like the majority of developers around me are at least as good as me or better, maybe much better.

I LOVE IT!

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#53

Post by alexandercrohde »

For those of you not reading this article (appears to be most) - this is a META article:

1. Main thrust is that all the HN posts on this topic are stupid and formulaic

2. Argues that numerous the OTHER posts merely list the negatives for one method of interviewing A, and the positives for another method B.

3. Lists every method of interviewing, showing glaring problems and advantages in each of them. Obviating the need for the discussion ever happening again.

4. Asks for something akin to evidence if we are going to drive the discussion forward.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#54

Post by watwut »

otras wrote: post #5

One thing I’d add is that live coding exercises can vary widely in quality. > If you solve the problem, you’re scored highly. If you don’t, you’re scored poorly. In my own opinion, this is a terrible way to look at these problems, though many people do use this metric. This is further emphasized by HackerRank-style exercises where you have to pass all test cases. This is robotic and not empathic at all. A more fluid…

What is wrong approach and is good approach? I agree that ability to explain and clarify matter in many positions and are real thing. But I never understood what is meant by "approach".

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#55

Post by ebiester »

This goes back to the idea that there is a "fungible" programmer that is universally substitutable between companies. In some companies, I am a highly valuable addition. In others, I am mediocre at best. I think of this like a sports team - a highly performing sports team both needs people of the highest skill and complementary role players that are the best at a valuable skill even if they aren't the best at every skill. It would be great if every team member was excellent at code craft, debugging, collaborating between teams, researching new third party solutions, and whipping up prototypes, but your team may not need all of those.

I don't like the term "culture fit" because it is a proxy for people who are already on the team, and often gets confused for "white, male, and likes to drink with coworkers." That said, I highly value "work style fit" and "team need." Are you running into code quality problems? Find someone who thinks about code quality. Do you need someone who can get a prototype to sales quickly to close a deal? That's a skill, and it's not a generalized skill.

All of the cases above can be valuable, but only contextually. Figure out what your team needs first, then craft your interview process around that.

(As for me? I have been in management for a while, but I am at my best in developing high functioning teams, collaborating between teams to solve larger problems, and crafting high quality solutions. I am not at my best in deep debugging sessions and quick prototyping. If it isn't my own startup, I might not be the ideal choice for employee 1-5. I may be the person you bring in when your team is expanding rapidly and you're running into scaling issues.)

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#56

Post by gridlockd »

esotericn wrote: post #46
gridlockd wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I encourage new developers reading these sort of posts to just ignore the fluff and plug on. You'll get there. > And if not? In five years you might want something else entirely. No offense, but this isn't good advice. You just contradicted yourself within two sentences. Here's the "true" version of this statement: You may not actually "get there". You may or may not want something else entirely, after that potenti…

The point I am making is that a qualified software engineer will eventually figure out something to do with their life. Not, however, if they stick dogmatically to the idea that it's Google or bust. I'm not talking about a lucrative job; a middle class existence; a big fancy company; any of that shit. I'm saying that an intelligent human being needs to realise that the world is not necessarily set up for them and the…

> The point I am making is that a qualified software engineer will eventually figure out something to do with their life.

Fair enough. A true scotsman will never put sugar on his porridge.

> I'm saying that an intelligent human being needs to realise that the world is not necessarily set up for them and they either need to fit in, or carve their own path.

Indeed, a human being must either do one thing, or, failing that, do another thing.

There's at least two ways of reading what you are saying. In the one reading, you are giving questionable encouragement. In the other reading, what you are saying is a tautology.

I assumed the former, but apparently you meant the latter. You were right all along.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#57

Post by track_me_now »

What about focus on direct referrals who have worked with a current employee? The highest signaling characteristic I've ever found is someone who was recommended by a former coworker; there's a transitive relationship that seems to capture both the technical skills and a comfortable fit.

I realize this doesn't scale to the rapid growth of some companies, but most of us need a more modest supply of talent vs. giant pools of people.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#58

Post by esotericn »

gridlockd wrote: post #56
esotericn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I am making is that a qualified software engineer will eventually figure out something to do with their life. Not, however, if they stick dogmatically to the idea that it's Google or bust. I'm not talking about a lucrative job; a middle class existence; a big fancy company; any of that shit. I'm saying that an intelligent human being needs to realise that the world is not necessarily set up for them and the…

> The point I am making is that a qualified software engineer will eventually figure out something to do with their life. Fair enough. A true scotsman will never put sugar on his porridge. > I'm saying that an intelligent human being needs to realise that the world is not necessarily set up for them and they either need to fit in, or carve their own path. Indeed, a human being must either do one thing, or, failing th…

The better analogy would be - if you have no oats, stop trying to make porridge. Or go and get some oats.

It is indeed tautological.

Which is my primary complaint about the prevalent attitude displayed in these hiring posts.

Porridge isn't going to change its' recipe for you.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#59

Post by track_me_now »

esotericn wrote: post #17
Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have generally been rather disappointed with Google/FANG software developers. These companies generally though not always avoid the bottom 1/3 of the talent pool, but that’s about it. Effectively they simply select for people willing to hack their hiring process, which also excludes most actually talented developers. Resulting in a few very talented people, and an overall average workforce. This is also why most in…

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Fundamentally, companies do not hire for raw technical ability. Would you hire Linus for your bog standard dev role? Of course not. He'd be bored in days. You probably wouldn't want a supermodel as a life partner. The whole thing is about selecting model employees. People who will rock the boat in the correct ways; need money, but are neither impoverished nor independent; are reliable; an…

Very good point. The best developer I ever worked with said to me one time "I'm thoroughly unemployable", meaning his skills, motivations and long term goals did not match what-so-ever with those of a employee developer.

He was a great resource but hiring him permanently would be a terrible mistake for all parties.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#60

Post by Retric »

ptasci67 wrote: post #31
Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have generally been rather disappointed with Google/FANG software developers. These companies generally though not always avoid the bottom 1/3 of the talent pool, but that’s about it. Effectively they simply select for people willing to hack their hiring process, which also excludes most actually talented developers. Resulting in a few very talented people, and an overall average workforce. This is also why most in…

This is one of those statements that is too broad to be true. We can't wave a wand and just say developers at FAANG companies are better than the bottom 1/3 and no more. You do have a point here which I do agree with which most of those companies would refer to as "culture fit". Agree with it or not, having an employee that gels with the team is a critical aspect to hire for. You could have 10 Jeff Deans and get noth…

That’s a fair point, but in my experience professionalism trumps what is generally considered cultural fit. Also, while I agree ranking people is going to be team and role specific, much of what makes people effective is fairly universal.

Personally, I would place technical skill at around 50% of what makes up a talented software developer. Effective communication, ability and willingness to work with others, flexibly, work ethic, attention to detail, prioritization, etc are all important. But, I have found these things really tend to go together.

Post reply on HN