
What if we hired writers like we hire developers - antrix
http://hitesh.in/2012/hiring-process/
======
kkowalczyk
This ignores different realities in how programmers and writers work.

If you're hiring a writer, you cam ask to see his previous work. Unless he
worked for CIA, he can point to books he's written, articles he published etc.
You can then read them and that's all you need to make a decision if he's
competent enough (you might still interview for cultural fit).

If you're hiring a senior engineer that claims he spent last 5 years coding
Big Table at Google, you have to take his word for it. It's not that you
wouldn't like to see all his past checkins, you just can't in most cases.

Not being able to see past work, we do the next best thing: interviews, coding
questions etc.

The simple explanation is: we don't hire programmers like writers because we
can't, not because people hiring programmers are inexplicably so much more
incompetent than people hiring writers (despite running much more profitable
businesses).

This is changing a bit due to open-source in that more and more people _are_
hired like writers i.e. based on their publicly available past work, but it'll
never be the case that every programmer will be able to show his past code.

~~~
jaems33
Where is the fine line between coding tests and spec work?

I'm not a programmer, but I've seen startups co-founded by engineers try
hiring designers in a similar fashion to I assume programmers as they test
designers with a variety of unpaid projects. I've found it to be pretty
annoying given that I've already shown a portfolio of work and it's not unlike
spec work. I get that some people may have fabricated their history, but
that's why some companies do a trial period before committing to a full-time
gig.

~~~
kkowalczyk
I don't think the line is fine.

If I ask someone to implement a linked list during 1hr interview, it's clear
that it's not because I need a linked list implementation in my company.

If I ask someone to stay for a week to work on the company's code base, that's
clearly a work that should be paid for at a market rate.

Similarly, I'm pretty sure that you, as a designer, know without a doubt when
company's request crosses the line from "I need to make sure you know what
you're doing" to "I need you to do free work for me".

------
FreakLegion
_> Good spellings and knowledge of grammar rules does not indicate a good
writer, and there are tools (spelling/grammar check) and (editorial) processes
to take care of that._

Good grammar doesn't indicate a good writer, but bad grammar does indicate a
bad one[1]. (Good grammar meaning, in this case, an ear for language. Good
writers avoid grammatical errors because grammatical errors _sound wrong_ ,
like an off-pitch note to a musician[2]. Explicit knowledge of grammar isn't
particularly important. For example, good writers may not know what the
subjunctive mood _is_ , but they know how and when to _use_ it. Conversely, a
writer who has the knowledge but lacks the ear is in for a rough ride.)

1\. Unless it's for effect, obviously, which can range from Rimbaud's "Je est
un autre" to Zora Neal Hurston.

2\. Which, of course, may also be done for effect. Which is why listing out
rules (about writing, about music, etc.) is so fruitless. Which is true even
if the rule is "Don't start three sentences in a row with the word 'which.'"

~~~
chii
"Good grammar doesn't indicate a good writer, but bad grammar does indicate a
bad one"

that is not true at all - not knowing grammar well doesn't mean the writer has
nothing good or creative, or worthwhile to say (or write about).

Grammar is just a technicality to be overcome. Creative writing (as opposed to
technical writing), is something that is not measured by the knowledge of the
language, but by the knowledge of humanity, science, culture and anything that
intersects in between. An eye for details also helps. But not grammar.

~~~
zbyszek
Having something good, creative or worthwhile to say and saying it well are
two different things. I understand the phrse "good writer" to mean the latter.
Too often have I come across excellent insights buried like diamonds in a
dungheap in ugly, tortuous prose. This runs the great risk of these insights
being lost or misinterpreted. The converse is possible too, of course; utter
nonsense put beautifully.

~~~
vacri
To support that, ghostwriters and copywriters are two examples of writers that
take the gist of another person's thoughts and express them well in writing.
They are creative writers, but they don't necessarily have to have anything to
say to do their job.

------
bambax
A developer is a writer; one writes English and the other writes code, but
they both write _to a human audience_ (the only "code" a machine needs to see
is 0s and 1s; programming languages are for humans).

So there really shouldn't be a big difference in hiring a writer vs. a
developer; and a good test would probably be to have developers write essays
in English about a technical question: can they make themselves understood?

I would not hire a developer who is incapable of explaining what he's doing,
why he's doing it, what the other options are, etc.

Wouldn't it be a good technique to have interviewees bring an example of their
own code that they're especially proud of, and have them explain what it does
and why it's great?

~~~
babarock
> A developer is a writer; one writes English and the other writes code, but
> they both write to a human audience (the only "code" a machine needs to see
> is 0s and 1s; programming languages are for humans).

I definitely agree with this! That's what I had been thinking the whole time
while reading the articles and the comment threads. This is also my motto,
here in the office.

It's too simple to say that there are differences between writers and
programmers. I think "writer" should be treated as an umbrella term that
encompasses braod ranges of skills. After all, a journalist, a poet, a
technical writer and a translator aren't really doing the same thing, are
they? I like to believe that the core subset of skills needed to be one of
these is also needed (or at least highly valued) to be a good programmer.

Programming is writing. Absolutely.

------
brandnewlow
At many newspapers they ask prospective reporters for

1\. Clips (writing samples) 2\. A copy editing test (to make sure they write
cleanly) 3\. Actual stories written from some facts or info provided.

That's not so different from asking a developer to write some code during
technical interviews. Good clean copy requires similar precision, but your
compiler happens to be a human.

~~~
Cd00d
I think it's very different to give someone a weekend to do an edit test and
story sample, than to demand code whilst looking over the applicant's
shoulder. One is much like how normal work is done, and the other adds
unnecessary stress and pressure that is rare in a functioning workplace.

~~~
roc
So give them the weekend to do the code test.

------
Gustomaximus
I had to hire a writer previously. Not being a writer, and never having done
this before I was wondering what I could ask them. But it seems more relevant
just to ask them to write something than to quiz them or ask them to repeat
tongue twisters (I don't understand the benefit of that). So I did 2 rounds
where I asked candidates to write a short article on a topic with some loose
instructions. I figured, whatever they answer in interview questions the real
candidate I wanted will be found based on what article they chose to write and
the actual quality of their writing.

For the more typical Q&A interview process all I wanted to find out was would
they be a good cultural fit.

Perhaps I oversimplified it but it worked out quite well.

------
Smudge
The tongue twister was a dead giveaway. Personally, I'd walk out (or hang up)
as soon as the Oxford Comma came up, but I have less patience than most.

~~~
Dylan16807
Really? I thought the Oxford Comma question was the only useful one there. You
might have to define the term but it's good at showing basic knowledge of
grammar conventions.

Anyway this article has a point that this process isn't effective for finding
_good_ writers, but I'll be damned if asking people to write _one or two
sentences_ doesn't filter out the illiterate people that wander in your door
(think FizzBuzz).

~~~
mkr-hn
A writing sample is a great filter. Any good writer will jump at the chance to
write out a quick (and good) piece of text if it means they might get paid.

~~~
simonbrown
Why would a good writer be any more likely to do this than a bad writer?
Surely it would depend on market conditions?

~~~
mkr-hn
It's easy to write out a few sentences or a paragraph for something you're
interested in. If you really want to test a writer, ask them for their opinion
on traditional publishing. There's no "right" answer, but most writers have an
opinion on it and shouldn't have trouble writing a little on the subject.

------
tokenadult
It looks like it's time to recycle some electrons and post the FAQ that Hacker
News readers have helped me put together with their previous thoughtful
comments about hiring procedures. There are many discussions here on HN about
company hiring procedures. From participants in earlier discussions I have
learned about many useful references on the subject, which I have gathered
here in a FAQ file. The review article by Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter,
"The Validity and Utility of Selection Models in Personnel Psychology:
Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,"
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, No. 2, 262-274

[http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...](http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf)

sums up, current to 1998, a meta-analysis of much of the HUGE peer-reviewed
professional literature on the industrial and organizational psychology
devoted to business hiring procedures. There are many kinds of hiring
criteria, such as in-person interviews, telephone interviews, resume reviews
for job experience, checks for academic credentials, and so on. There is much
published study research on how job applicants perform after they are hired in
a wide variety of occupations.

The overall summary of the industrial psychology research in reliable
secondary sources is that two kinds of job screening procedures work
reasonably well (but only about at the 0.5 level, standing alone). One is a
general mental ability (GMA) test (an IQ-like test, such as the Wonderlic
personnel screening test). Another is a work-sample test, where the applicant
does an actual task or group of tasks like what the applicant will do on the
job if hired. Each of these kinds of tests has about the same validity in
screening applicants for jobs, with the general mental ability test better
predicting success for applicants who will be trained into a new job. Neither
is perfect (both miss some good performers on the job, and select some bad
performers on the job), but both are better than any other single-factor
hiring procedure that has been tested in rigorous research, across a wide
variety of occupations. So if you are hiring for your company, it's a good
idea to think about how to build a work-sample test into all of your hiring
processes.

Because of a Supreme Court decision in the United States (the decision does
not apply in other countries, which have different statutes about employment),
it is legally risk to give job applicants general mental ability tests such as
a straight-up IQ test (as was commonplace in my parents' generation) as a
routine part of hiring procedures. The Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424
(1971) case

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655598674229196...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655598674229196978&q=Griggs+Duke+Power&hl=en&as_sdt=2,24)

interpreted a federal statute about employment discrimination and held that
general intelligence tests used in hiring that could have a "disparate impact"
on applicants of some protected classes must "bear a demonstrable relationship
to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used." In other words,
a company that wants to use a test like the Wonderlic, or like the SAT, or
like the current WAIS or Stanford-Binet IQ tests, in a hiring procedure had
best conduct a specific validation study of the test related to performance on
the job in question. Some companies do the validation study, and use IQ-like
tests in hiring. Other companies use IQ-like tests in hiring and hope that no
one sues (which is not what I would advise any company). Note that a brain-
teaser-type test used in a hiring procedure could be challenged as illegal if
it can be shown to have disparate impact on some job applicants. A company
defending a brain-teaser test for hiring would have to defend it by showing it
is supported by a validation study demonstrating that the test is related to
successful performance on the job. Such validation studies can be quite
expensive. (Companies outside the United States are regulated by different
laws. One other big difference between the United States and other countries
is the relative ease with which workers may be fired in the United States,
allowing companies to correct hiring mistakes by terminating the employment of
the workers they hired mistakenly. The more legal protections a worker has
from being fired, the more reluctant companies will be about hiring in the
first place.)

The social background to the legal environment in the United States is
explained in many books about hiring procedures

[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-
GZkw6...](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-
GZkw6TEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA271&dq=Validity+and+Utility+of+Selection+Models+in+Personnel+Psychology&ots=iCXkgXrlOV&sig=ctblj9SW2Dth7TceaFSNIdVMoEw#v=onepage&q=Validity%20and%20Utility%20of%20Selection%20Models%20in%20Personnel%20Psychology&f=false)

[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-
GZkw6...](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-
GZkw6TEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA95&dq=Validity+and+Utility+of+Selection+Models+in+Personnel+Psychology&ots=iCXkgXrnMW&sig=LKLi-
deKtnP20VYZo9x0jfvqzLI#v=onepage&q=Validity%20and%20Utility%20of%20Selection%20Models%20in%20Personnel%20Psychology&f=false)

Some of the social background appears to be changing in the most recent few
decades, with the prospect for further changes.

<http://intl-pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/913.full>

[http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/Fryer_R...](http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/Fryer_Racial_Inequality.pdf)

[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=frfUB3GWl...](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=frfUB3GWlMYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=Validity+and+Utility+of+Selection+Models+in+Personnel+Psychology+%22predictive+validity%22+Duke+Power&ots=5O9Hx_E1vY&sig=g-zERWztBWq3h4guEuv9VVkTh8I#v=onepage&q=Validity%20and%20Utility%20of%20Selection%20Models%20in%20Personnel%20Psychology%20%22predictive%20validity%22%20Duke%20Power&f=false)

Previous discussion on HN pointed out that the Schmidt & Hunter (1998) article
showed that multi-factor procedures work better than single-factor procedures,
a summary of that article we can find in the current professional literature,
for example "Reasons for being selective when choosing personnel selection
procedures" (2010) by Cornelius J. König, Ute-Christine Klehe, Matthias
Berchtold, and Martin Kleinmann:

"Choosing personnel selection procedures could be so simple: Grab your copy of
Schmidt and Hunter (1998) and read their Table 1 (again). This should remind
you to use a general mental ability (GMA) test in combination with an
integrity test, a structured interview, a work sample test, and/or a
conscientiousness measure."

[http://geb.uni-
giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8532/pdf/prepri...](http://geb.uni-
giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8532/pdf/preprint_j.1468_2389.2010.00485.x.pdf)

But the 2010 article notes, looking at actual practice of companies around the
world, "However, this idea does not seem to capture what is actually happening
in organizations, as practitioners worldwide often use procedures with low
predictive validity and regularly ignore procedures that are more valid (e.g.,
Di Milia, 2004; Lievens & De Paepe, 2004; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page,
1999; Scholarios & Lockyer, 1999; Schuler, Hell, Trapmann, Schaar, & Boramir,
2007; Taylor, Keelty, & McDonnell, 2002). For example, the highly valid work
sample tests are hardly used in the US, and the potentially rather useless
procedure of graphology (Dean, 1992; Neter & Ben-Shakhar, 1989) is applied
somewhere between occasionally and often in France (Ryan et al., 1999). In
Germany, the use of GMA tests is reported to be low and to be decreasing
(i.e., only 30% of the companies surveyed by Schuler et al., 2007, now use
them)."

~~~
rdl
Are there any actually useful integrity tests?

~~~
wisty
Look at the personality tests investment banks ask, and reverse the scoring.

\- How often do you go to parties?

\- Do you find it hard to make friends?

\- Are most people basically dishonest?

\- Do you get a buzz out of taking risks?

etc.

~~~
atestu
I'm unfamiliar with these questions… Inverse the scoring? So what, going to
parties is good or bad? How is this relevant to determine if you're good at
your job?

~~~
excuse-me
The other classic bank question is "do you prefer cycling on an exercise bike
or on the road"

I think the idea is that an excerisice bike means you are fitness and
performance orientated and able to work toward a arbitrary goal without any
obvious reward or it means you are willing to do pointless grunt work instead
of something pleasant and interesting - either way you are supposed to say
exercise bike

~~~
rdl
"Exercise bike because I'm somewhat terrified of being around cars, random
people, and far away from home/office without a nice metal cage around me and
a trunk full of storage capacity." Perhaps one of many reasons I don't work at
a bank.

------
tocomment
I think it would be funny to do one of these for hiring plumbers. And you ask
them what toilets they have unclogged outside of work for their own projects.
And if they tell you they won't unclog toilets if they don't get paid, you
dismiss them for having no passion for their work ...

------
kafkaesque
I'm a professional writer; i.e., I get paid to write. I didn't study
journalism but I was in an interdisciplinary programme that consisted of
literature, history, and language (somewhat of a modern day philology degree)
in Canada. I've just recently started to learn how to program.

I think if this hiring process works for you, great! But as someone who
recently started learning to program, I must say writers are vastly different
from developers.

There are different kinds of writing. A novelist and a poet (and maybe even an
essayist) cannot write business letters. Business writing is vastly different
from any creative writing, an SEO writer is neither a creative writer nor a
business writer, and so on and so forth. The difference between business
writing and creative writing is each follow different rules. That is, each
discipline gets away with different things. Creative writing exploits language
any which way possible to get a point across, even if it means breaking the
rules. Business writers are conservative writers. They follow grammar rules
closer, as well as orthography. Most contemporary creative writers use post-
structuralist techniques when telling a story; e.g., levels of narration that
go from a protagonist to a secondary character to the world in which the book
takes place to a far more omniscient narration and much more (narrative modes
can get extremely complex). And if they don't, it is almost a given that a
type of meta analysis of it is acceptable and encouraged (nowadays,
especially). I don't mean to be condescending but business writers use a more
primitive form of writing: straight to the point, the nitty-gritty, the meat
of the matter. Business writers specialize in a different form of writing.
They have more in common with journalists in that they do not exploit
language, but seek the simplest form to explain a concept and be completely
understood with no room for misinterpretation. I've always said half-jokingly
that journalists aren't writers, because they deal with facts and events. I
say this meaning journalists do not explore the frightening realm of creative
writing, they only dabble in it. Few have ventured to write creatively within
their pieces or let abstract concepts permeate throughout an entire piece. For
me, journalists and business writers are data-driven and are hard empiricists.
There is no market for creative journalists in the entire sense of the word
"creative". When companies say "creative" they mean "Can you come up with an
idea in which our audience is interested?"

The proof is actually in the tasting. You say you ask your potential hires to
<i>spell</i> out a word. There is your first mistake. Do you know how many
great writers were poor spellers? Rarely have I seen great writers who are
also great spellers. Great writers have great ideas. This is why the world
invented editors. It is an old cliché, but one that is true. What's more: do
you know professors still teach and believe this? Right, this isn't Academia,
and this brings me to another point. Those who do not major in journalism
learn to write differently. Most of my peers were bad writers, but they might
be a perfect match for a business's needs because they abide by the parameters
set by the company. This brings me back to the point that in most business
settings, people do not want creative writers. They want someone who writes
within the parameters the business calls for or the higher-ups assign.

The Oxford comma. How much does a writer gain by knowing a definition of a
word? Let me expand on what Richard Feynman said about what things are called:
"I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and
knowing something". Definitions belong to the category of "knowing the name of
something". The problem with this type of 'knowledge' is, most of the time,
the interviewer, as someone unfamiliar with the mechanics of language, does
not have the capability to ask and know what function the comma holds when
placed in a list before a coordinating conjunction. You are testing how many
words a writer knows. So, you might as well ask what a Harvard comma is, just
in case, to test if the hire knows this and many other words. Anybody can be a
technical writer. Anybody can learn the simple rules of language enough to
convey a comprehensible idea.

You're essentially looking for a person who fits your idea of a good writer,
which should be understood as being a subjective notion. You have a process
for knowing who can write best sellers? What are you waiting for? There is
lots of money you can be making and, as I'm sure you are a man of science, you
can test your hypothesis of being able to pump out best-selling writers.

Seriously. No. Writing a best seller is a completely different ball game, but
please feel free to prove me wrong by giving me some results.

Also, I'd just like to clarify that I've not even touched upon the nuances and
differing grammar rules from the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK. Suffice it
to say that comma splices are not always incorrect depending on where you live
and there are different rules for comma usage.

Also, the Elements of Style is an archaic and misguided book, for the most
part. None of my professors ever stressed its importance or use.
Unfortunately, I've run out of time and must go now. I wish I could touch on
other points!

Sorry for any 'style errors' - I've not proofread this :P

~~~
nessus42
Did you really not get that the OP is a parody? The point is that this is
obviously NOT the way to hire writers. The implication then being that it is
also not the way to hire programmers, even though, sadly, hiring programers is
typically done just that way these days.

~~~
kafkaesque
No, I did not get it. I think this is because, as I said, I just recently
started learning to program. I started in January, but I do not commit 100% of
my time to it, as I have a full time job that deals with something completely
different.

I know nothing about hiring developers or being a developer.

Also, for the record, I just read in Hitesh's blog's comment section that this
is not about hiring writers.

Thanks, everyone, for not beating me up for it! :)

~~~
soyummy
Here's a development tip:

Obviously, to dabble in programming you must learn the fundamentals-- the
syntax and grammar. However, your ultimate goal is to envision a problem,
device a system that solves the problem, and then gracefully describe that
system using your chosen language. You can always look grammar and syntax up
in the documentation.

I think you will see the parallels to your current occupation.

~~~
scribblemacher
As a Technical Writer trying to weasel his way into more developmenty tasks, I
find this advice insanely insightful. I spend a lot of time frustrated at my
lack of development training, and maybe don't step back enough to clearly
define the problem-solution before opening Vim.

------
mkr-hn
edit: I should be less eager to click buttons

\----

Where do I begin…

'spelling of conscientious'

This would be covered in the first editing pass when I turn the spell checker
on. I don't see what this is meant to demonstrate. Even good writers have
trouble remembering how some words are spelled.

'explain oxford comma'

What's the point of this?

'repeating a tongue twister; I like the “Betty Botter bought a bit of butter”
one.'

What's the point of this?

'Questions about rules in ‘Elements of Style‘'

Elements of Style is not a rulebook. It's a stylebook.

'A few puzzles to test their creativity.'

A good writer is like a good designer. You either like their style or you
don't. If you don't, you'd never ask them in for the interview. A quick
writing sample is the only test of creativity you need.

'More spellings and grammar questions.'

A writing sample is all you need to assess grammar and spelling competence. My
grammers is fine, but I couldn't recite rules and practices in a test.

'Some domain related question, for e.g. ask sports writer, the dates when the
last football world cup was played.'

A good writer knows how to research. If you need an _x_ writer for some
cultural reason then you'd ask for that in the ad. This is a poor filter since
it doesn't tell you how well a writer can write on the subject.

'Question on lexical roots of some words.'

Is this an English class or an interview?

I would show myself the door pretty quickly and advise all my writer friends
not to consider your company. Your interview questions display a serious
ignorance of the craft of writing. Save yourself some headaches and ask the
best writer in your office to hire other writers. The sort questions you ask
are easily rehearsed by a bad writer with good memory.

~~~
bobbles
Did you stop reading halfway? The entire point of the article is that you
would never hire a creative writer using these criteria, and yet they are the
types of criteria being used for 'creative developers'.

~~~
mkr-hn
Apparently I did! I should be less eager to click buttons. I've edited a
little note in at the top so I won't get any impulsive downvotes.

------
jinfiesto
As a writer, some of this strikes me as dumb. There are a lot of people who
aren't "writers" that I'd be glad to hire. Why would you grill someone on the
rules in the Elements of Style? They can look that sort of thing up. If
anything, I'd be more interested to see if they absorbed the real lessons in
the Elements of Style. (Hint: Not the rules.) Also:

"We have found that we are able to hire great writer from this process, who
are able to create award winning content, whether it is a short article or a
book."

Hire a copy editor.

~~~
antrix
You should read the full article.. the hiring writers bit is just a parody.

------
splicer
If you were hiring an editor, rather than a writer, asking about the Oxford
comma is perfectly reasonable.

------
snitzr
I'm an English major and I sweat bullets before I read to the "For the
naysayers" part. I wouldn't have gotten past the phone screen.

------
TamDenholm
Someone once made a blog with the same argument but used the comparison of a
mechanic instead. Anyone know the URL?

~~~
slamdunc
This might be the one you're remembering:
[http://blog.jitbit.com/2011/05/what-if-drivers-were-hired-
li...](http://blog.jitbit.com/2011/05/what-if-drivers-were-hired-like.html)

------
brudgers
No Fizz Buzz for writers?

"Write a 20 line poem. Rhyme every third line with "Fizz" and every fifth line
with "Buzz."

------
aestetix
I am pretty sure James Joyce would fail this test.

~~~
excuse-me
I don't know - I can see job offers that say we are specifically looking for
experience in consonants not vowels.

Or we need 5 years experience of using the word "necessary"

------
rp77
he probably meant assessing and not accessing in the phone screening part -
would he have passed his own interview?

------
gisikw
Is this _not_ how we hire writers?!

