3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere’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.