3 ms·

> IMO bite the bullet, over hire and then collect the cream based on evaluation of the total output and the teams impressions in the probationary period ... Th

> IMO bite the bullet, over hire and then collect the cream based on evaluation of the total output and the teams impressions in the probationary period ... That might work if you have 110 people applying for 100 positions. Just hire everyone and then fire 10 people. Over hiring 10 people probably isn't that much of a problem. However that does not work if you have 100 people applying for 5 positions. This is the situation we found ourselves in and we had to filter somehow. We chose to do a very simple code challenge which ended up being a very effective filter.

usgroup 6y ago
Sure but you’re bound to say that ... Find me a hiring manager than publicly says anything else. That’s kind of part of the point. I roughly recall google touting ~50% hiring success rate and that’s with a 4 interviewer, 10-15 man interview process, and undoubtedly a massive false negative rejection rate. I think some undesirable attributes are observable in fairly short screeners ; sure screen away . But I bet you that you’d do at least as well if not better by just selecting at random past that point.
- VonGallifrey 6y ago
  The reason why I say that it was an effective filter was that the majority of people flat out FAILED the coding challenge. We only send out the coding challenge to people who where successful in the first interview and still most people failed the coding challenge. I am very sure that a random selection, even after the first interview, would have been disastrous. Result is that we have not fired anyone for performance reasons since we established this hiring process. Which I would say is a success. Here is the thing: We cant just over hire like you suggested. That would just waste money and as a startup we don't have much of that to waste. Also I think it would be incredibly shitty for us to over hire just to fire people a short time later. The majority of people would have to leave jobs and/or immigrate to this country. Hiring such a person when you are not 100% sure you want to work with them is fairly immoral.
  - usgroup 6y ago
    There’s nothing immoral about it if you tell applicants. It’s basically how hiring for sales is done and no one is under any illusion that you won’t keep your job if you don’t perform. The point here is more nuanced than the straw man you’re painting. Everyone that passes the interview process stays is a bad sign because it confirms something highly unlikely about the interview process: that it succeeds in generalising aptitude. You’re right that startups can’t do it though other than through intern programmes. Lots of companies do it through intern programmes. Only the fit interns survive and get a job.

usgroup 6y ago

Sure but you’re bound to say that ... Find me a hiring manager than publicly says anything else. That’s kind of part of the point. I roughly recall google touting ~50% hiring success rate and that’s with a 4 interviewer, 10-15 man interview process, and undoubtedly a massive false negative rejection rate. I think some undesirable attributes are observable in fairly short screeners ; sure screen away . But I bet you that you’d do at least as well if not better by just selecting at random past that point.

VonGallifrey 6y ago
The reason why I say that it was an effective filter was that the majority of people flat out FAILED the coding challenge. We only send out the coding challenge to people who where successful in the first interview and still most people failed the coding challenge. I am very sure that a random selection, even after the first interview, would have been disastrous. Result is that we have not fired anyone for performance reasons since we established this hiring process. Which I would say is a success. Here is the thing: We cant just over hire like you suggested. That would just waste money and as a startup we don't have much of that to waste. Also I think it would be incredibly shitty for us to over hire just to fire people a short time later. The majority of people would have to leave jobs and/or immigrate to this country. Hiring such a person when you are not 100% sure you want to work with them is fairly immoral.
- usgroup 6y ago
  There’s nothing immoral about it if you tell applicants. It’s basically how hiring for sales is done and no one is under any illusion that you won’t keep your job if you don’t perform. The point here is more nuanced than the straw man you’re painting. Everyone that passes the interview process stays is a bad sign because it confirms something highly unlikely about the interview process: that it succeeds in generalising aptitude. You’re right that startups can’t do it though other than through intern programmes. Lots of companies do it through intern programmes. Only the fit interns survive and get a job.