5 ms·

Hiring decisions can be made defensible by openly publishing a transparent process that reveals metrics at the end for all candidates.

by maxaf 7y ago

Konnstann 7y ago
If the hiring process is transparent, wouldn't job seekers just figure out how to game it? Unless the process is confidential, and only comes out in lawsuits, and isn't disclosed to the public, this would only serve to further obscure the candidates who can do the job as opposed to just get hired.
- maxaf 7y ago
  At FANG-style companies the decidedly non-transparent process is already well known and is gamed on a regular basis.
  - Konnstann 7y ago
    AFAIK the only part that is gamed is the one that is fairly transparent, the leetcode problems.
  - username90 7y ago
    They aren't really trying to hide it, they send you an email with a page or two full of topics and links to help you prepare for the interview. The current state where people practice for their interview is exactly what they want.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  Yes. But that's already the case and is usually a useful screening criteria anyway. i.e. I don't actually care if you smoke pot or not. But I care whether or not you are smart enough to lie about it during an interview or job screening process, and if you can quit long enough to pass a drug test. Because that's relevant. If you are intelligent enough to game the system into looking like you meet all of my criteria, you can probably also "game the system" into actually meeting my criteria on the job too.
uoaei 7y ago
That would seem to have a major chilling effect on hiring practices across the board. For what it's worth, the reduced friction for companies in the hiring process, i.e., not having to explain every decision, moves the process along fast enough to keep the economy churning. I'm not sure that would be the case if all that bureaucracy were installed into the process.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
I can't wait to the see the objective breakdown explaining how I scored 5 out of a possible 7 in "how much they like me".
- maxaf 7y ago
  The point of a transparent process would be to make the rubric as non-subjective as possible. A "how much they like me" criterion, if it were still part of the decision, would become very obvious if/when a company selected some candidate that was not in fact "the best" according to their transparent rubric.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    But how do you put team fit into a rubric. It's absolutely an element - a team of 1Xers will be more productive than a team or 10Xers who all can't stand each other. I wouldn't want to be part of a team where everyone has an excellent objective mark, but is just a bunch of jerks. What part of the objective rubric accounts for "can't play well with others"?
    - braythwayt 7y ago
      It's easy to frame "team fit" as "a team of 1Xers will be more productive than a team or 10Xers who all can't stand each other," but I am going to put Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" album on and say "citation needed." Also, "team fit" is very nice when used in good faith, but all-too-often, hiring for "culture fit" or "team fit" ends up being a euphemism for "valuing a monoculture over valuing competence." Here's HN discussing this exact subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3868873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3868873
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        I may have exaggerated with the values, but if we can't both agree that people who work well with each other are more productive than those who don't, I don't know what to tell you. While it may be used poorly, it does still have value, and that's why it exists at all. If judging someone's personality and attitude wasn't important, there'd be no need for in-person interviews at all.

Hiring decisions can be made defensible by openly publishing a transparent process that reveals metrics at the end for all candidates.

by maxaf 7y ago

Hiring decisions can be made defensible by openly publishing a transparent process that reveals metrics at the end for all candidates.

Konnstann 7y ago

If the hiring process is transparent, wouldn't job seekers just figure out how to game it? Unless the process is confidential, and only comes out in lawsuits, and isn't disclosed to the public, this would only serve to further obscure the candidates who can do the job as opposed to just get hired.

maxaf 7y ago
At FANG-style companies the decidedly non-transparent process is already well known and is gamed on a regular basis.
- Konnstann 7y ago
  AFAIK the only part that is gamed is the one that is fairly transparent, the leetcode problems.
- username90 7y ago
  They aren't really trying to hide it, they send you an email with a page or two full of topics and links to help you prepare for the interview. The current state where people practice for their interview is exactly what they want.
Enginerrrd 7y ago
Yes. But that's already the case and is usually a useful screening criteria anyway. i.e. I don't actually care if you smoke pot or not. But I care whether or not you are smart enough to lie about it during an interview or job screening process, and if you can quit long enough to pass a drug test. Because that's relevant. If you are intelligent enough to game the system into looking like you meet all of my criteria, you can probably also "game the system" into actually meeting my criteria on the job too.

uoaei 7y ago

That would seem to have a major chilling effect on hiring practices across the board. For what it's worth, the reduced friction for companies in the hiring process, i.e., not having to explain every decision, moves the process along fast enough to keep the economy churning. I'm not sure that would be the case if all that bureaucracy were installed into the process.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

I can't wait to the see the objective breakdown explaining how I scored 5 out of a possible 7 in "how much they like me".

maxaf 7y ago
The point of a transparent process would be to make the rubric as non-subjective as possible. A "how much they like me" criterion, if it were still part of the decision, would become very obvious if/when a company selected some candidate that was not in fact "the best" according to their transparent rubric.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  But how do you put team fit into a rubric. It's absolutely an element - a team of 1Xers will be more productive than a team or 10Xers who all can't stand each other. I wouldn't want to be part of a team where everyone has an excellent objective mark, but is just a bunch of jerks. What part of the objective rubric accounts for "can't play well with others"?
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    It's easy to frame "team fit" as "a team of 1Xers will be more productive than a team or 10Xers who all can't stand each other," but I am going to put Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" album on and say "citation needed." Also, "team fit" is very nice when used in good faith, but all-too-often, hiring for "culture fit" or "team fit" ends up being a euphemism for "valuing a monoculture over valuing competence." Here's HN discussing this exact subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3868873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3868873
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      I may have exaggerated with the values, but if we can't both agree that people who work well with each other are more productive than those who don't, I don't know what to tell you. While it may be used poorly, it does still have value, and that's why it exists at all. If judging someone's personality and attitude wasn't important, there'd be no need for in-person interviews at all.