

Hiring – Easy as Pie - sramam
http://steveblank.com/2011/08/22/hiring-easy-as-pie/

======
yaakov34
I quite honestly had to read this over a couple of times to make sure this is
not some kind of a parody. I don't understand why people are complimenting
this. Let me count the ways:

1) Asking a client to produce a quantitative "job spec" like this is simply
going to produce a bunch of random numbers. What basis is there for saying
that "vision" counts for 15% and "financial mgmt expertise" for 25%? These are
not comparable things and you can't throw numbers on them. At most you can say
things like "financial mgmt is a must, and of all that have it, we want the
ones with the best vision". You still have to define these...

2) How are you supposed to give such fine-grained numeric grades to candidates
on things like "vision"?

3) What do you do with the chart once you have it? This is the part of the
post that makes it look like a parody - he has these charts for two candidates
and says "now it's easy as pie to choose", but neither chart looks hugely
better than the other. Are you supposed to compare the areas with grid paper?
That makes no sense and may leave you with a candidate that lacks something
crucial.

4) This brings me to my final point - you may be looking for things in a
candidate that are pass/fail, e.g. in his chart "dealing with government
regulators" looks like a _sine qua non_ thing. His method could well result in
overlooking this.

I don't get why people are calling this insightful and so on. This is
extremely similar to a ton of competencies matrix methods, but this way of
presenting the results is particularly bad.

~~~
sixtofour
It may be that the ranking exercise at the beginning is the big benefit,
rather than the resulting ranks, because it makes you think about what's
important to you. You may hire someone who doesn't actually fit the ranking,
but the exercise was valuable anyway because it helped you better understand
the candidates and their relationship to your business.

------
drblast
Ahh, the weighted average approach to decision making.

If you want to make a decision but don't want to trust your own intuition and
judgment, and don't want to get embroiled in hard arguments where someone can
get blamed later when things don't work out, then hey, I guess you need a
mathematical model!

"But I only know basic arithmetic," you say.

That's okay! Because the arithmetic behind a weighted average is so easy to do
and understand, anyone can do it!

Not only that, but you can take that underlying model and produce any number
of pretty charts that make your entirely subjective decision seem like it has
some mathematical rigor behind it!

The Weighted Average (tm): for when you absolutely have to make a completely
subjective decision and don't want to be blamed for the results.

~~~
VladRussian
you sound like you have crossed the path with six sigma :)

------
Jabbles
This sounds like he's tried to make hiring as quantitative as possible (a hard
and worthwhile task). However the slices are still as subjective as ever. How
do you measure someone's "vision"?

Even when you've measured all these slices, how do you combine them?* Notice
that if you take the total area of the pie chart filled, this implies all the
scales you're measuring are quadratic, so that going from 8 -> 9 is worth
twice as much as going from 4 -> 5\. This is why Tufte hates pie charts.

*I assume you combine them. If not, what's the point of the pie chart?

~~~
dcosson
I was just thinking this - it's saying that how good the candidate is in a
particular category counts for more (by a factor of r^2) than how important
you have judged that category to be. To me this is the most interesting claim
in the article, and it seems like if this were actually what the author was
trying to say he would have at least mentioned the reasoning behind it.

Not that this is the biggest weakness with the method, since as others have
pointed out the assignment of these weights is pretty arbitrary in the first
place, but it makes me think this is just hand-waving all the way through.

------
angdis
It certainly is a nice way of thinking about hiring. The "problem" is that
each one of those slices (whatever they are) is deeply and intrinsically
subjective both in width and length. For instance, how can you determine how
important "vision" really is in any particular position, how can you hope to
evaluate "vision" on a scale of 1 to 10? How do you know that someone with
stellar skills on one area isn't capable of transferring those skills to a new
area that they have no experience in?

Moreover, I am convinced that employers often really don't know what they want
out of a potential hire. In other words, there may be pieces of pie that
they're not bringing into consideration or pieces of pie that should not even
be on the table.

I think that employers would do best to look for what is known as "T-shaped"
people: folks who have broad experience and a few areas of very deep
expertise. These are people who have demonstrated that they CAN develop
expertise and if they've done it before they can do it again in new areas.
This makes sense because, except for the most humdrum operations jobs, you
never really know what your employees will have to work on in the future.

------
count
I've never had much trouble comparing two candidates. I wish I had the problem
of finding two qualified candidates and having to only pick one. That beats
the sea of unqualified and hilariously underprepared candidates I get now.
Finding someone who's able to do the job is like finding a diamond in the
rough.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I completely agree. Figuring out the right guy is easy, if you can get
multiple people in. That's the really difficult part of hiring at a startup.

~~~
eru
And if you have multiple competent people, and are growing, you might as well
hire both.

------
ZoFreX
Given how bad our brains are at determining the size / area of slices like
that, I'm not sure visually comparing candidates like that would necessarily
result in you picking the best one - and that's assuming that each of the
required skills is measurable on a linear scale, which is rarely true.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The scale isn't even linear. As a pie slice gets shorter, it gets
exponentially smaller in area. We judge size by visual area, not a single
dimension.

~~~
eru
Are you confusing exponential growth with quadratic growth?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
subset

~~~
eru
What do you mean?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Quadratic growth is a subset of exponential growth. So both are correct?

~~~
eru
The biggest difference: The second derivative of quadratic growth (the change
in the rate of change) is constant. While any derivative of exponential growth
stays exponential.

For quadratic growth, think naive sorting like bubble sort. For exponential
growth, think bogosort.

Technically: If you use Big-O notation, then indeed O(x^2) \subset O(a^x). But
also O(x) \subset O(x^2) \subset O(a^x).

------
luu
This _sounds_ like a good idea. I wish people would do randomized controlled
trials on this sort of thing, but there are only a handful of companies that
hire enough people to do RCTs, and I doubt any of them (except perhaps Google)
would be willing to do something that isn't "best" to get more data even
though, as things are now, no one can really know what's best.

There are a series of behavioral economics studies that show, in the right
circumstances, that going with your gut is better than explicitly making a
list of factors, assigning weights to them, and making a decision after that
(whether that decision is algorithmically determined by the list, or is a
holistic decision that comes after looking at the list). The ‘gut’ method
tends to be better when decisions are more complicated, and have many factors,
as is the case when hiring, so I suspect that pie method is one of those
things that sounds helpful but isn’t. No one knows, though (unless there’s
actually been a study on this; if there has, please, correct me if I’m wrong).

------
swombat
While I tremendously respect Steve Blank, trying to reduce hiring to a simple
quantitative graph seems like an absolutely terrible idea.

It reminds me of the Pritchard Scale in Dead Poets Society. That's not how you
measure poetry or people.

------
wisty
From what I've heard, getting the attributes right is hard.

You need stuff like:

\- Honesty. Obvious, but I'd expect it gets quite hard to find at the CEO
level.

\- Frugality. Some great CEOs are legendary tightwads.

\- Not penny-wise, pound foolish. Because even if you are a tightwad, you
shouldn't kill moral or R&D. 90% of a CEO's job will be knowing what expenses
to approve, and what expenses to knock back.

\- Deep knowledge of the organization, its environment, and its processes.
Otherwise, they will not be able to verify when their C-execs are screwing
with them.

\- Commitment to improving operational effectiveness. Low level engineers are
great firefighters. It's the guys who can keep improving the small stuff that
are really worth the big bucks.

------
mathattack
The signal to noise ratio of Steve Blank is very high. I like this idea a lot.
In the past I have been involved with firms who have done this on two
dimensions: managerial competence and industry knowledge, or content knowledge
and process knowledge. The circle is a great way to add another dimension to
it.

The hard part seems to be the 2nd step - mapping the skills of the candidates
to the description. It sounds easy, but rating soft skills is very difficult.

Thanks for sharing this!

~~~
wccrawford
I think part of that would be asking the candidate how they feel about their
skills.

Sure, they could lie, but if they're lying, the whole interview is suspect.
Hiring a person who lied -at all- in the interview would be a bad idea. How
could you possibly trust them?

------
badusername
What you are looking for is a Radar Chart, not a Pie Chart!
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_chart>

