34 ms·

Lessons from Hiring a Remote Team

84 points by Lexandrit 7y ago

draw_down 7y ago
> It’s reckless to judge a candidate only from the perspective of their portfolio or resume, not seeing this person in real work. > Put some ‘traps’ in the job description Good grief.
lhorie 7y ago
> Put some ‘traps’ in the job description Careful with that, it implies you have an issue with trust or micromanagement. As a candidate, I'd roll my eyes and move on. > Talk about life with your candidates Careful with this one too. It's illegal to discriminate candidates based on non-work aspects (e.g. candidate has kids). If you're a small company C-suit doing the hiring, this is especially problematic as it can come across to a candidate as being overly nosy and raise flags.
- threwawasy1228 7y ago
  I recently had a phone interview where the other person kept asking me about my life. It wasn't the typical things you normally hear about career goals or ambitions, it was very philosophical. I was quite literally asked about what my purpose in life was. It gave me pause because I was surprised that they would ask such a question at all. This was a job doing data analyst work. I would not take the job even if they come back with an offer just because it was such a weird interview process.
  - reggieband 7y ago
    Maybe they were fishing for the "what do you see yourself doing in 5 years" kind of information. As a manager, motivation is one of the primary things I focus on. Every employee is different ... some people want money, some people want autonomy, some people want to be mentored, some people want to work on massive systems. I try not to get philosophical (or personal) but I at least try to get a flavor from a candidate as to what their motivation would be and how that might fit into the team.
    - watwut 7y ago
      But like, do you really expect stages to be open with this? The real this that drive people tend to be personal and during hiring process people are bound to bias it towards what they think makes them sound good.
    - craftinator 7y ago
      Fishing is not a good way to catch good employees, only a good way to catch fish. If a hiring manager can't ask the questions they want the answers to, then I walk out the door.
- T-hawk 7y ago
  > It's illegal to discriminate candidates based on non-work aspects (e.g. candidate has kids). This is true only when a specific law creates a specific protected class. Discrimination is legal by default. An employer can freely choose who it associates with. It only becomes illegal when a specific law makes it so. Protected classes in most US jurisdictions include characteristics like gender, race, religion, some medical conditions. Age is a protected class only over age 40; discriminating against a worker of age 39 for being too old, or favoring workers over 40, is entirely legal. I don't know offhand if family status of kids is a protected class. But protected classes don't include a lot of things that people commonly think they do. Some example non-work factors that are perfectly legal to discriminate on because there is no US law protecting the class: smoking, obesity, height, car you drive, method of commuting, sports team favoritism.
  - jxfreeman 7y ago
    Familial status is off limits in the US. So is marital status, health questions and questions about transportation to and from work. Basically, if it isn’t related to the job you could find yourself embroiled in a nasty lawsuit with the Labor Dept. not on your side.
  - astura 7y ago
    If you're asking invasive personal questions like "what are your life plans?" during a job interview it can look like you're trying to discriminate against a protected class. I'm a childless woman at the age where most conversations about vague future life plans are actually inquiries about childbearing. It's risky and there's just no good reason to do it.
strig 7y ago
Most of this advice also applies to hiring onsite employees.
malvosenior 7y ago
Really disagree with a lot of this (and I'm a strong advocate for remote work). > It’s reckless to judge a candidate only from the perspective of their portfolio or resume, not seeing this person in real work. I try to hire exclusively based on portfolio and having an engaged and in-depth conversation with a candidate about their work. Works great! Doesn't waste anyone's time and I've got many excellent candidates who flat out refuse to take tests or do homework to get a job. > Put some ‘traps’ in the job description Hell to the f'ing no! Do not work with anyone who tries to trap or trick you during the interview process. > I have one simple rule: I don’t want to work with people whom I wouldn’t invite for coffee Grow up. You're not looking for friends you're looking for co-workers. This company sounds extremely toxic.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  This was my impression as well. "I don't work with people I wouldn't invite for coffee"? I don't need my coworkers to be my friends (although it's definitely great if it happens), I just need them to be professional and good at what they do.
  - yulaow 7y ago
    I disagree strongly. I saw time over time what happens to the team when even just a single (new) coworker starts to act hostile, ruins the general mood or just doesn't click with the way the rest of the team interacts... and it can really distrupt the collaboration effort in a deep but hard to notice way.
    - emerongi 7y ago
      Has nothing to do with inviting someone to a coffee. A person can be pleasant to work with and not a great conversationalist. Plus many assholes are not assholes on the surface anyway.
    - astura 7y ago
      Yet that person can still be an incredibly pleasant person to get coffee with. OTOH, you can have absolutely nothing in common with someone and even disagree with their life philosophy on a fundamental level yet they can be a perfectly fine person to work with. "We are friends outside of a work setting" just doesn't correlate to "we work well together." What "we work well together" correlates to is actually "they are professional and respectful, they can do their job, and they have a good work ethic."
shikoba 7y ago
> Talk about life with your candidates That's the best way to not hire introvert competent people.
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  I'm an introvert and I don't mind talking about life. Just don't expect the things I talk about to be bent towards social endeavors.
  - glitchc 7y ago
    Why was this honest opinion down-voted?
  - JAlexoid 7y ago
    I'm an introvert and on the spectrum - when someone asks me about "life", I immediately find the question to be like an inquisition into my personal life. I'm also gay and married, that makes any "personal life" questions fraught with discrimination liability.
hunglee2 7y ago
"traps" comment is attracting a lot of flak in comments here - easy to understand why, it gives the sense of being set up for failure. I'd love to see OP expand on this point as I feel the wording distracts from the main point, which is a subtle test of someone's attention to detail and / or facility with written communication, both of which are important for remote work, where 'over-the-desk' clarifications are not available
- malvosenior 7y ago
  This will happen naturally during the negotation and interview process and it will look a lot more like "real work" than any trap, trick or quiz. Are they effectively writing emails as you have your back and forth? Do they ask good clarifying questions? What do they do with their contract once it's sent to them? Actually getting someone in the door requires a lot of work on both sides of the table. It's a perfect and natural way to vet what it's like to work with someone.
  - hunglee2 7y ago
    You're right. Nothing beats actually working with someone to learn whether you want to work with someone. However there are inefficiencies in doing this, which is why assessments (which are all proxies for the work) are used. I don't think it's unreasonable to use subtle testing like this. We likely do it anyway (i.e we make judgement calls when reviewing someone's online profile, portfolio etc) - all equally sub-optimal but we use it because we need a short cut
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  Agree, I'd like to see more about traps. I've seen some, in job descriptions, that basically say, "When applying, make sure to tell us why you love [some topic related to the job]". When trying to hire, it's always a torrent of unqualified candidates and hunting for qualified candidates. No filter is 100% perfect; but broad filters against someone who didn't take 10 minutes to read the job description carefully is useful.
  - 7y ago
phonebucket 7y ago
> Hiring a remote team is not an easy task, but if you believe it’s for you, you will cope with it. Good luck! The best I can hope for is "coping"? Doesn't sound so inspiring!
- AznHisoka 7y ago
  Hiring is a huge pain point for many people. It's a billion dollar problem. We want it to go away. Of course it ain't going to be fun, nor inspiring.
mdip 7y ago
There were several good points in the post and one really bad one ("traps" which has been pointed out a few times). There are a few issues with "traps" that should be avoided (any kind, not just the one mentioned): (1) Taking a failure to pay attention to a minor detail in a job application and assuming that applies more broadly is a nice idea, but not practical. People make mistakes, people overlook things and they prioritize how much they'll pay attention based on the task, not desire -- i.e. if I'm applying for 30 jobs, 2 of which I'm really excited about, I'll spend more time on the two I'm excited about but I'm probably going to spend as much time reading the description and instructions as I did for the previous 30 because the task is repetitive and similar. (2) It's likely to turn people off -- when I see very specific, very odd instructions in a job application, it's a signal that the company is doing things ... oddly. Are all of their internal processes this rigid? Especially for remote hiring, where your staff usually places a high value on flexibility, it's the wrong message to send. But it makes you feel good, as the person doing hiring. It looks like a "quick way to eliminate a large number of resumes" and works about as well as all of those other quick ways. The flip side of this sort of trap is that it can back-fire. Assuming that it truly does weed out candidates who lack an attention to detail, it could also skew toward perfectionist types who get everything perfect ... once it eventually, maybe gets completed at all.
- hayksaakian 7y ago
  To play devil's advocate: If I'm the hiring manager, then I probably don't want to hire you for the 28 out of 30 jobs you're not interested in. Sure, you're selecting for perfectionists, but arguably that's better than hiring people who don't really care about your company.
  - noirbot 7y ago
    But at the same time, I only have so many hours in the day to research companies. If you asked me what companies I was interested in working at, you'd mostly get big-name stuff, even though right now I work somewhere you've likely never heard of. If you're not a FAANG company, you almost have to be hiring folks who are applying to you because "why not", and then pitching them on your company. I've gone to plenty of interviews and been sold on a company that I previously had almost no knowledge of, especially in B2B industries. Massive portions of the jobs in tech are for teams, companies and industries that your average developer has no exposure to, and no real reason to care about, but it doesn't mean people can't become passionate about working there if given more information.
ravenstine 7y ago
> Talk about life with your candidates > I have one simple rule: I don’t want to work with people whom I wouldn’t invite for coffee. When hiring a remote team member, I always talk to them about their life plans or favorite books. This small talk shows me whether a person will be a good fit for our team. This is fine, so long as you recognize your own biases and don't expect to be mirroring yourself on to other people. Humans looking to make an honest living are not your personal canvas. If you look for people who can get along with you without necessarily expecting them to be your "bro", then being chummy with candidates should be acceptable. Be sure to accept people with different interests and personalities.
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  What if I don't read books? Am I instantly not allowed to be on the team? :(
  - cik 7y ago
    All joking aside that's one of my filters for any hiring, and whether or not I'll work with someone. Someone who doesn't read, or hasn't read recently (tech, econ, whatever), I find is then missing all sorts of other things that make it a bad experience.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      Does reading HN count? That the most tech/econ/whatever reading I'm doing
      - aogl 7y ago
        Whenever I answer that in interviews, the interviewer (if a techy) always smiles and nods. So I guess so.. HN counts..
    - slimsag 7y ago
      Funny, that is one of my metrics to measure the pretentiousness of a work environment and whether or not a company will be a SV flop or not.
mytailorisrich 7y ago
I don't see a problem with the "traps" mentioned, which are only a mean to check whether the candidate has read the job description in full before applying and/or that (s)he can follow simple instructions when applying. So not really traps at all, and not aimed at tripping candidates up.
- JAlexoid 7y ago
  Adding requirements for candidates to be fulfilled during the application process shouldn't be a trap!
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    It's not a trap. Perhaps the author did not choose the best term.
    - JAlexoid 7y ago
      It is. He literally explains what kind of stupid actions he suggests going "candidates to replace the subject line of their application with a specific phrase".* If you want attentiveness, then ask for a rational action to be completed... Not senseless idiocy. * - Had I seen this request(I read the job postings carefully) I would definitely skip the job.
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        If someone cannot follow a simple instruction in a job posting then perhaps they shouldn't call the job poster 'stupid'...
- lhorie 7y ago
  Kinda goes both ways though. A lot of job descriptions aren't actually accurate about what the job entails, so why should a candidate take yours literally? If you're being shady about your interview process, expect to only get people who can't afford to look elsewhere, while good candidates pass you up for potential employers who act respectfully towards the candidate's time.
JAlexoid 7y ago
A few rules that are sorely missed - Remember to check out local work culture.(Americans stick out like a sore thumb in many western European work social situations) - Always, always, always have a good leader on site.
- iheartdata 7y ago
  >Remember to check out local work culture.(Americans stick out like a sore thumb in many western European work social situations) Care to elaborate a bit? I'm an American working at a large US University with a very diverse community. I've daydreamed about moving to western Europe, so I'd like to hear what the work social situations you're referring to are.
  - camjohnson26 7y ago
    Sounds like a case of European exceptionalism. I doubt you can accurately make such a broad generalization about an entire country’s people.
    - JAlexoid 7y ago
      Yes, yes... Because cultures don't exist and people all over the world are exactly the same. And it's a case of too many Americans thinking that American way is like it is everywhere.
      - camjohnson26 7y ago
        Because there’s only one American culture and everyone in it is the same. Nice hypocrisy.
        craftinator 7y ago
        This is just fantastic sniping! You should both keep going, it's pretty good entertainment!
  - 7y ago
astura 7y ago
>I have one simple rule: I don’t want to work with people whom I wouldn’t invite for coffee. When hiring a remote team member, I always talk to them about their life plans or favorite books. This small talk shows me whether a person will be a good fit for our team. Hrm.... I was under the impression that people hiring were looking for employees/teammembers/coworkers, not buddies?? I don't personally care if I would enjoy coffee/beer with a coworker as long as they are a good teammate, employee, and coworker. I don't find an team full of people that have the same hobbies and enjoy the same literature particularly beneficial in any way. I just don't think "enjoys the same books as me" is a good test for "makes a good teammate." In the past I have had some absolutely fantastic coworkers that I had absolutely nothing in common with outside of work and would never want to hang out with (stuff like young earth creationists, has a mail order bride younger than his daughter, incredibly sheltered people, and just weird people). OTOH, some people I've become friends with outside of work make for horrible coworkers (stuff like poor work ethic, poor code quality, horrible attitude towards work, primadonnas in a work setting, control freaks at work). I also worked with a guy who just wouldn't talk about anything personal at work with coworkers (boss obviously different) because he believed in a separation between personal life and work life. No problem, he still made a fine coworker. I'd very, VERY strongly discourage asking interviewees about their "life plans," like, seriously, this is a BAD idea. Asking about "life plans" can come across as looking to discriminate against people with families, people who plan to start a family soon, or even people who have certain religious beliefs, which is illegal in many parts of the world, including the US. It might seem like a harmless question if a young male is asking another young male "what are your life plans?" in an interview, but it seems a lot less harmless when the interviewee is a female of childbearing age. If an interviewer asked me "what are your life plans?" I'd assume the subtext was "are you planning on going on maturity leave soon?" Also, what the hell sort of answer to this question would be a "good" answer and what would be a "bad" answer? Are you just looking to hire people with the same life plans as you???
- mrmonkeyman 7y ago
  I hate to say it, but I agree. My most annoying collegue is the most dependable, knowledgable person I know. Once you navigate his fuckedupness he is quite a joy to work with, but god forbid I ever socialize with him, it is a nightmare.
zrth 7y ago
Has any of this been A/B tested? Is it disowning of me, if the absence of A/B testing make me think this is rather random opinions than solid advice?
pier25 7y ago
I'm fine with the "traps" mentioned. I know I would pay attention to those things even if I was looking at many job applications and I would expect anyone I'd hire to do the same. As for "talking about life" I think it's a great idea. Many people ITT think it's about finding buddies, it's not. It's about getting a reading of the person and be able to make a better decision. This goes both ways, the candidate will also know what type of person he will be working with.
- astura 7y ago
  What sort of non-(illegal)discriminatory reason would you consider someone's life plans in a hiring decision? And it is really worth the legal risk of asking this question?
  - pier25 7y ago
    It's not really about life plans or discrimination, it's about getting a sense of what the person is like outside of the professional skills and experience. Everyone brings extra baggage when getting into a job. Does he/she have interests outside of the tech world? Maybe contributes to open source projects? Maybe likes learning new things constantly? Etc. I've been hiring people for almost 20 years for my company, working as a manager in other people's companies, or sharing a project with other freelancers. It's undeniable the chemistry between team members is an important factor. It also works the other way around, for the candidate to evaluate what kind of person his/her next boss will be like.
    - astura 7y ago
      >what the person is like outside of the professional skills and experience Not relevant as long as they are professional and capable at work. Just sounds like a (poor) justification for illegal discrimination. >Maybe contributes to open source projects? If you want to know this try asking "do you contribute to open source projects?" instead. >It's undeniable the chemistry between team members is an important factor. Sounds like an proxy for illegal discrimination. "Oh, our teams chemistry is important so we don't want to hire an older person/woman/Mormon/mother/Indian/recent immigrant/double amputee because they are too different and would mess up the team chemistry." Even if this isn't intentional its the end result. I'll tell you what's important for team chemistry - respect and professionalism in a work setting, good work performance, and good work ethic. Not their life ambitions, what type of literature they read or what type of hobbies they have. I've only worked in incredibly diverse teams and it's not a problem for "team chemistry." However, I would think working with someone who could only work with people they are friends with WOULD be a problem, a big problem. But, really, could you actually honestly defend this position in court if you had to? Doubtful. I'm a childless woman at the age where most conversations about vague future life plans are actually inquiries about childbearing. But, really, what's an example of a "wrong" answer to this question? Are you really going to say "Oh, she's boring outside of work, lets not hire her?" How silly. I know a guy (not a coworker of mine) who literally does absolutely nothing outside of work except sleep, play video games, exercise, cook and clean, and very occasionally grabs a beer with me. He rarely leaves the house except to go to work. He's got the most boring life ever but he's gotten several promotions over the course of the first couple years of his career.
aantix 7y ago
I don't consider a "50-page PDF" as on-boarding. It feels more like a cover-your-ass document. I would fear that when the candidate becomes confused about something, the book gives the team a free pass to give the look of "did you even RTFM?" Proper on-boarding is pairing, it's a walkthrough, answering questions contextually as they arise. Not a brain dump of everything you think they should know.
wolco 7y ago
Lessons #1. Tricking candidates is a fake filter. It doesn't get you better candidates. Why not take every 2nd application and toss it out for no reason. Or only call back names that start with a vowel? Same effect. Lesson #2. Would we make a good coffee date? Why not base it on if they would make a great bowling buddy or dance contest partner? Are they single? Do they have good looking friends that they could set me up with? Lesson #3 References are a degree more useless for remote candidates. Easier to make up and fake. It worked well 100 years ago when everyone knew everyone less so now. Lesson #4 Having someone do a test closely mirroring your process is great for temp contractor not so good if you are looking at someone to take your codebase to the next level.
vorpalhex 7y ago
Aside from "paying well" this is like a laundry list of what to not do. 1. Unless you're paying me, I'm not doing homework. 2. This isn't a dating ad, it's an employment offer. You're not hiring PIs. 4. Be careful about building a social club instead of a company 5. I don't work with people who don't understand the separation between work and my personal life. My political views, social views, and what I do with my free time are none of your business as long as I don't make them your business. Frankly, I don't want to be your friend. 7. A book is garbage onboarding. Your onboarding needs to be task oriented and fast. Give them a quick checklist on how to get access, pull down a project, and build it and run tests. Don't expect them to study a godforsaken manual.
- JAlexoid 7y ago
  I'd like to emphasize #4. I hate people that are hired because the manager liked them. My husband falls into this trap all the time. Hiring "nice" people, instead of the best team members. A job isn't a friendship, though it's nice if people who you work with are your friends. Friendships also make it harder to quit or fire people.
- astura 7y ago
  What does "PIs" stand for in this context?
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    Private Investigators.
alexpotato 7y ago
This article reminds me of one of my favorite "quick filter" stories: I had a female friend who would ask every guy she met two questions: 1. Do you have a passport? 2. Do you have a library card? If the answer to #1 was 'No', then that meant that they had never left the country. If the answer to #2 was 'No', odds were that they didn't LOVE to read. (This story is from the pre-ereader days) I've always been fascinated by questions like these that can quickly allow you to parse/grok/filter people with a high degree of success and minimal false positives.

84 points by Lexandrit 7y ago

> It’s reckless to judge a candidate only from the perspective of their portfolio or resume, not seeing this person in real work. > Put some ‘traps’ in the job description Good grief.

lhorie 7y ago

> Put some ‘traps’ in the job description Careful with that, it implies you have an issue with trust or micromanagement. As a candidate, I'd roll my eyes and move on. > Talk about life with your candidates Careful with this one too. It's illegal to discriminate candidates based on non-work aspects (e.g. candidate has kids). If you're a small company C-suit doing the hiring, this is especially problematic as it can come across to a candidate as being overly nosy and raise flags.

threwawasy1228 7y ago
I recently had a phone interview where the other person kept asking me about my life. It wasn't the typical things you normally hear about career goals or ambitions, it was very philosophical. I was quite literally asked about what my purpose in life was. It gave me pause because I was surprised that they would ask such a question at all. This was a job doing data analyst work. I would not take the job even if they come back with an offer just because it was such a weird interview process.
- reggieband 7y ago
  Maybe they were fishing for the "what do you see yourself doing in 5 years" kind of information. As a manager, motivation is one of the primary things I focus on. Every employee is different ... some people want money, some people want autonomy, some people want to be mentored, some people want to work on massive systems. I try not to get philosophical (or personal) but I at least try to get a flavor from a candidate as to what their motivation would be and how that might fit into the team.
  - watwut 7y ago
    But like, do you really expect stages to be open with this? The real this that drive people tend to be personal and during hiring process people are bound to bias it towards what they think makes them sound good.
  - craftinator 7y ago
    Fishing is not a good way to catch good employees, only a good way to catch fish. If a hiring manager can't ask the questions they want the answers to, then I walk out the door.
T-hawk 7y ago
> It's illegal to discriminate candidates based on non-work aspects (e.g. candidate has kids). This is true only when a specific law creates a specific protected class. Discrimination is legal by default. An employer can freely choose who it associates with. It only becomes illegal when a specific law makes it so. Protected classes in most US jurisdictions include characteristics like gender, race, religion, some medical conditions. Age is a protected class only over age 40; discriminating against a worker of age 39 for being too old, or favoring workers over 40, is entirely legal. I don't know offhand if family status of kids is a protected class. But protected classes don't include a lot of things that people commonly think they do. Some example non-work factors that are perfectly legal to discriminate on because there is no US law protecting the class: smoking, obesity, height, car you drive, method of commuting, sports team favoritism.
- jxfreeman 7y ago
  Familial status is off limits in the US. So is marital status, health questions and questions about transportation to and from work. Basically, if it isn’t related to the job you could find yourself embroiled in a nasty lawsuit with the Labor Dept. not on your side.
- astura 7y ago
  If you're asking invasive personal questions like "what are your life plans?" during a job interview it can look like you're trying to discriminate against a protected class. I'm a childless woman at the age where most conversations about vague future life plans are actually inquiries about childbearing. It's risky and there's just no good reason to do it.

strig 7y ago

Most of this advice also applies to hiring onsite employees.

malvosenior 7y ago

Really disagree with a lot of this (and I'm a strong advocate for remote work). > It’s reckless to judge a candidate only from the perspective of their portfolio or resume, not seeing this person in real work. I try to hire exclusively based on portfolio and having an engaged and in-depth conversation with a candidate about their work. Works great! Doesn't waste anyone's time and I've got many excellent candidates who flat out refuse to take tests or do homework to get a job. > Put some ‘traps’ in the job description Hell to the f'ing no! Do not work with anyone who tries to trap or trick you during the interview process. > I have one simple rule: I don’t want to work with people whom I wouldn’t invite for coffee Grow up. You're not looking for friends you're looking for co-workers. This company sounds extremely toxic.

StavrosK 7y ago
This was my impression as well. "I don't work with people I wouldn't invite for coffee"? I don't need my coworkers to be my friends (although it's definitely great if it happens), I just need them to be professional and good at what they do.
- yulaow 7y ago
  I disagree strongly. I saw time over time what happens to the team when even just a single (new) coworker starts to act hostile, ruins the general mood or just doesn't click with the way the rest of the team interacts... and it can really distrupt the collaboration effort in a deep but hard to notice way.
  - emerongi 7y ago
    Has nothing to do with inviting someone to a coffee. A person can be pleasant to work with and not a great conversationalist. Plus many assholes are not assholes on the surface anyway.
  - astura 7y ago
    Yet that person can still be an incredibly pleasant person to get coffee with. OTOH, you can have absolutely nothing in common with someone and even disagree with their life philosophy on a fundamental level yet they can be a perfectly fine person to work with. "We are friends outside of a work setting" just doesn't correlate to "we work well together." What "we work well together" correlates to is actually "they are professional and respectful, they can do their job, and they have a good work ethic."

shikoba 7y ago

> Talk about life with your candidates That's the best way to not hire introvert competent people.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago
I'm an introvert and I don't mind talking about life. Just don't expect the things I talk about to be bent towards social endeavors.
- glitchc 7y ago
  Why was this honest opinion down-voted?
- JAlexoid 7y ago
  I'm an introvert and on the spectrum - when someone asks me about "life", I immediately find the question to be like an inquisition into my personal life. I'm also gay and married, that makes any "personal life" questions fraught with discrimination liability.

hunglee2 7y ago

"traps" comment is attracting a lot of flak in comments here - easy to understand why, it gives the sense of being set up for failure. I'd love to see OP expand on this point as I feel the wording distracts from the main point, which is a subtle test of someone's attention to detail and / or facility with written communication, both of which are important for remote work, where 'over-the-desk' clarifications are not available

malvosenior 7y ago
This will happen naturally during the negotation and interview process and it will look a lot more like "real work" than any trap, trick or quiz. Are they effectively writing emails as you have your back and forth? Do they ask good clarifying questions? What do they do with their contract once it's sent to them? Actually getting someone in the door requires a lot of work on both sides of the table. It's a perfect and natural way to vet what it's like to work with someone.
- hunglee2 7y ago
  You're right. Nothing beats actually working with someone to learn whether you want to work with someone. However there are inefficiencies in doing this, which is why assessments (which are all proxies for the work) are used. I don't think it's unreasonable to use subtle testing like this. We likely do it anyway (i.e we make judgement calls when reviewing someone's online profile, portfolio etc) - all equally sub-optimal but we use it because we need a short cut
gwbas1c 7y ago
Agree, I'd like to see more about traps. I've seen some, in job descriptions, that basically say, "When applying, make sure to tell us why you love [some topic related to the job]". When trying to hire, it's always a torrent of unqualified candidates and hunting for qualified candidates. No filter is 100% perfect; but broad filters against someone who didn't take 10 minutes to read the job description carefully is useful.
- 7y ago

phonebucket 7y ago

> Hiring a remote team is not an easy task, but if you believe it’s for you, you will cope with it. Good luck! The best I can hope for is "coping"? Doesn't sound so inspiring!

AznHisoka 7y ago
Hiring is a huge pain point for many people. It's a billion dollar problem. We want it to go away. Of course it ain't going to be fun, nor inspiring.

mdip 7y ago

There were several good points in the post and one really bad one ("traps" which has been pointed out a few times). There are a few issues with "traps" that should be avoided (any kind, not just the one mentioned): (1) Taking a failure to pay attention to a minor detail in a job application and assuming that applies more broadly is a nice idea, but not practical. People make mistakes, people overlook things and they prioritize how much they'll pay attention based on the task, not desire -- i.e. if I'm applying for 30 jobs, 2 of which I'm really excited about, I'll spend more time on the two I'm excited about but I'm probably going to spend as much time reading the description and instructions as I did for the previous 30 because the task is repetitive and similar. (2) It's likely to turn people off -- when I see very specific, very odd instructions in a job application, it's a signal that the company is doing things ... oddly. Are all of their internal processes this rigid? Especially for remote hiring, where your staff usually places a high value on flexibility, it's the wrong message to send. But it makes you feel good, as the person doing hiring. It looks like a "quick way to eliminate a large number of resumes" and works about as well as all of those other quick ways. The flip side of this sort of trap is that it can back-fire. Assuming that it truly does weed out candidates who lack an attention to detail, it could also skew toward perfectionist types who get everything perfect ... once it eventually, maybe gets completed at all.

hayksaakian 7y ago
To play devil's advocate: If I'm the hiring manager, then I probably don't want to hire you for the 28 out of 30 jobs you're not interested in. Sure, you're selecting for perfectionists, but arguably that's better than hiring people who don't really care about your company.
- noirbot 7y ago
  But at the same time, I only have so many hours in the day to research companies. If you asked me what companies I was interested in working at, you'd mostly get big-name stuff, even though right now I work somewhere you've likely never heard of. If you're not a FAANG company, you almost have to be hiring folks who are applying to you because "why not", and then pitching them on your company. I've gone to plenty of interviews and been sold on a company that I previously had almost no knowledge of, especially in B2B industries. Massive portions of the jobs in tech are for teams, companies and industries that your average developer has no exposure to, and no real reason to care about, but it doesn't mean people can't become passionate about working there if given more information.

ravenstine 7y ago

> Talk about life with your candidates > I have one simple rule: I don’t want to work with people whom I wouldn’t invite for coffee. When hiring a remote team member, I always talk to them about their life plans or favorite books. This small talk shows me whether a person will be a good fit for our team. This is fine, so long as you recognize your own biases and don't expect to be mirroring yourself on to other people. Humans looking to make an honest living are not your personal canvas. If you look for people who can get along with you without necessarily expecting them to be your "bro", then being chummy with candidates should be acceptable. Be sure to accept people with different interests and personalities.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
What if I don't read books? Am I instantly not allowed to be on the team? :(
- cik 7y ago
  All joking aside that's one of my filters for any hiring, and whether or not I'll work with someone. Someone who doesn't read, or hasn't read recently (tech, econ, whatever), I find is then missing all sorts of other things that make it a bad experience.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    Does reading HN count? That the most tech/econ/whatever reading I'm doing
    - aogl 7y ago
      Whenever I answer that in interviews, the interviewer (if a techy) always smiles and nods. So I guess so.. HN counts..
  - slimsag 7y ago
    Funny, that is one of my metrics to measure the pretentiousness of a work environment and whether or not a company will be a SV flop or not.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

I don't see a problem with the "traps" mentioned, which are only a mean to check whether the candidate has read the job description in full before applying and/or that (s)he can follow simple instructions when applying. So not really traps at all, and not aimed at tripping candidates up.

JAlexoid 7y ago
Adding requirements for candidates to be fulfilled during the application process shouldn't be a trap!
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  It's not a trap. Perhaps the author did not choose the best term.
  - JAlexoid 7y ago
    It is. He literally explains what kind of stupid actions he suggests going "candidates to replace the subject line of their application with a specific phrase".* If you want attentiveness, then ask for a rational action to be completed... Not senseless idiocy. * - Had I seen this request(I read the job postings carefully) I would definitely skip the job.
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      If someone cannot follow a simple instruction in a job posting then perhaps they shouldn't call the job poster 'stupid'...
lhorie 7y ago
Kinda goes both ways though. A lot of job descriptions aren't actually accurate about what the job entails, so why should a candidate take yours literally? If you're being shady about your interview process, expect to only get people who can't afford to look elsewhere, while good candidates pass you up for potential employers who act respectfully towards the candidate's time.

JAlexoid 7y ago

A few rules that are sorely missed - Remember to check out local work culture.(Americans stick out like a sore thumb in many western European work social situations) - Always, always, always have a good leader on site.

iheartdata 7y ago
>Remember to check out local work culture.(Americans stick out like a sore thumb in many western European work social situations) Care to elaborate a bit? I'm an American working at a large US University with a very diverse community. I've daydreamed about moving to western Europe, so I'd like to hear what the work social situations you're referring to are.
- camjohnson26 7y ago
  Sounds like a case of European exceptionalism. I doubt you can accurately make such a broad generalization about an entire country’s people.
  - JAlexoid 7y ago
    Yes, yes... Because cultures don't exist and people all over the world are exactly the same. And it's a case of too many Americans thinking that American way is like it is everywhere.
    - camjohnson26 7y ago
      Because there’s only one American culture and everyone in it is the same. Nice hypocrisy.
      - craftinator 7y ago
        This is just fantastic sniping! You should both keep going, it's pretty good entertainment!
- 7y ago

astura 7y ago

>I have one simple rule: I don’t want to work with people whom I wouldn’t invite for coffee. When hiring a remote team member, I always talk to them about their life plans or favorite books. This small talk shows me whether a person will be a good fit for our team. Hrm.... I was under the impression that people hiring were looking for employees/teammembers/coworkers, not buddies?? I don't personally care if I would enjoy coffee/beer with a coworker as long as they are a good teammate, employee, and coworker. I don't find an team full of people that have the same hobbies and enjoy the same literature particularly beneficial in any way. I just don't think "enjoys the same books as me" is a good test for "makes a good teammate." In the past I have had some absolutely fantastic coworkers that I had absolutely nothing in common with outside of work and would never want to hang out with (stuff like young earth creationists, has a mail order bride younger than his daughter, incredibly sheltered people, and just weird people). OTOH, some people I've become friends with outside of work make for horrible coworkers (stuff like poor work ethic, poor code quality, horrible attitude towards work, primadonnas in a work setting, control freaks at work). I also worked with a guy who just wouldn't talk about anything personal at work with coworkers (boss obviously different) because he believed in a separation between personal life and work life. No problem, he still made a fine coworker. I'd very, VERY strongly discourage asking interviewees about their "life plans," like, seriously, this is a BAD idea. Asking about "life plans" can come across as looking to discriminate against people with families, people who plan to start a family soon, or even people who have certain religious beliefs, which is illegal in many parts of the world, including the US. It might seem like a harmless question if a young male is asking another young male "what are your life plans?" in an interview, but it seems a lot less harmless when the interviewee is a female of childbearing age. If an interviewer asked me "what are your life plans?" I'd assume the subtext was "are you planning on going on maturity leave soon?" Also, what the hell sort of answer to this question would be a "good" answer and what would be a "bad" answer? Are you just looking to hire people with the same life plans as you???

mrmonkeyman 7y ago
I hate to say it, but I agree. My most annoying collegue is the most dependable, knowledgable person I know. Once you navigate his fuckedupness he is quite a joy to work with, but god forbid I ever socialize with him, it is a nightmare.

zrth 7y ago

Has any of this been A/B tested? Is it disowning of me, if the absence of A/B testing make me think this is rather random opinions than solid advice?

pier25 7y ago

I'm fine with the "traps" mentioned. I know I would pay attention to those things even if I was looking at many job applications and I would expect anyone I'd hire to do the same. As for "talking about life" I think it's a great idea. Many people ITT think it's about finding buddies, it's not. It's about getting a reading of the person and be able to make a better decision. This goes both ways, the candidate will also know what type of person he will be working with.

astura 7y ago
What sort of non-(illegal)discriminatory reason would you consider someone's life plans in a hiring decision? And it is really worth the legal risk of asking this question?
- pier25 7y ago
  It's not really about life plans or discrimination, it's about getting a sense of what the person is like outside of the professional skills and experience. Everyone brings extra baggage when getting into a job. Does he/she have interests outside of the tech world? Maybe contributes to open source projects? Maybe likes learning new things constantly? Etc. I've been hiring people for almost 20 years for my company, working as a manager in other people's companies, or sharing a project with other freelancers. It's undeniable the chemistry between team members is an important factor. It also works the other way around, for the candidate to evaluate what kind of person his/her next boss will be like.
  - astura 7y ago
    >what the person is like outside of the professional skills and experience Not relevant as long as they are professional and capable at work. Just sounds like a (poor) justification for illegal discrimination. >Maybe contributes to open source projects? If you want to know this try asking "do you contribute to open source projects?" instead. >It's undeniable the chemistry between team members is an important factor. Sounds like an proxy for illegal discrimination. "Oh, our teams chemistry is important so we don't want to hire an older person/woman/Mormon/mother/Indian/recent immigrant/double amputee because they are too different and would mess up the team chemistry." Even if this isn't intentional its the end result. I'll tell you what's important for team chemistry - respect and professionalism in a work setting, good work performance, and good work ethic. Not their life ambitions, what type of literature they read or what type of hobbies they have. I've only worked in incredibly diverse teams and it's not a problem for "team chemistry." However, I would think working with someone who could only work with people they are friends with WOULD be a problem, a big problem. But, really, could you actually honestly defend this position in court if you had to? Doubtful. I'm a childless woman at the age where most conversations about vague future life plans are actually inquiries about childbearing. But, really, what's an example of a "wrong" answer to this question? Are you really going to say "Oh, she's boring outside of work, lets not hire her?" How silly. I know a guy (not a coworker of mine) who literally does absolutely nothing outside of work except sleep, play video games, exercise, cook and clean, and very occasionally grabs a beer with me. He rarely leaves the house except to go to work. He's got the most boring life ever but he's gotten several promotions over the course of the first couple years of his career.

aantix 7y ago

I don't consider a "50-page PDF" as on-boarding. It feels more like a cover-your-ass document. I would fear that when the candidate becomes confused about something, the book gives the team a free pass to give the look of "did you even RTFM?" Proper on-boarding is pairing, it's a walkthrough, answering questions contextually as they arise. Not a brain dump of everything you think they should know.

wolco 7y ago

Lessons #1. Tricking candidates is a fake filter. It doesn't get you better candidates. Why not take every 2nd application and toss it out for no reason. Or only call back names that start with a vowel? Same effect. Lesson #2. Would we make a good coffee date? Why not base it on if they would make a great bowling buddy or dance contest partner? Are they single? Do they have good looking friends that they could set me up with? Lesson #3 References are a degree more useless for remote candidates. Easier to make up and fake. It worked well 100 years ago when everyone knew everyone less so now. Lesson #4 Having someone do a test closely mirroring your process is great for temp contractor not so good if you are looking at someone to take your codebase to the next level.

vorpalhex 7y ago

Aside from "paying well" this is like a laundry list of what to not do. 1. Unless you're paying me, I'm not doing homework. 2. This isn't a dating ad, it's an employment offer. You're not hiring PIs. 4. Be careful about building a social club instead of a company 5. I don't work with people who don't understand the separation between work and my personal life. My political views, social views, and what I do with my free time are none of your business as long as I don't make them your business. Frankly, I don't want to be your friend. 7. A book is garbage onboarding. Your onboarding needs to be task oriented and fast. Give them a quick checklist on how to get access, pull down a project, and build it and run tests. Don't expect them to study a godforsaken manual.

JAlexoid 7y ago
I'd like to emphasize #4. I hate people that are hired because the manager liked them. My husband falls into this trap all the time. Hiring "nice" people, instead of the best team members. A job isn't a friendship, though it's nice if people who you work with are your friends. Friendships also make it harder to quit or fire people.
astura 7y ago
What does "PIs" stand for in this context?
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Private Investigators.

alexpotato 7y ago

This article reminds me of one of my favorite "quick filter" stories: I had a female friend who would ask every guy she met two questions: 1. Do you have a passport? 2. Do you have a library card? If the answer to #1 was 'No', then that meant that they had never left the country. If the answer to #2 was 'No', odds were that they didn't LOVE to read. (This story is from the pre-ereader days) I've always been fascinated by questions like these that can quickly allow you to parse/grok/filter people with a high degree of success and minimal false positives.