4 ms·

Could this not be solved by telling the candidate what you expect and then telling them that if they can't program to the expected level that they will be fired

Could this not be solved by telling the candidate what you expect and then telling them that if they can't program to the expected level that they will be fired on the spot. Leave it to them to demonstrate that they can program before or after they are hired. If the candidate can then they will be happy to demonstrate after they start. Everybody is happy.

ianmartin 11y ago
Except as the candidate, I'm not happy. Companies already hold the balance of power. Pre-threatening me just means I'm not going to leave my current job.
btilly 11y ago
I don't think so. First of all nobody sane would take a job where they are expected to measure up to some unspecified measure or else get fired on the spot. And any competent HR department will tell you that carrying through on the threat will risk the potential for lawsuits. (They want a paper trail showing that the person should be fired.) Secondly it takes a surprising amount of time for an incompetent programmer at an average organization to get discovered. You usually spend a period of time studying how things are set up before anyone expects you to do anything. And by the time you can be evaluated you've certainly used a bunch of other people's time with your questions. It is far more efficient to determine this in the interview process. And thirdly, a creative company can more easily solve the problem by offering a choice of ways to demonstrate competence. See http://www.starfighters.io/ http://www.starfighters.io/ for an alternative to traditional interviews.
- collyw 11y ago
  Pretty much every job I have had has had a three month probation period.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    This just means you can be fired for any reason in the first 3 months. You can certainly be fired on the first day.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  It is not illegal to fire someone who can't do what they were hired to do especially when they were told what was expected at the interview stage. My thinking is the first x days on the job is spent doing programming tests. This should generate enough paperwork to satisfy any HR department. You then have the time to test all aspects of the candidates skills, rather than the limited range you can test in an interview.
  - btilly 11y ago
    That works. In a lot of the US not only is it not illegal to fire people for incompetence, but you don't even need a reason to fire them. But stupid people when offended sometimes launch silly lawsuits alleging all kinds of crap, and those lawsuits can be expensive to defend. A lot of what HR does is stuff to reduce the frequency of such lawsuits, and to make the ones that still happen go away more cheaply.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      My thinking is to move off the time and expense of testing candidates from the interview stage to as late in the process as possible. A really though test of a candidate is time consuming and to do it at the interview stage is not fair on the candidates and the company. You can provide any candidate with the full list of what they will be tested on in their first x days so they can decide if the job is for them or not (i.e. everyone is upfront with what is expected). The only problem I see with this approach is Dunning-Kruger effects. My experience in hiring is it is pretty easy to pick candidates suffering from DK by comparing what they say with what they can demonstrated via their work history. It is the more marginal candidates where they seem non-delusional, but where they don’t have a perfect CV. These people are often overlooked by other companies, but they often turn out to be fantastic employees. Taking a chance on them can be a great.

ianmartin 11y ago

Except as the candidate, I'm not happy. Companies already hold the balance of power. Pre-threatening me just means I'm not going to leave my current job.

btilly 11y ago

I don't think so. First of all nobody sane would take a job where they are expected to measure up to some unspecified measure or else get fired on the spot. And any competent HR department will tell you that carrying through on the threat will risk the potential for lawsuits. (They want a paper trail showing that the person should be fired.) Secondly it takes a surprising amount of time for an incompetent programmer at an average organization to get discovered. You usually spend a period of time studying how things are set up before anyone expects you to do anything. And by the time you can be evaluated you've certainly used a bunch of other people's time with your questions. It is far more efficient to determine this in the interview process. And thirdly, a creative company can more easily solve the problem by offering a choice of ways to demonstrate competence. See http://www.starfighters.io/ http://www.starfighters.io/ for an alternative to traditional interviews.

collyw 11y ago
Pretty much every job I have had has had a three month probation period.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  This just means you can be fired for any reason in the first 3 months. You can certainly be fired on the first day.
danieltillett 11y ago
It is not illegal to fire someone who can't do what they were hired to do especially when they were told what was expected at the interview stage. My thinking is the first x days on the job is spent doing programming tests. This should generate enough paperwork to satisfy any HR department. You then have the time to test all aspects of the candidates skills, rather than the limited range you can test in an interview.
- btilly 11y ago
  That works. In a lot of the US not only is it not illegal to fire people for incompetence, but you don't even need a reason to fire them. But stupid people when offended sometimes launch silly lawsuits alleging all kinds of crap, and those lawsuits can be expensive to defend. A lot of what HR does is stuff to reduce the frequency of such lawsuits, and to make the ones that still happen go away more cheaply.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    My thinking is to move off the time and expense of testing candidates from the interview stage to as late in the process as possible. A really though test of a candidate is time consuming and to do it at the interview stage is not fair on the candidates and the company. You can provide any candidate with the full list of what they will be tested on in their first x days so they can decide if the job is for them or not (i.e. everyone is upfront with what is expected). The only problem I see with this approach is Dunning-Kruger effects. My experience in hiring is it is pretty easy to pick candidates suffering from DK by comparing what they say with what they can demonstrated via their work history. It is the more marginal candidates where they seem non-delusional, but where they don’t have a perfect CV. These people are often overlooked by other companies, but they often turn out to be fantastic employees. Taking a chance on them can be a great.