8 ms·

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given proc

by Yhippa 10y ago

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

fecak 10y ago
>I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. And rightfully so. The term these days is "candidate experience" for the overall interview process, which can include everything from a company's handling of logistics and time spent in a waiting room to the types of questions being asked. That said, what I'm referring to in my comment isn't necessarily related to the interview process at all. A candidate can be asked questions that he/she felt were relevant and entirely fair for the job at hand, yet if he/she performed poorly there is still a tendency to try and find flaws in the overall opportunity. My reference wasn't to candidates performing poorly and thus giving a bad review to the interview process. Rather, the candidate might perform poorly and say that the vacation time was inadequate or the commute would have been too long.
nsxwolf 10y ago
A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  All tech interviewing does not suck, just most. A company that had a good hiring process would definitely have gone a long way to selling me on working there.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I wouldn't 100% base my acceptance of a job on an interview, but I would use it as one of many factors. Were they on time to the interview? Did it seem like a good culture fit for me? Do they seem positive about working there? Was the interview full of poor communication? or confused looks?
- marblar 10y ago
  > A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. Everyone who works at a company, got there by passing through the] interview filter. A bad interview process has everything to do with the company, particularly in organizations that have grown a lot in the recent past.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    Yes and no. I have a large contingent of coworkers from another local firm that is shedding workers. As these are usually referrals, they either get a softball process or a rubber stamp.
  - Maultasche 10y ago
    At the company I work for, most of the employers were hired based on the strength of referrals from existing employees. The very first employees were people that the founders knew personally and thought highly of. I never had an interview because several of the employees had worked with me before and knew me. My first contact with the company was when they told me they wanted to hire me and extended an offer. I was very surprised by that because they hadn't even seen my resume or anything. That method of hiring seems to have worked out pretty well so far for employee hiring and retention. The employees we've been getting seem to be quite competent and stick around. At the time I was interviewing with another company who seemed interested in me, but expressed a deep suspicion of new hires after having been burned in the past, and told me outright that they were skeptical of me, and that I could very well turn out to be lazy and unproductive. After three interviews in three weeks, they still hadn't made any offer. So when another company comes along unsolicited and asks me to join them because they know I'm good at what I do, I took their offer. When a company demonstrates that they value you, you're going want to work for them instead of the one that doesn't. There are a few people at my current company that were hired with an interview based on the company needing skills that weren't available from referrals from employees, but that's uncommon. I don't even know if our company has any sort of standard interview process.
- wpietri 10y ago
  People have been talking about the terribleness of tech interviewing for years. If a company isn't able/willing to improve important processes, that's definitely a sign to me.
  - nsxwolf 10y ago
    But then, apparently, there are virtually no good companies to work for. So most people shouldn't bother worrying about it.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      Nope. I only have time for one job, and I want it to be the best one possible. It doesn't matter if most companies are shitty; I won't be working for most companies.
  - pyb 10y ago
    This has been a deepening mystery throughout my career. I see most companies are utterly uninterested in improving their recruitment processes, and are at the same time frustrated that most projects fail or don't quite deliver. Meanwhile, the best engineers I know have to look for a really long time to find suitable jobs.
    - potatolicious 10y ago
      > "I see most companies are utterly uninterested in improving their recruitment processes" I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Most companies seem to be interesting in improving their recruitment processes - but certain fundamental systems and assumptions are treated as inviolate and sacred. Here is a quick but incomplete list of the ones that come to mind: - Open-ended unstructured interviews are the optimal way to evaluate candidates. - Whiteboard coding is an acceptable, reliable, and reasonably accurate way to gauge coding ability. - Algorithms and data structure knowledge predicts overall software engineering capability. - Culture fit (in however nebulous ways) is a stronger predictor of future performance than standardized evaluation. The list goes on. The tech industry overall seems very interested in improving recruitment and hiring, so long as these fundamental tenets are never violated. Suffice it to say, this stands in contrast to tech's (in)famous claims of thinking outside the box, breaking the rules, and holding nothing sacred to disruption. I've personally seen companies try to improve candidate sourcing, scoring systems, interview scheduling, etc etc, but practically never any of the above. Companies try really, really hard to optimize within an extremely narrow band of parameters.
- WalterSear 10y ago
  >At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? Except I've had good interview experiences. So, no, there are better and worse kinds of interviews. Just because it is an overwhelmingly neglected aspect of the industry is neither here nor there.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  [Wouldn't] companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? Or perhaps by actually reading resumes instead of keyword-filtering them. Really, it's not that hard. "Throwing darts at resumes", OTOH, is exactly what many companies seem to be doing right now. Specifically, the practice of setting up a "chat" with an internal recruiter (who inevitably tells you that they think you'll be a "wonderful fit") before passing the resume over to the tech side (which is when you find out whether they really think you're a potential fit or not) comes to mind.
  - fecak 10y ago
    >Or perhaps by actually reading resumes instead of keyword-filtering them This one is a two-way street. I launched a resume writing side-business a couple years ago (resumeraiders.com) because I saw how poor many developer resumes were and how they were getting ripped off by resume writers who had no experience in hiring or in tech. Most were just failed writers. If you expect a recruiter to read a poorly-written 5 page resume when the yes/no interview decision could have easily been made based on a summary and a few decent bullet points, that's not on the recruiter. If you think the 5 page resume is some kind of anomaly, ask the recruiters at your company how common they are.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      By all means -- skim the resumes first, and pull out all 5-pagers and other immediate fail cases (which are generally easy to spot). And save your reading skills for the 15% or so which might have something worth your time. That's what I meant.
    - ACow_Adonis 10y ago
      This is fascinating to me. I recently did a resume swap with an American lady I know (I'm Australian). We're both around mid thirties. She's in SF. Her resume was 1 page. It's the first time I've ever seen a 1 page resume in my life except for someone out of highschool with no history or experience. Mine is 4 pages. I've worked really hard to cut it down to that while including relevant things and nice formatting/readability/white space. Compared to some of the 10 to 15 page resumes we get here for people who have done so little, it's positively succinct. We had a chat, and we just had to agree that it was a cultural difference. But still, I admit, if anyone asked me here, I'd say "you can't have a one page resume, unless you are literally applying for McDonald's and have done nothing with your life, this isn't twitter"
- Retra 10y ago
  >A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. The rest of the company didn't care enough to fix a bad interview process. That has plenty to do with the rest of the company. >isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, No. The interview process I went through was phenomenal. And my job is very pleasant and rewarding.
wpietri 10y ago
When I was at Code for America I redid their hiring process to optimize for interviewee experience rather than hiring manager experience. One of the things that really struck me at the time was that traditional interview processes are built around a notion of worker surplus and job scarcity. They make very little sense when the opposite condition applies. Even little things like contacting all applicants within 24 hours really wowed people.
- unimpressive 10y ago
  One of the things I've noticed is that scammers (ask for your SSN/birthday/etc, bad sales jobs, etc) are the most attentive with callbacks and 'hiring'. Because it's all they do and they actually optimize their hiring for applicant satisfaction.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  I agree with you, but here's the thing. If the vast majority of companies are running like that and succeeding, does that not suggest that there really is a workeer surplus and job scarcity, and that impressions to the contrary are self-imposed?
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Well, all it really shows is that the "market" in this instance is incredibly inefficient. People need jobs, and if the vast majority of companies have a poor interview process, and 1% have a good one, assuming that this is the only thing that people care about (it's not), all that's going to happen is the 1% get the employees they want, and the other 99% still get some employees. The market is likely inefficient for the same reason that the advertising industry is inefficient - difficulty to show than any given change independently improves outcomes.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    For some jobs, sure. But what I really think it suggests is a power asymmetry. A company can do without 1 worker much more easily than a worker can do without 1 job. Plus, current processes let hiring managers feel powerful. Given the high percentage of hiring managers who are social primates, I expect that's a big factor. In tech, though, you hear endless complaints about how hard it is to hire, so I didn't hesitate to optimize the process for interviewee happiness. I expect it would make people more likely to apply, more likely to stay through the process, more likely to accept an offer, and more likely to refer friends. Regardless, there's enormous waste to be removed from the process for anybody who's willing to put a little thought and work in.

by Yhippa 10y ago

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

fecak 10y ago

>I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. And rightfully so. The term these days is "candidate experience" for the overall interview process, which can include everything from a company's handling of logistics and time spent in a waiting room to the types of questions being asked. That said, what I'm referring to in my comment isn't necessarily related to the interview process at all. A candidate can be asked questions that he/she felt were relevant and entirely fair for the job at hand, yet if he/she performed poorly there is still a tendency to try and find flaws in the overall opportunity. My reference wasn't to candidates performing poorly and thus giving a bad review to the interview process. Rather, the candidate might perform poorly and say that the vacation time was inadequate or the commute would have been too long.

nsxwolf 10y ago

A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.

kasey_junk 10y ago
All tech interviewing does not suck, just most. A company that had a good hiring process would definitely have gone a long way to selling me on working there.
CaptSpify 10y ago
I wouldn't 100% base my acceptance of a job on an interview, but I would use it as one of many factors. Were they on time to the interview? Did it seem like a good culture fit for me? Do they seem positive about working there? Was the interview full of poor communication? or confused looks?
marblar 10y ago
> A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. Everyone who works at a company, got there by passing through the] interview filter. A bad interview process has everything to do with the company, particularly in organizations that have grown a lot in the recent past.
- coredog64 10y ago
  Yes and no. I have a large contingent of coworkers from another local firm that is shedding workers. As these are usually referrals, they either get a softball process or a rubber stamp.
- Maultasche 10y ago
  At the company I work for, most of the employers were hired based on the strength of referrals from existing employees. The very first employees were people that the founders knew personally and thought highly of. I never had an interview because several of the employees had worked with me before and knew me. My first contact with the company was when they told me they wanted to hire me and extended an offer. I was very surprised by that because they hadn't even seen my resume or anything. That method of hiring seems to have worked out pretty well so far for employee hiring and retention. The employees we've been getting seem to be quite competent and stick around. At the time I was interviewing with another company who seemed interested in me, but expressed a deep suspicion of new hires after having been burned in the past, and told me outright that they were skeptical of me, and that I could very well turn out to be lazy and unproductive. After three interviews in three weeks, they still hadn't made any offer. So when another company comes along unsolicited and asks me to join them because they know I'm good at what I do, I took their offer. When a company demonstrates that they value you, you're going want to work for them instead of the one that doesn't. There are a few people at my current company that were hired with an interview based on the company needing skills that weren't available from referrals from employees, but that's uncommon. I don't even know if our company has any sort of standard interview process.
wpietri 10y ago
People have been talking about the terribleness of tech interviewing for years. If a company isn't able/willing to improve important processes, that's definitely a sign to me.
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  But then, apparently, there are virtually no good companies to work for. So most people shouldn't bother worrying about it.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    Nope. I only have time for one job, and I want it to be the best one possible. It doesn't matter if most companies are shitty; I won't be working for most companies.
- pyb 10y ago
  This has been a deepening mystery throughout my career. I see most companies are utterly uninterested in improving their recruitment processes, and are at the same time frustrated that most projects fail or don't quite deliver. Meanwhile, the best engineers I know have to look for a really long time to find suitable jobs.
  - potatolicious 10y ago
    > "I see most companies are utterly uninterested in improving their recruitment processes" I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Most companies seem to be interesting in improving their recruitment processes - but certain fundamental systems and assumptions are treated as inviolate and sacred. Here is a quick but incomplete list of the ones that come to mind: - Open-ended unstructured interviews are the optimal way to evaluate candidates. - Whiteboard coding is an acceptable, reliable, and reasonably accurate way to gauge coding ability. - Algorithms and data structure knowledge predicts overall software engineering capability. - Culture fit (in however nebulous ways) is a stronger predictor of future performance than standardized evaluation. The list goes on. The tech industry overall seems very interested in improving recruitment and hiring, so long as these fundamental tenets are never violated. Suffice it to say, this stands in contrast to tech's (in)famous claims of thinking outside the box, breaking the rules, and holding nothing sacred to disruption. I've personally seen companies try to improve candidate sourcing, scoring systems, interview scheduling, etc etc, but practically never any of the above. Companies try really, really hard to optimize within an extremely narrow band of parameters.
WalterSear 10y ago
>At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? Except I've had good interview experiences. So, no, there are better and worse kinds of interviews. Just because it is an overwhelmingly neglected aspect of the industry is neither here nor there.
kafkaesq 10y ago
[Wouldn't] companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? Or perhaps by actually reading resumes instead of keyword-filtering them. Really, it's not that hard. "Throwing darts at resumes", OTOH, is exactly what many companies seem to be doing right now. Specifically, the practice of setting up a "chat" with an internal recruiter (who inevitably tells you that they think you'll be a "wonderful fit") before passing the resume over to the tech side (which is when you find out whether they really think you're a potential fit or not) comes to mind.
- fecak 10y ago
  >Or perhaps by actually reading resumes instead of keyword-filtering them This one is a two-way street. I launched a resume writing side-business a couple years ago (resumeraiders.com) because I saw how poor many developer resumes were and how they were getting ripped off by resume writers who had no experience in hiring or in tech. Most were just failed writers. If you expect a recruiter to read a poorly-written 5 page resume when the yes/no interview decision could have easily been made based on a summary and a few decent bullet points, that's not on the recruiter. If you think the 5 page resume is some kind of anomaly, ask the recruiters at your company how common they are.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    By all means -- skim the resumes first, and pull out all 5-pagers and other immediate fail cases (which are generally easy to spot). And save your reading skills for the 15% or so which might have something worth your time. That's what I meant.
  - ACow_Adonis 10y ago
    This is fascinating to me. I recently did a resume swap with an American lady I know (I'm Australian). We're both around mid thirties. She's in SF. Her resume was 1 page. It's the first time I've ever seen a 1 page resume in my life except for someone out of highschool with no history or experience. Mine is 4 pages. I've worked really hard to cut it down to that while including relevant things and nice formatting/readability/white space. Compared to some of the 10 to 15 page resumes we get here for people who have done so little, it's positively succinct. We had a chat, and we just had to agree that it was a cultural difference. But still, I admit, if anyone asked me here, I'd say "you can't have a one page resume, unless you are literally applying for McDonald's and have done nothing with your life, this isn't twitter"
Retra 10y ago
>A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. The rest of the company didn't care enough to fix a bad interview process. That has plenty to do with the rest of the company. >isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, No. The interview process I went through was phenomenal. And my job is very pleasant and rewarding.

wpietri 10y ago

When I was at Code for America I redid their hiring process to optimize for interviewee experience rather than hiring manager experience. One of the things that really struck me at the time was that traditional interview processes are built around a notion of worker surplus and job scarcity. They make very little sense when the opposite condition applies. Even little things like contacting all applicants within 24 hours really wowed people.

unimpressive 10y ago
One of the things I've noticed is that scammers (ask for your SSN/birthday/etc, bad sales jobs, etc) are the most attentive with callbacks and 'hiring'. Because it's all they do and they actually optimize their hiring for applicant satisfaction.
vonmoltke 10y ago
I agree with you, but here's the thing. If the vast majority of companies are running like that and succeeding, does that not suggest that there really is a workeer surplus and job scarcity, and that impressions to the contrary are self-imposed?
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Well, all it really shows is that the "market" in this instance is incredibly inefficient. People need jobs, and if the vast majority of companies have a poor interview process, and 1% have a good one, assuming that this is the only thing that people care about (it's not), all that's going to happen is the 1% get the employees they want, and the other 99% still get some employees. The market is likely inefficient for the same reason that the advertising industry is inefficient - difficulty to show than any given change independently improves outcomes.
- wpietri 10y ago
  For some jobs, sure. But what I really think it suggests is a power asymmetry. A company can do without 1 worker much more easily than a worker can do without 1 job. Plus, current processes let hiring managers feel powerful. Given the high percentage of hiring managers who are social primates, I expect that's a big factor. In tech, though, you hear endless complaints about how hard it is to hire, so I didn't hesitate to optimize the process for interviewee happiness. I expect it would make people more likely to apply, more likely to stay through the process, more likely to accept an offer, and more likely to refer friends. Regardless, there's enormous waste to be removed from the process for anybody who's willing to put a little thought and work in.