
Building a product in the technical recruiting space? Read this first - bootload
http://blog.alinelerner.com/building-a-product-in-the-technical-recruiting-space-read-this-first/
======
log_n
I liked the part about internal recruiter's incentive structure. It's
basically the old standby that nobody ever gets fired for buying IBM. This
implies to me that there's a huge amount of value for companies that can
change their hiring metrics and find undervalued engineers.

One thing that I disagree with is the idea that filtering processes can't make
candidates better. A properly created process should leave both sides of the
equation happy, an engineer can learn new skills and a hiring manager can have
a shot at making an offer to an engineer if s/he has the requisite skills. If
the candidate doesn't have the skills then give them the tools to learn the
skills and see if they come back showing mastery. Work ethic and being
ready/willing/able to learn new things is the number one signal that an
employee is going to work out well, at least on the teams that I have run.

~~~
brudgers
Perhaps the author's point about filtering wasn't so clearly made. The idea is
that if the best candidate that enters the funnel is a 6.2 on a 10 point
scale, no amount of filtering will produce an 8.3 out of 10 candidate. To get
8.3 candidates to the filter you have to source candidates above 6.2.

~~~
log_n
Ah, I think I was not terribly clear when making my point. I don't think that
candidate scores are static and, even if they are, there's a significant
amount of measurement error no matter the interview process.

Ideally I want a hiring "fun"-nel where a 6.2 can learn the skills necessary
to become an 8.3 (or show that they've been an 8.3 all along) through
exercises or reading assignments. Sort of an external training/hiring funnel.
If nothing else it may also help as a way to build internal training processes
and advertise the to the world some of the neat stuff you are working on. I
think this is how Matasano recruits and it makes a lot of sense to me.

Pretty much no matter what there is a learning curve associate d with bringing
on a new hire. Finding candidates that will attack those curves with gusto is
key to building good teams, I think at least. Technical skills can be taught
and refined, gumption is a bit harder to instill.

~~~
notduncansmith
It's difficult to know when to invest the time in giving candidates feedback.
While I would love to do it every time, giving any feedback during the hiring
process is a legal minefield and not every candidate appreciates it. In my
humble opinion, any engineer who has top-tier potential will be able to derive
from the questions asked during the interview process what they need to learn
in able to get a job (note, I did say "get a job", not "be a great engineer"
\- thinking that those are the same skillset seems to be the first mistake
many job-hunters make).

~~~
paulkon
It's no surprise that fresh graduates don't have an extremely clear idea about
what employers in their field desire until multiple interviews later.

If potential employers divulge shortcomings in the interview then they may be
slammed with a discrimination lawsuit.

If potential employers keep their mouths shut, then the overall incoming
workforce takes longer to understand the rules of the hiring game.

------
bootload
@leeny, Q. for you, how should startups tackle the problem of re-qualifying _"
experienced programmers"_ outlined in this quote:

 _" There are good arguments for allowing experienced programmers to skip
screening steps, and not have to continually re-prove themselves."_ [0]

How do you solve this problem? Surgeons, pilots, Infantry soldiers, classical
musician have extensive and verified training that equips them for high levels
of technical execution in each field. Each of these professions have some form
of continual re-testing and evaluation. What makes technical candidates in
software a special case?

[0] _" Three hundred programming interviews in thirty days"_
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9766816](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9766816)

~~~
ovi256
I did five year of engineering school, like a lot of other people. Let's see
how I could have used this time in other fields.

In five years, an infantry soldier can go to bootcamp (BCT, 10 weeks),
advanced infantry combat school (4 weeks). Then he'll go on to a combat unit,
and train with them to prepare for a combat deployment. With a week or two of
visits home, this will take up the first year. He could use the remaining four
years to conduct up to two 18 months combat tours (with about six month back
in country after each one), deployed in a warzone. At the end of his five
years, providing everything went well, he will be considered ready to try
joining the special forces, if his IQ and fitness are good enough. He could go
to NCO school or officer school even sooner, after his first combat tour.

At the end of his five years, a just graduated engineer is considered too
green to touch a production server, much less try joining the 'special forces'
of our profession. The difference in autonomy in various professions after
five years is striking. A surgeon would just start his internship, and assist
senior surgeons, but a pilot would already be flying for several years!

~~~
marktangotango
That kind of skirts what the grandparent is asking, in the army for example
everyone has to annually qualify with their firearm, and each mos has set of
tasks they have to demonstrate competency in. All enlisted have to do this
with the difference being more senior are also responsible for training. I
think that's what the g p was referring to.

Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your job.
So if an engineering grad did five years of work study or coop, I think they
could be trusted with prod servers as you say.

~~~
bootload
_" Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your
job."_

There is a culture in the SF community to have continual improvement, 1% a
day.

 _" Also five years in the military you aren't in school, you are doing your
job."_

Exactly the point I was thinking of.

------
gizi
What makes someone a good engineer? Who would have thought that Larry Page or
Sergey Brin were simply magical engineers BEFORE they devised Google Search
and created nearly half a trillion dollars in value? In my impression, you
will only know when it is too late already, because at that point they no
longer need you.

~~~
eru
They were already at Stanford..

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Indeed.

I'm not entirely convinced they'd get a job at Google if they applied now.

~~~
eru
They would. Our hiring bar isn't that high. If you look at it like a vector,
the magnitude isn't that big, it's just that direction that's peculiar.

------
suttree
"Engineering hiring isn’t a filtering problem. It’s a sourcing problem." Yes
and all hiring is a sourcing problem, when it comes down to it.

There are so many recruitment companies are out there on the horizon,
especially in London right now.

It's a big space to dive into and a lot of people assume that they can tech
their way out of it, but it takes a lot more than a fancy algorithm and a
joint dislike of shitty recruiters to be useful.

------
ExpiredLink
> _my advice is based on the current market climate, where engineering demand
> severely outstrips supply_

in Silicon Valley? The entire US? Certainly not in Europe.

------
pjc50
Perhaps this is a good time to float the idea that developers should have a
transfer market, like footballers, with the associated talent development
process.

It would then be worthwhile to train and improve your employees, as they
become a tradeable capital-like asset rather than a form of labour.

(The downside might be greater difficulty in quitting toxic employers; perhaps
another job for the standards body / union.)

------
itgoon
Nice writeup, especially the part about internal recruitment incentives.

Thank you.

------
eonw
or really just accept the fact that the recruiting business is sketchy and
most people, talent and hiring managers no longer trust most outside
recruiters.

------
rnovak
I'm really sorry, but I stopped reading when it was implied that the "good"
engineers are the ones at Facebook/Google that went to MIT. If that's your
idea of a necessary condition for "good" engineers, I think you deserve what
you get.

~~~
jsnell
The old "I stopped reading at ..." routine is pretty annoying even in the best
of circumstances, but particularly so when the basis of the complaint is
misinterpreting the article. There is no implication made in the article about
only Facebook/Google engineers being "good". There is however exactly the
opposite implication being made about both the definition of "good", and how
this kind of credentialism is a structural issue. Too bad you stopped reading
before getting there.

~~~
rnovak
In an article claiming that _finding_ candidates is harder than filtering
candidates, her _first_ point ends by saying "hey, you could just crawl all
the job sites for people who work for Google/Facebook and went to MIT". How no
one gets the implication there is beyond me, but reading further just
reinforces it.

Secondly, if it's a _structural_ issue, creating a new startup based around
technical-recruiting is absurdly pointless. If it's structural, your startup
is going to accomplish _absolutely nothing_, because it's just going to keep
sending in _safe_ candidates, in favor of _qualified candidates_.

~~~
leeny
Author here. I get why you parsed it the way you did. I guess what I was going
for is that conventional wisdom dictates that those candidates are the good
ones, and I was using that as kind of a hyperbolized thought experiment. I do
NOT agree that pedigree is a good predictor of aptitude. I even did a bunch of
research around this. Check out [http://blog.alinelerner.com/lessons-from-a-
years-worth-of-hi...](http://blog.alinelerner.com/lessons-from-a-years-worth-
of-hiring-data/)

------
fsk
He missed my favorite sleazy tactic. One of these technical recruiting
companies is advertising a job ... and you have to sign up for it with their
alpha system. It usually is so buggy that I can't complete the process.

~~~
dcre
She.

