3 ms·

I mean you are justifying why your process is the way it is from the perspective of the company. Great, no one doubts you have your reasons. But does the candid

I mean you are justifying why your process is the way it is from the perspective of the company. Great, no one doubts you have your reasons. But does the candidates perspective not matter? He rightfully doesn't want to spend 3-4 hours of his time on an artificial interview process. You can call that combative or jaded, I call it knowing what you are worth. Or just protecting your limited time on earth. Seems like you ultimately do want monkeys who consistently put their own interest behind the company's. No surprise that older people are less willing to do this - its not because they are "jaded", its because they recognize that no one else will put their interests ahead of their own. Its a 2-way interview though, so overall you both steer clear of each other - great.

caconym_ 9y ago
I see the particulars of the interview process as just another part of the negotiation around a potential business agreement between an employee and an employer. If you have a good BATNA, maybe you can push back a bit. If you don't, then that sucks for you, but I don't see why the company wouldn't pass you over for someone who's a bit more willing to jump through some hoops. It's not just about being a "monkey"; it can also be seen as a metric of how much a candidate wants the job, and all other things being equal I'd much rather hire someone with enthusiasm. Or maybe (as you say) a candidate will simply disagree with a potential employer's philosophy on interviews and drop out of the process for that reason alone. That's fine too, and if a company's process is so onerous that nobody worth hiring is willing to go through it then that's on them.
mlinsey 9y ago
I agree 100% with the direction of your conclusion - different companies can have different cultures / different processes and candidates (especially experienced ones with high market value) can just go with whatever style of company you feel is best. That said, your characterization of the parent as wanting "want monkeys who consistently put their own interest behind the company's" is missing a key third stakeholder besides the company and the candidate - and that's the other employees! In my experience, a company built around a strong collaborative working culture will have employees that a) want to see what it's like working through a problem with you, in some form, b) feel that an environment where every incoming candidate has to pass the same bar, regardless of pedigree, is fairer c) prefer working with others that exhibit the humility you characterize as being a 'monkey'. Again, ymmv, choose the culture you want, etc...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  Hmm honestly there are better ways to let your employees get to know a candidate than a 1-hour tech screen - how about a 15-minute chat instead? And if you need a tech competency bar that fresh college grads generally do better on than experienced devs to manufacture a social consensus on fairness, I feel your team does not trust the interviewers enough. My idea of a collaborative working culture is where 1. we trust each employee to do their job well enough that we do not have to look over their shoulder 2. we respect each employee enough that we value their time 3. we can work together with low friction I would not characterize these positions as a lack of humility. The use of 'monkey' was in the sense of OPs use of "dance monkey" where candidates go through a ritualized process that tests little but mostly serves to preserve a social illusion of fairness. Pedigree is one thing, actual experience and references to back it up absolutely is a reason to "bend the bar" unless preserving the appearance of fairness is more important than actually evaluating skill. But overall, thank god for free choice. These are very different value systems I think - manifesting as differences in interview style, but they are more fundamental political differences.
  - PascLeRasc 9y ago
    I agree that the technical screening can go away and be replaced by a chat. I've gotten to know new employees at my work by going for a beer with them and asking "Oh so your iPhone's jailbroken? How'd you do that?" or "So I saw you're using Gnome3, why do you prefer that?" and most of the time they're pretty eager to give a well-thought-out explanation behind those sort of personal computing choices. I really enjoy working with the people who are well-versed in some niche topic like that and can communicate its 'good-enough practices' well.

caconym_ 9y ago

I see the particulars of the interview process as just another part of the negotiation around a potential business agreement between an employee and an employer. If you have a good BATNA, maybe you can push back a bit. If you don't, then that sucks for you, but I don't see why the company wouldn't pass you over for someone who's a bit more willing to jump through some hoops. It's not just about being a "monkey"; it can also be seen as a metric of how much a candidate wants the job, and all other things being equal I'd much rather hire someone with enthusiasm. Or maybe (as you say) a candidate will simply disagree with a potential employer's philosophy on interviews and drop out of the process for that reason alone. That's fine too, and if a company's process is so onerous that nobody worth hiring is willing to go through it then that's on them.

mlinsey 9y ago

I agree 100% with the direction of your conclusion - different companies can have different cultures / different processes and candidates (especially experienced ones with high market value) can just go with whatever style of company you feel is best. That said, your characterization of the parent as wanting "want monkeys who consistently put their own interest behind the company's" is missing a key third stakeholder besides the company and the candidate - and that's the other employees! In my experience, a company built around a strong collaborative working culture will have employees that a) want to see what it's like working through a problem with you, in some form, b) feel that an environment where every incoming candidate has to pass the same bar, regardless of pedigree, is fairer c) prefer working with others that exhibit the humility you characterize as being a 'monkey'. Again, ymmv, choose the culture you want, etc...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Hmm honestly there are better ways to let your employees get to know a candidate than a 1-hour tech screen - how about a 15-minute chat instead? And if you need a tech competency bar that fresh college grads generally do better on than experienced devs to manufacture a social consensus on fairness, I feel your team does not trust the interviewers enough. My idea of a collaborative working culture is where 1. we trust each employee to do their job well enough that we do not have to look over their shoulder 2. we respect each employee enough that we value their time 3. we can work together with low friction I would not characterize these positions as a lack of humility. The use of 'monkey' was in the sense of OPs use of "dance monkey" where candidates go through a ritualized process that tests little but mostly serves to preserve a social illusion of fairness. Pedigree is one thing, actual experience and references to back it up absolutely is a reason to "bend the bar" unless preserving the appearance of fairness is more important than actually evaluating skill. But overall, thank god for free choice. These are very different value systems I think - manifesting as differences in interview style, but they are more fundamental political differences.
- PascLeRasc 9y ago
  I agree that the technical screening can go away and be replaced by a chat. I've gotten to know new employees at my work by going for a beer with them and asking "Oh so your iPhone's jailbroken? How'd you do that?" or "So I saw you're using Gnome3, why do you prefer that?" and most of the time they're pretty eager to give a well-thought-out explanation behind those sort of personal computing choices. I really enjoy working with the people who are well-versed in some niche topic like that and can communicate its 'good-enough practices' well.