7 ms·

Hiring is hard because understanding people is hard. There's also the problem of selection bias. Your technical interviewers are going to look for people that

Hiring is hard because understanding people is hard. There's also the problem of selection bias. Your technical interviewers are going to look for people that resemble themselves. In a broad sense this is because they think they're smart and everyone else is dumb (and rightly so). The problem is that this strategy can be far too successful and you will invariably turn away a perfectly suitable selection of candidates along with the unsuitable ones. It's human nature and difficult to detect. There is another form of selection bias in the interview process. You need to know that the candidate you're going to hire is going to be competent, assertive, and talented. However the exact match of skills, abilities, and personality traits that fulfill those broad categories are going to be based off of those skills, abilities, and traits you believe have helped you to be successful so far. When interviewing someone it is far too easy to check off the features a candidate is lacking and miss the ones they do have that you do not. A good hire, IMO, is someone who has some of the skills and abilities you already have and some you do not. Yet all too often, we look for people who have ALL of the skills we already have instead. I think strategies such as the one in the article would at least by-pass many of the definicies noted above. However I think it might be impractical in some scenarios (ie: when the candidate is already in a position at another company, or when they have received attractive offers from other companies). It's a start though and I think alternative strategies should be considered more often.

btmorex 16y ago
It's not just impractical. It's a complete nonstarter in any competitive job market (like the bay area). First, contract to hire is a pure negative for the employee. People can "try a company" out just fine with a full time offer and then quit if it's not a good fit. Second, it's far easier to find good people by poaching from other companies than it is by traditional means. No one is going to quit their job for a 3 week contract even if they're really unhappy at their current job. So, with this approach, you've just removed the biggest pool of talented prospects there is.
- gdilla 16y ago
  agreed. But Yelp and Facebook do a micro version of this for job applicants. They give you a test - usually along the lines of, mock up something to make our platform better. You have 24 Hrs. Go. Since they're prol two of the hottest places to work, not least because they're two of the biggest pre-IPO joints out there, they can get away with this. Even if you get rejected (and I did), they get your idea (and mine were great, I tell you! Fully mocked up). Well, I bombed the intws but they did like my mocks. You feel like a cheap prostitute afterwards.
  - bostonpete 16y ago
    > You feel like a cheap prostitute afterwards. Prostitutes get paid at least. You were a rape victim.
    - kelnos 16y ago
      A little crass, but agreed. That actually bothers me a bit. You do work as part of an interview, aren't offered a job, and aren't compensated for the work done, but the interviewing company gets to keep and use the work. I'm assuming the applicant would have had to sign something to that effect at the beginning of the interview process, but it just feels like a raw deal to me.
      - erikpukinskis 16y ago
        Ask for compensation.
      - qq66 16y ago
        The interviewing company does not get to keep and use the work; even if the applicant signed something, if consideration was not given, it would be difficult to use the work.
    - wmil 16y ago
      More like a starlet who got the casting couch.
- swampthing 16y ago
  Doesn't seem like you noticed, but the author offered alternatives to the standard 3-week contracting approach.
- erikpukinskis 16y ago
  You didn't read the article. They offer 5 day (few days off plus weekend) contracts, or even weekend contracts. They will wait until you have a vacation. If your company is a total bore and no one in the bay area thinks what you're doing is at all exciting, then you're right. The ONLY thing you have to offer is a signed contract with a very high number on it. But if you're actually doing something personally exciting to someone, they will absolutely take a few days out of their routine (with compensation) to explore that. Honestly, if someone isn't excited enough about my company to put a few days into it without a full time contract, I don't want them in my company. I've put a few YEARS of my life into my company without such a contract. I'd expect my employees to have at least a fraction of that passion.
  - mattmanser 16y ago
    IANAL but as far as I can see this strategy is not without risk. After all, they are already being paid on those vacation days, are they not technically working for their existing company? What happens when your new employee's old company turns round and says 'Hey, we just found out about your wonderful scheme about testing out our employees when they're still under our contract. That means our intellectual property is in your code base. That employee has no negotiation power and you clearly knew that, our price for this bespoke job is $100,000. You've already got the goods, payment terms 1 day. Thanks.'.
    - kurin 16y ago
      I know there are some asshole IP contracts out there, but I think even so a company would have a hard time claiming ownership of a project an employee did for someone else, in his own time.
  - reynolds 16y ago
    I don't spend my vacations working for other people. You also can't expect a contractor to be passionate about your company when they have no vested interest in its success.
    - 16y ago
- seanp2k 16y ago
  >"No one is going to quit their job for a 3 week contract even if they're really unhappy at their current job. So, with this approach, you've just removed the biggest pool of talented prospects there is." THANK YOU (THIS THIS THIS)
UncleOxidant 16y ago
"Yet all too often, we look for people who have ALL of the skills we already have instead." Exactly. The other thing the companies/groups do is that they hire for their needs right now instead of thinking about what they might need later... But the biggest mistake is in not thinking-outside-the-box when it comes to candidates. There's an assumption that the person you're looking for has exactly a certain background and set of skills. As an example (sorry, not a web guy), you're hiring a chip designer and you overlook the guy who's been writing software to design chips (EDA)... The chip design guys tend to think the coder doesn't know anything about chip design, but as it turns out to write software to design chips you've gotta know a lot about designing chips.
Tangurena 16y ago
Part of why it is so hard is that the hiring process involves so many people who don't know anything about programming. An older friend of mine is great at blowing smoke up your butt, and if HR or managers are doing the interviewing, he always gets the job. If technical people are doing the interviewing, he rarely gets the job. The buzzwords he uses sound all warm and fuzzy to the managers, but annoy other programmers so much they autoreject him. His biggest failure is his inability to keep up with modern technology, so he tends not to last more than 6 months. Based on a number of other interviews where I've been on the side looking for candidates, my friend is not a single sample/anecdote; I've seen a lot of other guys like him out there.

btmorex 16y ago

It's not just impractical. It's a complete nonstarter in any competitive job market (like the bay area). First, contract to hire is a pure negative for the employee. People can "try a company" out just fine with a full time offer and then quit if it's not a good fit. Second, it's far easier to find good people by poaching from other companies than it is by traditional means. No one is going to quit their job for a 3 week contract even if they're really unhappy at their current job. So, with this approach, you've just removed the biggest pool of talented prospects there is.

gdilla 16y ago
agreed. But Yelp and Facebook do a micro version of this for job applicants. They give you a test - usually along the lines of, mock up something to make our platform better. You have 24 Hrs. Go. Since they're prol two of the hottest places to work, not least because they're two of the biggest pre-IPO joints out there, they can get away with this. Even if you get rejected (and I did), they get your idea (and mine were great, I tell you! Fully mocked up). Well, I bombed the intws but they did like my mocks. You feel like a cheap prostitute afterwards.
- bostonpete 16y ago
  > You feel like a cheap prostitute afterwards. Prostitutes get paid at least. You were a rape victim.
  - kelnos 16y ago
    A little crass, but agreed. That actually bothers me a bit. You do work as part of an interview, aren't offered a job, and aren't compensated for the work done, but the interviewing company gets to keep and use the work. I'm assuming the applicant would have had to sign something to that effect at the beginning of the interview process, but it just feels like a raw deal to me.
    - erikpukinskis 16y ago
      Ask for compensation.
    - qq66 16y ago
      The interviewing company does not get to keep and use the work; even if the applicant signed something, if consideration was not given, it would be difficult to use the work.
  - wmil 16y ago
    More like a starlet who got the casting couch.
swampthing 16y ago
Doesn't seem like you noticed, but the author offered alternatives to the standard 3-week contracting approach.
erikpukinskis 16y ago
You didn't read the article. They offer 5 day (few days off plus weekend) contracts, or even weekend contracts. They will wait until you have a vacation. If your company is a total bore and no one in the bay area thinks what you're doing is at all exciting, then you're right. The ONLY thing you have to offer is a signed contract with a very high number on it. But if you're actually doing something personally exciting to someone, they will absolutely take a few days out of their routine (with compensation) to explore that. Honestly, if someone isn't excited enough about my company to put a few days into it without a full time contract, I don't want them in my company. I've put a few YEARS of my life into my company without such a contract. I'd expect my employees to have at least a fraction of that passion.
- mattmanser 16y ago
  IANAL but as far as I can see this strategy is not without risk. After all, they are already being paid on those vacation days, are they not technically working for their existing company? What happens when your new employee's old company turns round and says 'Hey, we just found out about your wonderful scheme about testing out our employees when they're still under our contract. That means our intellectual property is in your code base. That employee has no negotiation power and you clearly knew that, our price for this bespoke job is $100,000. You've already got the goods, payment terms 1 day. Thanks.'.
  - kurin 16y ago
    I know there are some asshole IP contracts out there, but I think even so a company would have a hard time claiming ownership of a project an employee did for someone else, in his own time.
- reynolds 16y ago
  I don't spend my vacations working for other people. You also can't expect a contractor to be passionate about your company when they have no vested interest in its success.
  - 16y ago
seanp2k 16y ago
>"No one is going to quit their job for a 3 week contract even if they're really unhappy at their current job. So, with this approach, you've just removed the biggest pool of talented prospects there is." THANK YOU (THIS THIS THIS)

UncleOxidant 16y ago

"Yet all too often, we look for people who have ALL of the skills we already have instead." Exactly. The other thing the companies/groups do is that they hire for their needs right now instead of thinking about what they might need later... But the biggest mistake is in not thinking-outside-the-box when it comes to candidates. There's an assumption that the person you're looking for has exactly a certain background and set of skills. As an example (sorry, not a web guy), you're hiring a chip designer and you overlook the guy who's been writing software to design chips (EDA)... The chip design guys tend to think the coder doesn't know anything about chip design, but as it turns out to write software to design chips you've gotta know a lot about designing chips.

Tangurena 16y ago

Part of why it is so hard is that the hiring process involves so many people who don't know anything about programming. An older friend of mine is great at blowing smoke up your butt, and if HR or managers are doing the interviewing, he always gets the job. If technical people are doing the interviewing, he rarely gets the job. The buzzwords he uses sound all warm and fuzzy to the managers, but annoy other programmers so much they autoreject him. His biggest failure is his inability to keep up with modern technology, so he tends not to last more than 6 months. Based on a number of other interviews where I've been on the side looking for candidates, my friend is not a single sample/anecdote; I've seen a lot of other guys like him out there.