3 ms·

Although I agree in general, the example you've chosen might not be the best one. This might be one of (numerous) areas in business where success is not measure

by 13415 6y ago

Although I agree in general, the example you've chosen might not be the best one. This might be one of (numerous) areas in business where success is not measured correctly and the methods used are never really validated. Do human resources departments actually evaluate their hiring criteria and the tests they use in experimental designs, e.g. by hiring two sufficiently large groups A and B based on different interview methods and checking a year later how the groups performed relative to each other? Bear in mind that there are plenty of people who believe that they're good at doing something just because they have been doing it for a long time. Without an independent method for confirming such claims they are practically useless.

dkarl 6y ago
In theory, I like your idea, but in practice, I think corporations large enough to run experiments like that are not able to objectively evaluate anything they do, at least not officially. It's too political. I've been in dozens of interviews as an interviewer and worked with at least a dozen people after seeing how they performed in interviews, so that's what I go on.
- xyzelement 6y ago
  The big software firm I worked at (not FAANG but we competed with them for talent) absolutely tweaked its interview processes based on long run outcomes. FAANGS evolve their process over time too. One clear example - at FAANGS even if the manager likes you, it doesn't matter. You have to be evaluated by a committee of people who're indifferent to your manager, aren't under the gun to fill a slot and are less likely to be swayed by a one-time positive conversation. Do you think this process came out of nowhere? That's just one example of them settling on something that worked, I am sure having previously tried other less structured approaches and tracking the results.
xyzelement 6y ago
There's two things at play here. First, candidates who complain about the whiteboard interviews uniformly complain about it "not being a good representation of how I can write code" which betrays a lack of understanding of the other skills besides writing code that these firms care about. People who understand more can connect the interview type to the other relevant attributes, so it's already clear who's more right. Second, yes, companies do a shitload of triangulation on recruiting performance including looking many years out.

by 13415 6y ago

dkarl 6y ago

In theory, I like your idea, but in practice, I think corporations large enough to run experiments like that are not able to objectively evaluate anything they do, at least not officially. It's too political. I've been in dozens of interviews as an interviewer and worked with at least a dozen people after seeing how they performed in interviews, so that's what I go on.

xyzelement 6y ago
The big software firm I worked at (not FAANG but we competed with them for talent) absolutely tweaked its interview processes based on long run outcomes. FAANGS evolve their process over time too. One clear example - at FAANGS even if the manager likes you, it doesn't matter. You have to be evaluated by a committee of people who're indifferent to your manager, aren't under the gun to fill a slot and are less likely to be swayed by a one-time positive conversation. Do you think this process came out of nowhere? That's just one example of them settling on something that worked, I am sure having previously tried other less structured approaches and tracking the results.

xyzelement 6y ago

There's two things at play here. First, candidates who complain about the whiteboard interviews uniformly complain about it "not being a good representation of how I can write code" which betrays a lack of understanding of the other skills besides writing code that these firms care about. People who understand more can connect the interview type to the other relevant attributes, so it's already clear who's more right. Second, yes, companies do a shitload of triangulation on recruiting performance including looking many years out.