
Manifesto: Things we believe about hiring - shawndumas
https://triplebyte.com/manifesto
======
markbnj
As a developer who is currently in the market after the last startup I worked
for started laying people off, I definitely agree that the current process can
be badly broken. This is the first time I have had to go out and interview
cold in six years, and I'm struck by how much it has changed. I had one
company put me through seven interviews with different team members, each
lasting 30-45 minutes, each appearing to go very well (including comments like
"You're a shoo-in" and "I'll be very excited to work with you," only to
receive a two or three sentence brush off email more than a week after the
last of them. The whole process took nearly a month. I interviewed with
another company, an NYC startup, and again it went well. After three weeks and
no response to a polite inquiry email from me they finally reached out and
asked me if I wanted to do an onsite. Three weeks without a word on how I had
done or whether they wanted to proceed. I don't want to work for a company
that treats candidates like that. There were other examples: a company that
did two phone screens and told me I'd fit in "very well" and then asked me to
drive to Boston for a f2f lunch (ten hour road trip), after which they brushed
me off because they didn't think I'd be happy if I couldn't use docker and
kubernetes right away. I interviewed with a large mid-western company a week
ago today, second interview, spent almost an hour with two senior engineers.
Felt like it went well. Have not heard a single word since, and no reply to an
inquiry email. It's just disrespectful as hell in my opinion, and tells me a
lot about a company's internal culture.

~~~
percept
The best jobs I've had were all handshake deals, short and simple.

The 10-hour ones (screenings, exercises, interviews ad nauseam) are usually
still open months later. It's not you--it's them.

~~~
markbnj
You know that's been pretty true for me, too. Often when one gig looks like
its winding down I've met people and formed strong enough relationships that
something else pops up, but this last startup was a mismanaged mess that fell
apart for me in five months, so I sort of got caught by surprise.

------
gherig4
I've gone through their process and these guys aren't any different from the
rest of "them". I finished the problem within the allotted time but was then
rejected. I have no problem with the rejection itself but in the feedback I
was told that even though I finished it on time I didn't finish it fast
enough. Thats the sort of vague moving the goalposts that I have NOT seen in
most of my in person technical interviews and why all their blog posts and
lofty goals should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

EDIT spelling

~~~
namelezz
That sounds better than my experience with a fuck up startup a while ago. I
solved all their tech challenges to have the email revealed. It's fun at that
time. Sent my resume to that email. Received a phone call. Had a short
interview over the phone answering behavioral interview questions, such as why
you want to work here. Then never heard back although they mentioned over the
phone that they liked my performance.

------
lifeisstillgood
>> The hiring process should be focused on discovering strengths, not
uncovering weaknesses. Everybody has weaknesses.

This.

Walking into an interview wigh hiding your weaknesses as a goal sets up
Completely the wrong dynamic. Plus what kind of success for the interviewer? I
have found a perfect person? Or I did not look hard enough for flaws?

------
munchor
>Hiring processes need to be standardized. Candidates deserve a consistent
experience and consistent evaluation. A company can't meaningfully evaluate
candidates if it treats each one differently.

I can only agree with this to a certain extent. It seems to me that sometimes,
special candidates at a smaller company might require a special process. It's
very hard to standardize this kind of thing and not that worth it in the long
run, especially for startups who are hiring for all sorts of positions.

Now this doesn't mean I don't agree with the rest of the points, as most of
them actually seem pretty on point.

------
pmiller2
They talk a good talk, but I wish more companies would walk the walk. The way
companies hire now is like interviewing a surgeon by having her carve a
turkey.

------
p4wnc6
I agree about standardization but unfortunately for lazy / hazing start-up
types and for big bureaucrat types this converges to dumb shit like
HackerRank, which (short, high time pressure, commoditized trivia) is close to
the precise opposite of what matters in a candidate.

HackerRack / IKM / etc do not qualify as the good version of standardized
interviewing. Use of such tools speaks loudly of hiring dysfunction.

------
peterwwillis
This seems somewhat unrealistic.

> "A company can't meaningfully evaluate candidates if it treats each one
> differently."

Each candidate may have very different kinds of experience! Different
industries, different requirements, large or small projects, embedded or
platform-agnostic, backend QC or live high traffic production code, different
education, different specialties, different styles, different processes,
people who work better alone or in groups, etc. People are highly variant.

> "What matters is a candidate's strengths, and how quickly they can learn new
> things."

Or, you know, if they are being hired to write production industrial control
software and have never had to write code that doesn't just dump core on the
first error, or understanding security when you're writing a web app for a
bank. Picking up things as you go is great, but certain weaknesses conflict
with the job.

> "The hiring process should be treated like a software product, constantly
> iterated on using data, and improved over time."

Nice idea. Nobody I know has the time for this, as hiring is generally done by
the team and its manager.

> "Compensation statistics should be public."

There are many problems with this, besides the obvious poaching of employees.
Salaries often range based on a number of criteria, and different offers are
extended with different benefits or perks for different reasons. This can
create emotional conflict between employees, make it harder to retain good
talent, and can't be easily adjusted into a statistic. And of course, leaks
about monetary figures can damage deals with potential clients or partners.

> "they should be able to outsource technical hiring. The flaw with current
> external recruiting firms is they don't reliably deliver enough good
> candidates to build trust with companies."

External recruiting firms generally result in bottom-of-the-barrel hiring.
Companies use them because they don't have time to look themselves, and if
they did have time they wouldn't know where to start, nor how to weed out
undesirables. Companies that put focus and effort on hiring by themselves are
going to look harder for someone they really want, rather than fill another
seat with someone with a compatible resume.

\--

Hiring anecdote: The best hiring interview i've ever been in is still the
first one I ever had for a real job. I had no experience, so they asked all
kinds of things to evaluate how I thought, what I was comfortable or not
comfortable with, and how I might adapt.

They posed a technical problem to me, something they were looking for a
solution to. I sat there and came up with a couple solutions, and they said no
that doesn't work. I thought about it more and came up with two new solutions,
and soon they had the whole team in there shaking my hand.

Right after that, an HR hiring manager/rep gave me the lowest offer i've ever
heard of in my life - it literally would have put me under the poverty line.
He said my lack of experience and education was the reason. I teared up and
left, knowing the only thing meaner than that offer was the way they made me
believe I had the job. But I got a better job after that :-)

