5 ms·

> What would you propose as an alternative? In my company (totally remote) we decided to automate hiring (also remote) as most as possible and we are happy wit

> What would you propose as an alternative? In my company (totally remote) we decided to automate hiring (also remote) as most as possible and we are happy with the results. We also value the candidate's time very much so we made the hiring process very straightforward. It works like this: - First the candidates must do some online tests, which are mostly multiple choice questions. The subjects are logic, english and a specific test for the coding language. All of these tests were hand made to us and customized to our needs. The candidates spend about 2 hours in total doing theses tests, and they know immediately their score in the parts of the tests that can be accessed automatically (which are the most part) - The candidates approved in the theoretical tests - about 10% of the candidates that applied for the job - do a practical coding challenge that was also made from scratch by us. We have looked at the available solutions in the market and thought they are too focused on textbook algorithms that are rarely used in the job market. So we made our own tests that contemplate practical problems a programmer has to solve daily in our company. The questions are NOT too complex. The objective of this step is to weed out the candidates that can't code in the language, not to get the best. We design this challenge to take about 2 hours. The implementation was a lot of fun: we use the Docker API to run the candidate's code against the automated tests we made and the score is calculated as the number of tests that passed. Using Docker means we can work with any language that runs on Linux. So far we have made tests in Javascript, Typescript, Ruby, Postgres and Elm. - The candidates that are approved in the previous step - about 2-4% of the candidates that applied for the job - are called for an interview. Now is the time when we take a look at the candidate's resume and look at the human side of things. Given that we have very few candidates to look at and we know they all meet some minimum skills we are very confident when conducting the interviews. By now we usually have a very clear signal to tell who the best candidate is even before we conduct the interviews. So in practice the interviews are NOT used to select the best candidate. They are there just to see if a red flag doesn't show up. We are very proud of our coding challenges app. If someone wants to collaborate on it just drop me a message. It's a Rails app on GitHub, but it probably not good enough for an open source project yet - one needs to know a lot about Docker and Rails to make it work.

bambataa 7y ago
If you’re so confident about your challenge app why do you first make everyone do a 2hr online test? How many hours do you spend assessing each candidate and how does that compare to how many hours you make them spend jumping through your hoops?
SPascareli13 7y ago
Usually I like to take things in a practical way, if you are happy with the people you're hiring, than it's fine, and there is not much point thinking about "what if these are not the best possible people we could hire?", you just never know. But probably a lot of people that don't make it into your company just can't be bothered to do 2 sets of technical tests with zero human contact. I can tell you that my most "successful" interview processes (there is, the ones with offers/acceptances or just the ones I can even remember the name of the company) were the ones that focus on me as a human and as a professional, the ones that looked less automated and that seemed to have taken more time trying to know ME rather than just my skills. Not that there was no tests, there were and some went kind of overboard with the complexity, but in the end what I remmember about these companies was the conversations we had and how they were interested and knowing me. So, like I said, if it's working for you than great, but I probably would forget your test in my inbox to be honest.
omar_a1 7y ago
Sorry, but what you've outlined above doesn't show that you value the candidates' time. You require two rounds of technical interviews before any human contact. It's asymmetrical. By automating the first two steps, you've made it so that you can waste as much of the applicants' time as you want without expending any further time or resources on your part. Also, from experience, I've never come across a two hour takehome that actually takes two hours. Everyone always says not to spend more than two hours on it, but I can't exactly turn in an incomplete assignment. I'm glad it is working for you, but it's not something to be proud of. Essentially what you've done is replace the standard 30 minute intro phone interview with a 2 hour SAT.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  This is unfair. A typical, half-competent candidate in tech sends much fewer applications before they find a job than a typical company has to process in the same time span. So there's indeed an asymmetry here, but in the other direction - few companies could even afford to fully process every single application that comes in (not even counting the human toil on the interviewers from dealing with spam). 4 hours over two steps to get to the human part? I wouldn't mind it. Last company I successfully interviewed, I spent about 2 hours on the phone with different people + a lot of e-mail exchange, before I got to 4 hours long on-site.

bambataa 7y ago

If you’re so confident about your challenge app why do you first make everyone do a 2hr online test? How many hours do you spend assessing each candidate and how does that compare to how many hours you make them spend jumping through your hoops?

SPascareli13 7y ago

Usually I like to take things in a practical way, if you are happy with the people you're hiring, than it's fine, and there is not much point thinking about "what if these are not the best possible people we could hire?", you just never know. But probably a lot of people that don't make it into your company just can't be bothered to do 2 sets of technical tests with zero human contact. I can tell you that my most "successful" interview processes (there is, the ones with offers/acceptances or just the ones I can even remember the name of the company) were the ones that focus on me as a human and as a professional, the ones that looked less automated and that seemed to have taken more time trying to know ME rather than just my skills. Not that there was no tests, there were and some went kind of overboard with the complexity, but in the end what I remmember about these companies was the conversations we had and how they were interested and knowing me. So, like I said, if it's working for you than great, but I probably would forget your test in my inbox to be honest.

omar_a1 7y ago

Sorry, but what you've outlined above doesn't show that you value the candidates' time. You require two rounds of technical interviews before any human contact. It's asymmetrical. By automating the first two steps, you've made it so that you can waste as much of the applicants' time as you want without expending any further time or resources on your part. Also, from experience, I've never come across a two hour takehome that actually takes two hours. Everyone always says not to spend more than two hours on it, but I can't exactly turn in an incomplete assignment. I'm glad it is working for you, but it's not something to be proud of. Essentially what you've done is replace the standard 30 minute intro phone interview with a 2 hour SAT.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
This is unfair. A typical, half-competent candidate in tech sends much fewer applications before they find a job than a typical company has to process in the same time span. So there's indeed an asymmetry here, but in the other direction - few companies could even afford to fully process every single application that comes in (not even counting the human toil on the interviewers from dealing with spam). 4 hours over two steps to get to the human part? I wouldn't mind it. Last company I successfully interviewed, I spent about 2 hours on the phone with different people + a lot of e-mail exchange, before I got to 4 hours long on-site.