

Hire based on interest, not credentials - fontana
http://regardingwork.com/2011/05/13/hire-based-on-interest-not-credentials/
People tend to avoid costly errors rather than aim for finding the truth when making decisions. Applied to recruiting, employers might tend to avoid hiring someone based on their lack of credentials or previous experience, rather than aiming to find if the employee really wants to solve the problem the business is attacking.<p>I have known employees who exhibited both a disinterest in their company’s aim to solve a problem and a preference for developing their own skill. I have started to think broadly about the following alternative method to avoid ever hiring this sort of person.<p>The starting question was: how could you flip the current, common recruiting process to test for interest over credentials?
======
jasonkester
There would seem to be a pretty narrow range of companies that this would
actually work for.

If you're a pet food manufacturer that needs a website, you're probably not
going to find anybody who's _really stoked about catfood_ and also knows
Rails.

If you're Valve, you'll have no problem finding 10,000 kids who _really want
to write video games_ , none of which can code their way out of a sack.

So it would seem to follow that if you're looking to hire developers, you
should start off by looking for people who are actually good at writing code.
Or put another way, by looking at credentials.

It'd be cool if it worked the way the author describes, but for most
situations I just don't see it happening.

~~~
mattdeboard
I heartily disagree. Who says a company that makes a boring/uninteresting
product isn't solving challenging, interesting development problems? I mean, I
hope it's not the case that the only companies solving interesting problems
are the ones with an awesome product that everyone wants to work at.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Very true. I just quit my job to start a fashion startup. I really don't care
about fashion, apart from sleeping with the occasional model (hasn't happened
yet, but I'm hoping).

On the other hand, building an AI system that is capable of learning about
fashion is pretty interesting.

------
erikb
I think your assumption in the beginning is correct! People have no idea about
hiring and just do what comes to their mind first: application, interview, get
started.

That is not a good way to hire.

But then you start to make the same mistake these badly hiring people do: You
think you need to do all the science by yourself. But actually there is a
solution to most hiring problems as there is a solution to most programming
problems. And there is a science who spents a lot of time and money of a lot
of people to improve the methods available and to find models more applicable.
You can even study that stuff in university and get a degree for that.

So please, take that stuff seriously and do what everybody in a hiring
situation should do: Learn what humankind already has available on the topic
or pay someone who already did the learning!

PS: Yes, when you start to find out enough about this topic, you will see it
is quite boring. You solve problems like everywhere else, too. First you try
to apply a model to the best of your knowledge and then you just use the
methods connected to the model. Both, the models and the methods, can be found
in a lot of text books and also online.

------
Hipchan
That's great when you're hiring CEOs or product people, but I think if you're
hiring a manager it's ok if his interest is more in managing than the end
product.

Otherwise what happened to Google will happen to you.

eg, losing people like Sheryl Sandberg because you can't accommodate the needs
of competent careerists for self advancement.

Edit: Just want to clarify that I'm not disagreeing with the original post.
When you're small everyone's a product person, but you can take that idea too
far.

------
arethuza
The only problem I can see with focusing on _interest_ is that I'm acutely
aware of how good some people are at faking interest. I'm probably aware of
this as I'm actually pretty awful at faking interest in things I find
boring... (notably pro sports).

------
fleitz
The problem is more a scientific approach to creating a feedback loop to the
employee life cycle.

Initially you'd want to hire randomly to seed your 'gene' pool and then fire
those who are unfit. This will provide feedback as to which measures best
predict the outcomes the business wants to optimize for. And would take into
account the fact that different businesses require different hiring practices
and need to optimize for different outcomes.

This is just another idea for hiring that provides no information as to
whether it's a better approach and completely ignores the rest of the employee
life cycle.

The article talks about confirmation bias but provides no indication as to how
hiring by interest changes anything about confirmation bias in the hiring
process.

Seriously the product 'you all want to make' is a piece of shit that is
essentially design by committee. There will be vocal people who DON'T want to
make that product because by the nature of the process it has become bland and
unimaginative.

My personal and completely unscientific approach to hiring is towards
interesting people rather than people interested in the particular problem
we're currently solving. I have no idea whether this is better / worse that
credentials or hiring based on interest.

~~~
fontana
That's not the problem, that's an alternative and possibly complementary
solution. The problem, as we both broadly define it, is hiring people that
will help the business achieve its goals. Yes, I did not apply this method
over the entire employee life cycle in this one post.

The method of frequent firing as feedback is far from optimal and not even
feasible in smaller organizations. That is the context in which I'm operating
and thinking about this problem.

With respect to the particular element of confirmation bias referenced in the
first sentence, and repeating the second, hiring based on interest is a method
that will seek to truthfully answer the question, "is this person going to
solve the problem we want to solve?" rather than effectively allowing an
employer to avoid a costly mistake.

Your comments about product development are not addressing anything in the
post and could be delivered to a wall with similar effect.

~~~
Zakharov
Hiring based on interest will answer the question, "does this person want to
solve the problem we want to solve". A good recruit is both willing and able.
So, hire based on interest, but don't disregard credentials either. Focusing
too much on interest risks getting showmen and excitable stupid people.

~~~
raganwald
Showmen (a/k/a Charlatans) are to be avoided. And excitable talented people
are gold!

But an excitable person can learn. Or be directed into another role. How does
one motivate a disinterested but competent person? I fear that motivation is a
harder problem to solve than lack of talent.

~~~
andrewcooke
by giving them freedom. in my experience, what makes a job suck isn't that the
problem lacks "excitement", but that you aren't given the freedom to do a good
job. you can take pride in work for even simple tasks, _if_ you own them. on
the other hand, you can be in the most exciting field in the world, but have a
crappy boss and a shit life.

and almost any technical job can become complex enough to be intellectually
interesting, if you have the freedom to use tools to automate the boring bits.
what kills is being forced to do tedious rote work because you are restricted
in your process. working on a production line is boring; building a production
line is fascinating. the line between the two is clear in factory, but not in
software development.

"exciting" is for non-technical marketing people with an attention span of 2
seconds before they see the next shiny object. absorbing, empowering work
hasn't got much to do with excitement. it's about expressing and developing
something of your own. it doesn't have to be different, or exciting, or
ground-breaking. it just has to be yours, to develop in the way you see fit,
to meet the requirements you are given.

i didn't know this when i started; i imagine selling "exciting" work will get
you people with little experience. but i'm wiser now.

