3 ms·

>> 3. Will this candidate get along with coworkers? > Duh. But also, how do you actually test objectively for this without introducing bias? You can't because

>> 3. Will this candidate get along with coworkers? > Duh. But also, how do you actually test objectively for this without introducing bias? You can't because it's a bs metric like "culture fit". After about a dozen people, you can no longer ensure people will get along or like each other. I only have five brothers but I don't even like all of them. People have quirks, and it's easy to find reasons to pass on candidates because of them (reminds me of Seinfeld and how the characters ended relationships because of man hands or toes). I see this a lot in non-technical hiring where marketing folk exclaim "I like the candidate, we have great rapport" only to discover the candidate was subpar. > I'm really of two minds on this topic. I used to be, but after suffering through a bout of mental illness that rendered me an anxious mess when I was once the life of the party really changed how I evaluate this dimension. Be kind and assume the best, which we can all agree would be amazing if the tables were turned.

zvrba 8y ago
> You can't because it's a bs metric like "culture fit". I'd disagree. An indirect metric is "Can I as the technical lead [1] communicate effectively with the candidate?" If the leadership is stable, then a "yes" to this question is likely to imply "yes" to the "getting along" question. If all "subordinates" can effectively communicate with the "hub" (lead), it's not unreasonable to expect that they'd be able to get along with each other using the same mode of communication they use with the lead. That's what my intuition tells me. May be wrong though. [1] Presumably, the technical lead takes part in the interview process.
- tomnipotent 8y ago
  I translate this as wanting a candidate that is compliant and can remove his ego to work in a hierarchal management structure. This is fine, of course, but let's not confuse that as "getting along" or "culture fit" when it's really "following orders".
  - ankimal 8y ago
    We have taken out any mention of "culture fit" which to me means more of the same. Instead, we measure culture addition. How will this person add to our culture?
    - tomnipotent 8y ago
      I love this. Such a better way of framing the situation. Thank you.
nomel 8y ago
I disagree that this is a bs metric. When I look for personality, I'm looking three things: * How they ask questions for things they don't understand The problems I give are directly applicable but I leave a few slightly vague. Someone really experienced could fill in the missing pieces easily, but usually this doesn't happen. I then ask them if the problem makes sense or if I missed anything. If they can't tell me that the problem isn't clear, or they need more information, then they'll have trouble working with a team trying to solve and communicate problems. A mediocre candidate will say that the problem isn't clear with "I don't understand". A good candidate will explain what they don't understand. A great candidate will ask for clarification on the vague piece without much fuss. * Reaction to not knowing something. I have a hard problem that I give at the end. I clearly tell them it's not expected to be solved and that I just want to talk about how it might be approached. If they get angry, say "oh I know how, just give me 5 more minutes" then stand there blank, etc, then they're not going to fit in a team that is trying to solve hard problems together. A good candidate will stay calm and provide any sort of input, ask any sort of questions, or show any sort of interest. Sometimes people get nervous here, so I keep this very very lighthearted. * Are they full of themselves/assholes This is pretty evident within the first few minutes, and really rare (and almost always accompanied with a stream of buzzwords after every sentence). A good candidate won't be an asshole.
- tomnipotent 8y ago
  Everything you've mentioned are shallow assumptions based on brief exchanges with people. These are not qualities you can effectively suss out in a few hours through an interview process. You can at best get hints, but just like how GPA is not an indicator of a students on-job success neither is an interview - or our conclusion - any better indicators to the candidates success. > Are they full of themselves/assholes / This is pretty evident within the first few minutes Not it's not. People can act awkward during interviews, it's a stressful situation. Some people need to peacock to feel self-confident - I may not like it, but I'm not going to fuck with their future because of an emotional reaction I had to how they present themselves. I've hired plenty of "assholes" that just needed the benefit of the doubt and a chance to grow. We're not psychologists or therapists, so we should we stop trying to "figure people out" and decipher complex human interactions & behavior by trying to bucket them into checkboxes for whether or not someone is good. Be kind, give the benefit of the doubt. This is someones career on the line, not a first date. Treat it with the respect and gravity you'd like someone to give you.

zvrba 8y ago

> You can't because it's a bs metric like "culture fit". I'd disagree. An indirect metric is "Can I as the technical lead [1] communicate effectively with the candidate?" If the leadership is stable, then a "yes" to this question is likely to imply "yes" to the "getting along" question. If all "subordinates" can effectively communicate with the "hub" (lead), it's not unreasonable to expect that they'd be able to get along with each other using the same mode of communication they use with the lead. That's what my intuition tells me. May be wrong though. [1] Presumably, the technical lead takes part in the interview process.

tomnipotent 8y ago
I translate this as wanting a candidate that is compliant and can remove his ego to work in a hierarchal management structure. This is fine, of course, but let's not confuse that as "getting along" or "culture fit" when it's really "following orders".
- ankimal 8y ago
  We have taken out any mention of "culture fit" which to me means more of the same. Instead, we measure culture addition. How will this person add to our culture?
  - tomnipotent 8y ago
    I love this. Such a better way of framing the situation. Thank you.

nomel 8y ago

I disagree that this is a bs metric. When I look for personality, I'm looking three things: * How they ask questions for things they don't understand The problems I give are directly applicable but I leave a few slightly vague. Someone really experienced could fill in the missing pieces easily, but usually this doesn't happen. I then ask them if the problem makes sense or if I missed anything. If they can't tell me that the problem isn't clear, or they need more information, then they'll have trouble working with a team trying to solve and communicate problems. A mediocre candidate will say that the problem isn't clear with "I don't understand". A good candidate will explain what they don't understand. A great candidate will ask for clarification on the vague piece without much fuss. * Reaction to not knowing something. I have a hard problem that I give at the end. I clearly tell them it's not expected to be solved and that I just want to talk about how it might be approached. If they get angry, say "oh I know how, just give me 5 more minutes" then stand there blank, etc, then they're not going to fit in a team that is trying to solve hard problems together. A good candidate will stay calm and provide any sort of input, ask any sort of questions, or show any sort of interest. Sometimes people get nervous here, so I keep this very very lighthearted. * Are they full of themselves/assholes This is pretty evident within the first few minutes, and really rare (and almost always accompanied with a stream of buzzwords after every sentence). A good candidate won't be an asshole.

tomnipotent 8y ago
Everything you've mentioned are shallow assumptions based on brief exchanges with people. These are not qualities you can effectively suss out in a few hours through an interview process. You can at best get hints, but just like how GPA is not an indicator of a students on-job success neither is an interview - or our conclusion - any better indicators to the candidates success. > Are they full of themselves/assholes / This is pretty evident within the first few minutes Not it's not. People can act awkward during interviews, it's a stressful situation. Some people need to peacock to feel self-confident - I may not like it, but I'm not going to fuck with their future because of an emotional reaction I had to how they present themselves. I've hired plenty of "assholes" that just needed the benefit of the doubt and a chance to grow. We're not psychologists or therapists, so we should we stop trying to "figure people out" and decipher complex human interactions & behavior by trying to bucket them into checkboxes for whether or not someone is good. Be kind, give the benefit of the doubt. This is someones career on the line, not a first date. Treat it with the respect and gravity you'd like someone to give you.