4 ms·

It's really good to hear that some tech companies are being mature about the process. I've been in almost all positions of a hiring team: phone screen, white b

by caffed 10y ago

It's really good to hear that some tech companies are being mature about the process. I've been in almost all positions of a hiring team: phone screen, white boarding, Q&A, etc.; and in the end I want to hear what this person can bring to the company and see if they're a good fit or vice versa. I feel like so many places put emphasis on abstract knowledge and technical ability and leave out so many other traits that are good. Also, in Techlandia, I feel there is too much of a male machismo that permeates through and there are many people that treat the interview as a chance to demonstrate ability to the interviewee and/or trick them - to the point of intimidation.

justicezyx 10y ago
> I feel like so many places put emphasis on abstract knowledge and technical ability and leave out so many other traits that are good. Take a SWE job for example, what is the most effective, efficient, and fair approach to evaluate a candidate? Can anyone name an approach that is, in general, better than the main-stream technical interview. Factors to consider: 1. Technical competence 2. Culture fit 3. Interviewer/interviewee/scheduling etc time cost 4. Logistic cost
flukus 10y ago
> I feel like so many places put emphasis on abstract knowledge and technical ability and leave out so many other traits that are good. I don't disagree, but personally I would rather work with a competent (or brilliant) asshole than an incompetent nice person.
- sgift 10y ago
  Given these two extremes .. maybe. But more common seems to be "a brilliant asshole" vs "a competent nice person" and then I would never take the brilliant one. I have seen the effect of just one toxic person on a team and it wasn't pretty. Such people can quickly demoralize everyone around them and bring product development in (small) companies to a halt.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Sample-of-size-1 statistics time (from which nothing can be learned, just for fun)? I (freelancer) once had a software-making client that employed me for a month do contribute a special component to their big project. When I arrived the big boss himself received me and showed me around - and when it came to showing me where and with whom I actually worked he apologized profusely before he even started. Apparently I had to work with the one (and only) guy who sat alone in his office. But he was the guy who had written the specs that I had to write the code for, and he had room since all offices were designed for at least 2 people. The apologies were because that was the most difficult person in the entire company to work with, by a margin, but he was too good so they just kept him in his cell... Well, I wasn't daunted at all actually. Turned out that yes, he was difficult socially. For example, there was a woman who came in to ask him something (it was rare anyone talked to him while I was there), and in an audibly annoyed tone he pointed out that he had already sent her that exact information 5 days earlier in document XYZ on page N, headline "3.2 foobar" (yes, to that detail, without looking anything up). He also was really, rally good. The specs he had written, several hundred pages in three documents, were near perfect. I didn't have to ask a single question at any time, he had thought of every detail. I myself also had no trouble talking to him, I had fun with the other people that I visited in their offices (who repeatedly told me pitied me for having to share an office with that guy), but also with my room mate. Because of the surrounding highly unusual circumstances this still is one of my most memorable (and completely positive) freelancer jobs.
  - emilburzo 10y ago
    Loved the story. It sounds like that guy had a high IQ and low EQ, which is highly efficient for work scenarios, but it usually sucks for any kind of social interaction.

by caffed 10y ago

justicezyx 10y ago

> I feel like so many places put emphasis on abstract knowledge and technical ability and leave out so many other traits that are good. Take a SWE job for example, what is the most effective, efficient, and fair approach to evaluate a candidate? Can anyone name an approach that is, in general, better than the main-stream technical interview. Factors to consider: 1. Technical competence 2. Culture fit 3. Interviewer/interviewee/scheduling etc time cost 4. Logistic cost

flukus 10y ago

> I feel like so many places put emphasis on abstract knowledge and technical ability and leave out so many other traits that are good. I don't disagree, but personally I would rather work with a competent (or brilliant) asshole than an incompetent nice person.

sgift 10y ago
Given these two extremes .. maybe. But more common seems to be "a brilliant asshole" vs "a competent nice person" and then I would never take the brilliant one. I have seen the effect of just one toxic person on a team and it wasn't pretty. Such people can quickly demoralize everyone around them and bring product development in (small) companies to a halt.
Noseshine 10y ago
Sample-of-size-1 statistics time (from which nothing can be learned, just for fun)? I (freelancer) once had a software-making client that employed me for a month do contribute a special component to their big project. When I arrived the big boss himself received me and showed me around - and when it came to showing me where and with whom I actually worked he apologized profusely before he even started. Apparently I had to work with the one (and only) guy who sat alone in his office. But he was the guy who had written the specs that I had to write the code for, and he had room since all offices were designed for at least 2 people. The apologies were because that was the most difficult person in the entire company to work with, by a margin, but he was too good so they just kept him in his cell... Well, I wasn't daunted at all actually. Turned out that yes, he was difficult socially. For example, there was a woman who came in to ask him something (it was rare anyone talked to him while I was there), and in an audibly annoyed tone he pointed out that he had already sent her that exact information 5 days earlier in document XYZ on page N, headline "3.2 foobar" (yes, to that detail, without looking anything up). He also was really, rally good. The specs he had written, several hundred pages in three documents, were near perfect. I didn't have to ask a single question at any time, he had thought of every detail. I myself also had no trouble talking to him, I had fun with the other people that I visited in their offices (who repeatedly told me pitied me for having to share an office with that guy), but also with my room mate. Because of the surrounding highly unusual circumstances this still is one of my most memorable (and completely positive) freelancer jobs.
- emilburzo 10y ago
  Loved the story. It sounds like that guy had a high IQ and low EQ, which is highly efficient for work scenarios, but it usually sucks for any kind of social interaction.