3 ms·

There's a huge inefficiency in the hiring market, and someone is going to make some money solving the problem. There are huge inefficiencies in everything. Th

by edw519 16y ago

There's a huge inefficiency in the hiring market, and someone is going to make some money solving the problem. There are huge inefficiencies in everything. That doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem. The only ones who think that hiring is a problem are those who haven't solved it. Think of it as a bell curve (what a surprise). Some companies suck. Most are mediocre. But a few have it figured out. I've been on both sides of this process more times than I can count and I've noticed that the companies that do it well have a lot in common: - They rely on up front third party aptitude and personality screening to eliminate 95% to 98%. They pay, but it's a bargain. - They use interview quantity (lots of them, by phone and in person). - They use interview quality (peers, supervisors, customers getting well below the "surface"). - They use variety (interviews, testing, get-togethers). - They check references without a canned checklist (logic path driven, in-depth). - They use HR primarily for formalities. - They take their time. - They "solve a long term problem" for all parties involved. I admire your desire to solve a problem that affects so many, but I wonder if your approach is the best way. Maybe it's better for the mediocre to do what already works by copying the excellent. Then they wouldn't have such a big problem to solve.

riffer 16y ago
This is an excellent outline of hiring best practices, each of these bullet points belongs here. And yet, for every firm that does this, there are at least 10 that don't. That means that there is a rich market for what reg is proposing, and it means that the solution merely has to be more attractive to the employer than moving to current best practices. I find myself often forgetting how dysfunctional a lot of organizations are, only to be spectacularly reminded of it, again and again. And there are people at those organizations who know they aren't going to be able to overhaul hiring, but they have a budget, and they have a problem, and there are not a lot of great options. Those are the target customers for something like this, not Google and Foursquare and AirBnB.
btilly 16y ago
Hmmm. When I interviewed at Google there was no third party aptitude and personality screening. There was also not an incredible amount of variety. And I don't know how the reference check went. But the rest of your list looks accurate. Even so, I guarantee that Google has not solved hiring by a country mile. The biggest single problem is that (for obvious reason) they are willing to settle for a lot more false negatives than false positives. But getting the false negative rate down would be huge if they could do it.
lsc 16y ago
the only time I've ever even seen a third party aptitude or personality test before an interview was when I was 15 and I worked for some temp agency moving things around in a warehouse. In the 15 years hence, working as a programmer or SysAdmin, I've never seen such a thing. Coincidentally, that was also my last drug test. Now, I don't use illegal drugs; Hell, I could easily pass one of those 'hair tests' that see if you have used marijuana in the last few years. Still, as an employee, my assumption is that if you require a drug test or similar, you are not a company that will respect me as an employee. My assumption if you made me take a 'personality test' would be that your company is run by idiots. The rest seems to be pretty good advice, assuming that you are a company that can't just hire people as a contractor, and then let them go if they don't work out. this is what I do at my company: If someone looks good, I hire them for a short project. If they don't do well, they get paid for their time and sent on their way. Personally, I think it's more respectful than grilling someone for 4 or 8 hours without pay, and it probably gives me a better idea of how good they are.
- megablast 16y ago
  You make a good point, but as for telling how a company will respect you, because they ask for a drug test, you may be a little off. If it is a big company, HR practices will have nothing to do with anything else in the company, so don't judge the department you will be working in by what HR makes you do. On the other hand, a company that lets HR have free reign to do anything, may cause endless suffering as HR feel the need to make themselves more "integrated". I recently interviewed for a developer in a government position, and decided that the people doing the interview are the ones are out of their depth, and should be unemployed. They clearly had to technical understanding where it was required for their job, and got very confused by the simplest question.
  - buro9 16y ago
    HR practices disconnected from a respectful approach to the individuals involved can certainly reflect on the general approach of a large company. HR is one of those neglected things, if they've gotten that right then they tend to have other things right. It's also something that you hope will be invisible and will "just work" when you're there... you want it to be friendly, respectful, and efficient. I would say that if HR appears from the outset to be burdened by needless bureaucracy (an aptitude test when you acknowledge the position/department/legislature may not require it) definitely checks the box of reflecting a corporate culture that allows such crud to creep in. I don't go for any positions that: 1) Require me to jump through silly hoops when there is no benefit from anyone to doing so. 2) Bog me down in bureaucracy before I've even begun. 3) Require me to give access to any personal data that they do not have the legal right to ask for. On that last one, I'm talking about social networking credentials, overly invasive background checks that don't relate to the position and so on. I was fine with the Home Office and GCHQ asking questions about my finances, running criminal record checks and contacting friends and family as part of a security vetting process that they have the legal mandate to perform... but I wouldn't be fine with a large company performing such things.

by edw519 16y ago

riffer 16y ago

This is an excellent outline of hiring best practices, each of these bullet points belongs here. And yet, for every firm that does this, there are at least 10 that don't. That means that there is a rich market for what reg is proposing, and it means that the solution merely has to be more attractive to the employer than moving to current best practices. I find myself often forgetting how dysfunctional a lot of organizations are, only to be spectacularly reminded of it, again and again. And there are people at those organizations who know they aren't going to be able to overhaul hiring, but they have a budget, and they have a problem, and there are not a lot of great options. Those are the target customers for something like this, not Google and Foursquare and AirBnB.

btilly 16y ago

Hmmm. When I interviewed at Google there was no third party aptitude and personality screening. There was also not an incredible amount of variety. And I don't know how the reference check went. But the rest of your list looks accurate. Even so, I guarantee that Google has not solved hiring by a country mile. The biggest single problem is that (for obvious reason) they are willing to settle for a lot more false negatives than false positives. But getting the false negative rate down would be huge if they could do it.

lsc 16y ago

the only time I've ever even seen a third party aptitude or personality test before an interview was when I was 15 and I worked for some temp agency moving things around in a warehouse. In the 15 years hence, working as a programmer or SysAdmin, I've never seen such a thing. Coincidentally, that was also my last drug test. Now, I don't use illegal drugs; Hell, I could easily pass one of those 'hair tests' that see if you have used marijuana in the last few years. Still, as an employee, my assumption is that if you require a drug test or similar, you are not a company that will respect me as an employee. My assumption if you made me take a 'personality test' would be that your company is run by idiots. The rest seems to be pretty good advice, assuming that you are a company that can't just hire people as a contractor, and then let them go if they don't work out. this is what I do at my company: If someone looks good, I hire them for a short project. If they don't do well, they get paid for their time and sent on their way. Personally, I think it's more respectful than grilling someone for 4 or 8 hours without pay, and it probably gives me a better idea of how good they are.

megablast 16y ago
You make a good point, but as for telling how a company will respect you, because they ask for a drug test, you may be a little off. If it is a big company, HR practices will have nothing to do with anything else in the company, so don't judge the department you will be working in by what HR makes you do. On the other hand, a company that lets HR have free reign to do anything, may cause endless suffering as HR feel the need to make themselves more "integrated". I recently interviewed for a developer in a government position, and decided that the people doing the interview are the ones are out of their depth, and should be unemployed. They clearly had to technical understanding where it was required for their job, and got very confused by the simplest question.
- buro9 16y ago
  HR practices disconnected from a respectful approach to the individuals involved can certainly reflect on the general approach of a large company. HR is one of those neglected things, if they've gotten that right then they tend to have other things right. It's also something that you hope will be invisible and will "just work" when you're there... you want it to be friendly, respectful, and efficient. I would say that if HR appears from the outset to be burdened by needless bureaucracy (an aptitude test when you acknowledge the position/department/legislature may not require it) definitely checks the box of reflecting a corporate culture that allows such crud to creep in. I don't go for any positions that: 1) Require me to jump through silly hoops when there is no benefit from anyone to doing so. 2) Bog me down in bureaucracy before I've even begun. 3) Require me to give access to any personal data that they do not have the legal right to ask for. On that last one, I'm talking about social networking credentials, overly invasive background checks that don't relate to the position and so on. I was fine with the Home Office and GCHQ asking questions about my finances, running criminal record checks and contacting friends and family as part of a security vetting process that they have the legal mandate to perform... but I wouldn't be fine with a large company performing such things.