5 ms·

I think you may be mis-representing what I am saying. You can generally sense if someone could be a possibly good fit in 20 minutes of conversation. The ROI of

I think you may be mis-representing what I am saying. You can generally sense if someone could be a possibly good fit in 20 minutes of conversation. The ROI of an additional 500 minutes of conversation doesn't change the error bars. They could be great leetcoders, but not a good colleague. Hopefully the first 20 minutes gave you a sense of their soft skills, but even those can be mis-represented in small bursts that are un-representative of how the individual typically communicates on the job. You're saying I am saying we should randomly give jobs. I am not. I am saying it should be, at max, a 1 hour phone call. Background checks can verify past employment and job titles. Just talk to them about work matters. Ask a fizzbuzz if you must. No additional data will meaningfully tell you much more anyways.

ternaryoperator 6y ago
In this and your previous post, you greatly under-appreciate the cost and disruption of a bad hire. Not to mention the time lost bringing a new hire up-to-speed on the company's way of doing things. A bad hire can be very expensive and disruptive. If a few more hours of interviews can avoid a bad hire, I think almost all experienced managers would opt for the extra interviews.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If a few more hours of interviews can avoid a bad hire Can it, though? I'm sure it can increase the manager subjective feeling of confidence, but does it verifiably, objectively produce better results?
  - ternaryoperator 6y ago
    I've uncovered craziness in candidates late in the process when they are no longer guarded about what they're saying. So, for myself, it has indeed produced objectively better results. I expect that most seasoned managers have had similar experiences.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  If your work culture allowed you to remove bad hires, then the company would not experience the 'cost and disruption'. The problem isn't the time invested getting employees up to speed: you'll do that with good or bad employees. The problem is, bad employees stay, and often for long periods of time. Have you experienced the bureaucratic nightmare of formally dismissing someone? It's something we all would like to avoid, but clearly today's filtering is ineffective if our organizations are filled with dead weight.
prepend 6y ago
> You can generally sense if someone could be a possibly good fit in 20 minutes of conversation. The last position I hired for had 700 applicants. Paper filtered down to 75. Interview screened down to 30. Detailed interviews with 5. How would you propose this work? 30 people seemed like a possibly good fit after 20 minutes. Should we randomly hire one? Should we hire all and have them fight it out madmax thunder dome style? I think if the position has low startup time and is assembly line work or something we could hire all 30 and fire the poor performers. Outside of tech support, I’m not aware of any positions like this. I’ve worked with managers who thought programmers were like this and would hire 10 or 20 at a time to see who stuck. It was very frustrating as an existing employee because they all had to be trained, reviewed, etc. After a year of arguing, I (and every other senior, over about two years) left that company.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Should we randomly hire one? If the additional interviewing time doesn't produce real improvement in outcomes over random hiring, then yes, don't waste the interviewees’ time and time the form is paying you for doing it.
  - prepend 6y ago
    My problem is that I don’t know of a good way to determine what improvement. I think it’s hard to design a study and measure. And I think there’s a deontological vs. utilitarian aspect as I think if applicants learned I was randomly picking 1 of 30 pretty goods it would discourage high quality applicants. For me, I think the additional 100 hours interviewing helps and is worth it. I’d be interested in hearing of hiring managers and orgs who just hire randomly from minimally qualified applicants. I hear from lots of applicants who claim they are minimally qualified that this is a successful strategy. But, naturally, they are a bit biased and not very useful for deciding how to hire people.
    - xyzelement 6y ago
      I also don't understand the assumption he/she makes that the additional interview time doesn't help. Of course it helps.

ternaryoperator 6y ago

In this and your previous post, you greatly under-appreciate the cost and disruption of a bad hire. Not to mention the time lost bringing a new hire up-to-speed on the company's way of doing things. A bad hire can be very expensive and disruptive. If a few more hours of interviews can avoid a bad hire, I think almost all experienced managers would opt for the extra interviews.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> If a few more hours of interviews can avoid a bad hire Can it, though? I'm sure it can increase the manager subjective feeling of confidence, but does it verifiably, objectively produce better results?
- ternaryoperator 6y ago
  I've uncovered craziness in candidates late in the process when they are no longer guarded about what they're saying. So, for myself, it has indeed produced objectively better results. I expect that most seasoned managers have had similar experiences.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
If your work culture allowed you to remove bad hires, then the company would not experience the 'cost and disruption'. The problem isn't the time invested getting employees up to speed: you'll do that with good or bad employees. The problem is, bad employees stay, and often for long periods of time. Have you experienced the bureaucratic nightmare of formally dismissing someone? It's something we all would like to avoid, but clearly today's filtering is ineffective if our organizations are filled with dead weight.

prepend 6y ago

> You can generally sense if someone could be a possibly good fit in 20 minutes of conversation. The last position I hired for had 700 applicants. Paper filtered down to 75. Interview screened down to 30. Detailed interviews with 5. How would you propose this work? 30 people seemed like a possibly good fit after 20 minutes. Should we randomly hire one? Should we hire all and have them fight it out madmax thunder dome style? I think if the position has low startup time and is assembly line work or something we could hire all 30 and fire the poor performers. Outside of tech support, I’m not aware of any positions like this. I’ve worked with managers who thought programmers were like this and would hire 10 or 20 at a time to see who stuck. It was very frustrating as an existing employee because they all had to be trained, reviewed, etc. After a year of arguing, I (and every other senior, over about two years) left that company.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Should we randomly hire one? If the additional interviewing time doesn't produce real improvement in outcomes over random hiring, then yes, don't waste the interviewees’ time and time the form is paying you for doing it.
- prepend 6y ago
  My problem is that I don’t know of a good way to determine what improvement. I think it’s hard to design a study and measure. And I think there’s a deontological vs. utilitarian aspect as I think if applicants learned I was randomly picking 1 of 30 pretty goods it would discourage high quality applicants. For me, I think the additional 100 hours interviewing helps and is worth it. I’d be interested in hearing of hiring managers and orgs who just hire randomly from minimally qualified applicants. I hear from lots of applicants who claim they are minimally qualified that this is a successful strategy. But, naturally, they are a bit biased and not very useful for deciding how to hire people.
  - xyzelement 6y ago
    I also don't understand the assumption he/she makes that the additional interview time doesn't help. Of course it helps.