6 ms·
The current state of hiring reflects two facts: 1. A single bad hire can do immense damage to a team and organization. I never fully appreciated this until I s
by rm999 10y ago
The current state of hiring reflects two facts:
1. A single bad hire can do immense damage to a team and organization. I never fully appreciated this until I saw the consequences of bad hires, and as a hiring manager it's one of my biggest fears.
2. Labor laws and HR exist. You can't just willy-nilly fire people, there's a process in any well-functioning company to protect employees from management and vise versa. As a hiring manager this will generally reflect poorly on you.
This has caused interviewers, who are in the position of power, to make the process thorough and straining to protect themselves.
In many ways my philosophy has been shifting to the article's, which is to grow much more slowly and carefully. I don't think this scales well, but it leads to a personal process I can feel good about. I've been networking to meet people within the community, and I hope my future hires either come through personal knowledge of them or vetted referrals.
Google is actually capable of this kind of interview, but it's rare. I was referred to a manager a few years ago by an ex-coworker, and the whole process was great. I met the whole team, I went to lunch with the manager, he told me I could contact him if I had any questions, etc. I didn't end up joining, but I left with a very positive opinion of the manager and team.
- mixmastamyk 10y agoSome percentage of bad hires are inevitable. I think a better solution is to fire them quickly rather than torture all candidates. Most dev jobs are at-will, no?
- btilly 10y agoThe problem is that pissed off ex-employees are able to file lawsuits claiming that they were fired for any of a number of reasons that you can't fire them for. (Race, gender, religion, ...) Defending these lawsuits, even when they are without merit, is an expensive PITA. And the process can turn up all sorts of stuff in public that is a PR disaster. This happens sufficiently often that HR has responded with policies to carefully document exactly why people are being fired. Furthermore they often try to get fired employees to sign contracts saying that they won't sue. These policies make it considerably more difficult to fire people.
- mixmastamyk 10y agoTo both respondents: Does this happen often enough to worry about? Moreover, how do google-style brainteasers filter out litigious individuals?
- btilly 10y agoAccording to every HR person I've talked about it with, it does happen often enough. The brainteasers won't reduce what fraction of hires would be litigious. But they will reduce how many people you need to fire right away, which reduces your exposure to that kind of litigation. Also note that company's unwillingness to tell you WHY they didn't hire you is another HR recommendation for avoiding lawsuits. The problem is that the more you say, the easier it is for it to be quoted out of context and made to look like you're biased against people based on age/gender/religion/etc, which could be grounds for a lawsuit. A lawsuit that doesn't even have to be winnable if it would cost more to win than to settle out of court...
- rcar 10y agoAt-will contracts don't preclude people from filing wrongful termination suits, smearing the company on social media, etc.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago> You can't just willy-nilly fire people I thought you could, at least in right-to-work states, if you bothered to make up an excuse that wasn't one of the forbidden ones.