8 ms·

How I hire: review applications and any portfolio attachments or links (yes, putting links to prior work on resumes is a good idea!). I then take the top 5 can

How I hire: review applications and any portfolio attachments or links (yes, putting links to prior work on resumes is a good idea!). I then take the top 5 candidates out to lunch (pre COVID) or virtual face to face. This meeting isn't an interrogation, it's a conversation between adults to see if there is a good overlap with my needs and your needs. I typically ask philosophical, open ended questions, many of which have no relevance to the domain I'm hiring for. If this goes OK, I prepare an offer with a 14-30 day contract period to make sure they can do the work and the work is what they want to do. After that, I let them be hired on or continue contracting. Astute readers will notice I don't consult with anyone underneath me--I may have them review anonymized applications or meeting notes, but I think having the peers you'll work with involved in the hiring process causes too much nepotism, cargo culting, and embarrassing displays of "stump the chump". As a leader, I know the skills I need, and I know who will jive with the team structure. I don't need people wishing I had hired X over Y or turning down people that may be smarter than them.

Kluny 6y ago
Wow, that makes too much sense. It must be illegal.
- cornel_io 6y ago
  The problem with that strategy is mainly just that you lose access to the best candidates, who won't accept a period of offer uncertainty because they have as many other solid offers as they care to take interviews. You run the real risk of biasing your process towards the worst candidates, who are constantly on the job market and are happy to take any shot they can get; that said, you also lessen the risk of one of those people getting into your company as a full hire, so it isn't all bad. It's a great way to do "fresh out of school" hiring, though, where there's no meaningful signal to look at (grades and school are trash) and good people aren't self-selected out the way they are later.
  - axiolite 6y ago
    How much are you going to know about a "fresh out of school" hire after 2 weeks, though? The less work experience they have, the longer it's going to take for them to really get up to speed and show that they will become valuable assets to the company. A 6-month contract might make sense there, but not a short-term one.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Funny. Just yesterday a young friend of mine was complaining about people who ask open-ended, philosophical questions that don't have anything to do with the job at hand. Some people over-analyze and then freeze on that kind of question. Doesn't mean they can't do the job.
- candiddevmike 6y ago
  Sure, it might not mean they can't do the job. But it might indicate they don't like working under pressure, they don't like learning new skills, they don't like working with women, or any other kind of bias or preference everyone has.
  - yokaze 6y ago
    I get the first one (under pressure), but how do you get to the other ones?
    - candiddevmike 6y ago
      You don't, not always. They are just examples of the kind of stuff you find out when you talk candidly with people. The kind of stuff no one puts on their resumes, but when you ask philosophical and hypothetical questions unrelated to the job you tend to find them. Not all of them are bad, and some of them can be fixed, but it's naive to think the only relevant discussions are related to skills.
      - ipaddr 6y ago
        It sounds like you are looking for a friend.
  - stefan_ 6y ago
    It turns out you are right, this certainly did end up telling us a lot about you.
    - 6y ago
dilyevsky 6y ago
So basically you do a variation of personality quiz except “informal” and then fire candidate after a month if they don’t work out. I don’t know where your market is but where I am you simply won’t be able to hire anyone with options unless you have netflix level pay or super hot domain.
- candiddevmike 6y ago
  Most companies have some kind of probationary period, either formally or informally.
  - dilyevsky 6y ago
    That is incorrect. In 13 years the fastest I’ve seen anyone let go was 6 months. Most sw eng jobs don’t expect you to be fully productive for a quarter at least. Again once word gets out that you’re trigger happy on firing you’re looking at top of market pay to close anyone half decent
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Defaults matter though. Hiring someone and having an informal probationary period feels a lot different from giving someone a contract with no guarantee of a job at the end.
    - candiddevmike 6y ago
      There is a guarantee of a job at the end of the contract, I think you're arguing semantics.
      - wlesieutre 6y ago
        What's the point of the contract then, just to make things complicated?
        candiddevmike 6y ago
        In the US, it's easier to end a contract than fire someone (unemployment, COBRA, taxes).
29athrowaway 6y ago
When you work with international applicants, it's not worth it (and not possible) to do their visa work for 30 days contracts. Most people won't relocate on the basis of 30 days contracts. So this process doesn't really scale to companies competing for talent globally.
- candiddevmike 6y ago
  I've always worked on remote teams, so I don't see this as a problem (YMMV if you're onsite).
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    The obsessed guys devouring computer science books and maniacally solving leetcode exercises 24x7 are not going for a remote job. They want to change their life.
    - wyclif 6y ago
      This is nonsense, because the "change your life" for the better factor is actually enhanced if you work remote instead of working for the same company in-office. Do you really think a leetcoder getting a job with a FAANG in the Philippines isn't going to have a dramatic financial, social, and status surge if he is working from his home country instead of relocating to the Bay Area, where he has to compete with all the other leetcoders for real estate and other resources?
pavel_lishin 6y ago
I don't think I'd be too thrilled, as a team member, with having zero input into the folks I'd be working with.
jasonpeacock 6y ago
So...there's no data involved in your decision to hire, it's entirely based on non-job-related philosophical questions. There's also no review - you mention wanting to avoid nepotism, cargo culting, etc. but how do we know that you aren't doing that? How do you ensure you are not applying bias (unconscious or not) to your hiring? Studies have shown that most people hire people who are like them, which reduces diversity - and studies have shown that diversity is a net benefit to teams.
- em-bee 6y ago
  nepotism is a problem for me if people below me do it against my interests. it's also a problem for my superiors if i do it against their interests, but it is in my control and my responsibility so if i mess that up i have to deal with it myself. the best way to avoid bias is to get recommendations from people outside who do not benefit from my choice. if i hire people like me then asking those same people who else to hire will not help to improve diversity. the only way to improve diversity is to explicitly select for it. asking the team won't make much difference here. the only time where asking the team is useful is when i want to make a technical evaluation, but even there i need to be careful that the feedback does not allow team members to reject candidates who are better than them.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    A lot of what you're saying translates, at least in my reading of it, to "I don't trust the people that work for me". I don't know that I could work with a team like that.
    - jasonpeacock 6y ago
      It's worse..., it's: "I don't trust people that work for me, but my leadership should trust me". There's no reciprocity of respect going on, it's all about "I'm perfect and everyone else is broken".
      - em-bee 6y ago
syngrog66 6y ago
I like your system. I dont think theres any one perfect foolproof system but yours is closer to the "more good than bad" end. I agree having their potential coworkers interview them is tricky and prone to traps. There are upsides to it, but downsides too -- depends on those individuals. For an applicant, one is very much walking thru a minefield where just one misstep or "thumbs down" can blow it up, and if that happens one's time gets wasted, and both sides can miss out. Its fine to result in "legit" rejections, but an ideal system tries to minimize the chance of bogus ones. its tricky
gkoberger 6y ago
Wow, I don't know exactly why, but this made my skin crawl. There's so many red flags. I hate these philosophical questions, you're just trying to prove you're clever. I hate contract periods, it's just firing people with cover. I hate that you make these decisions unilaterally, you clearly think you're good at hiring but this just means you're not asking others to help with your blind spots. You refer to yourself as a leader, which just makes me cringe. But most importantly, you clearly have no respect for your team because you don't believe they can interview without being horrible humans. If nothing else, wouldn't the candidates want to meet their peers? Everyone's allowed to hire however they want, and that's a good thing... means there's lots of jobs for different types of people. But I have a strong feeling you have high turnover and a pretty bad company culture based on the way you talk. Or, you've never really built a team, just hired a few one-off people. If you're reading this, please don't hire this way.
- BlueGh0st 6y ago
  Most of these are only red flags if you're hiring robots and not people. I generally have very little professional experience in the fields that I apply for and no education so, for me, getting hired has usually been a matter of showing that I have a work philosophy that aligns with the goals of my peers and an ability to quickly learn the actual work. I think your view on this comes from a bit of privileged perspective where you're looking moreso to fulfill contractual obligations in a field that you've already proved yourself in and not one where you're looking for a culture-fit that fosters development.
  - gkoberger 6y ago
    I agree with the concept of getting to know the person; that's not my problem. And a hiring manager advocating for someone that has untraditional qualifications is awesome. There's just so many red flags in the way this guy talks about hiring. I personally definitely aim to hire awesome people regardless of their experience. I write a lot about how I hire, if you wanna read more! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24457170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24457170
emodendroket 6y ago
Wow, I can't meet any of my coworkers, the interviewing process is totally opaque, and I'm quitting the job I already have for a two-week trial at your place? Where do I sign?
fukmbas 6y ago
Lol I'm not doing some bullshit 1 month trail period bro. Hire me or don't, there are a hundred other opportunities out here any given day
geofft 6y ago
Does this work better than the standard process? How do you evaluate whether it does?
mbrameld 6y ago
Your company appears in LinkedIn search results but nobody lists it as an employer, either current or past. That tells me you probably don't hire many people, and therefore probably aren't very good at it.

Kluny 6y ago

Wow, that makes too much sense. It must be illegal.

cornel_io 6y ago
The problem with that strategy is mainly just that you lose access to the best candidates, who won't accept a period of offer uncertainty because they have as many other solid offers as they care to take interviews. You run the real risk of biasing your process towards the worst candidates, who are constantly on the job market and are happy to take any shot they can get; that said, you also lessen the risk of one of those people getting into your company as a full hire, so it isn't all bad. It's a great way to do "fresh out of school" hiring, though, where there's no meaningful signal to look at (grades and school are trash) and good people aren't self-selected out the way they are later.
- axiolite 6y ago
  How much are you going to know about a "fresh out of school" hire after 2 weeks, though? The less work experience they have, the longer it's going to take for them to really get up to speed and show that they will become valuable assets to the company. A 6-month contract might make sense there, but not a short-term one.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Funny. Just yesterday a young friend of mine was complaining about people who ask open-ended, philosophical questions that don't have anything to do with the job at hand. Some people over-analyze and then freeze on that kind of question. Doesn't mean they can't do the job.

candiddevmike 6y ago
Sure, it might not mean they can't do the job. But it might indicate they don't like working under pressure, they don't like learning new skills, they don't like working with women, or any other kind of bias or preference everyone has.
- yokaze 6y ago
  I get the first one (under pressure), but how do you get to the other ones?
  - candiddevmike 6y ago
    You don't, not always. They are just examples of the kind of stuff you find out when you talk candidly with people. The kind of stuff no one puts on their resumes, but when you ask philosophical and hypothetical questions unrelated to the job you tend to find them. Not all of them are bad, and some of them can be fixed, but it's naive to think the only relevant discussions are related to skills.
    - ipaddr 6y ago
      It sounds like you are looking for a friend.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  It turns out you are right, this certainly did end up telling us a lot about you.
  - 6y ago

dilyevsky 6y ago

So basically you do a variation of personality quiz except “informal” and then fire candidate after a month if they don’t work out. I don’t know where your market is but where I am you simply won’t be able to hire anyone with options unless you have netflix level pay or super hot domain.

candiddevmike 6y ago
Most companies have some kind of probationary period, either formally or informally.
- dilyevsky 6y ago
  That is incorrect. In 13 years the fastest I’ve seen anyone let go was 6 months. Most sw eng jobs don’t expect you to be fully productive for a quarter at least. Again once word gets out that you’re trigger happy on firing you’re looking at top of market pay to close anyone half decent
- ghaff 6y ago
  Defaults matter though. Hiring someone and having an informal probationary period feels a lot different from giving someone a contract with no guarantee of a job at the end.
  - candiddevmike 6y ago
    There is a guarantee of a job at the end of the contract, I think you're arguing semantics.
    - wlesieutre 6y ago
      What's the point of the contract then, just to make things complicated?
      - candiddevmike 6y ago
        In the US, it's easier to end a contract than fire someone (unemployment, COBRA, taxes).

29athrowaway 6y ago

When you work with international applicants, it's not worth it (and not possible) to do their visa work for 30 days contracts. Most people won't relocate on the basis of 30 days contracts. So this process doesn't really scale to companies competing for talent globally.

candiddevmike 6y ago
I've always worked on remote teams, so I don't see this as a problem (YMMV if you're onsite).
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  The obsessed guys devouring computer science books and maniacally solving leetcode exercises 24x7 are not going for a remote job. They want to change their life.
  - wyclif 6y ago
    This is nonsense, because the "change your life" for the better factor is actually enhanced if you work remote instead of working for the same company in-office. Do you really think a leetcoder getting a job with a FAANG in the Philippines isn't going to have a dramatic financial, social, and status surge if he is working from his home country instead of relocating to the Bay Area, where he has to compete with all the other leetcoders for real estate and other resources?

pavel_lishin 6y ago

I don't think I'd be too thrilled, as a team member, with having zero input into the folks I'd be working with.

jasonpeacock 6y ago

So...there's no data involved in your decision to hire, it's entirely based on non-job-related philosophical questions. There's also no review - you mention wanting to avoid nepotism, cargo culting, etc. but how do we know that you aren't doing that? How do you ensure you are not applying bias (unconscious or not) to your hiring? Studies have shown that most people hire people who are like them, which reduces diversity - and studies have shown that diversity is a net benefit to teams.

em-bee 6y ago
nepotism is a problem for me if people below me do it against my interests. it's also a problem for my superiors if i do it against their interests, but it is in my control and my responsibility so if i mess that up i have to deal with it myself. the best way to avoid bias is to get recommendations from people outside who do not benefit from my choice. if i hire people like me then asking those same people who else to hire will not help to improve diversity. the only way to improve diversity is to explicitly select for it. asking the team won't make much difference here. the only time where asking the team is useful is when i want to make a technical evaluation, but even there i need to be careful that the feedback does not allow team members to reject candidates who are better than them.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  A lot of what you're saying translates, at least in my reading of it, to "I don't trust the people that work for me". I don't know that I could work with a team like that.
  - jasonpeacock 6y ago
    It's worse..., it's: "I don't trust people that work for me, but my leadership should trust me". There's no reciprocity of respect going on, it's all about "I'm perfect and everyone else is broken".
    - em-bee 6y ago

syngrog66 6y ago

I like your system. I dont think theres any one perfect foolproof system but yours is closer to the "more good than bad" end. I agree having their potential coworkers interview them is tricky and prone to traps. There are upsides to it, but downsides too -- depends on those individuals. For an applicant, one is very much walking thru a minefield where just one misstep or "thumbs down" can blow it up, and if that happens one's time gets wasted, and both sides can miss out. Its fine to result in "legit" rejections, but an ideal system tries to minimize the chance of bogus ones. its tricky

gkoberger 6y ago

Wow, I don't know exactly why, but this made my skin crawl. There's so many red flags. I hate these philosophical questions, you're just trying to prove you're clever. I hate contract periods, it's just firing people with cover. I hate that you make these decisions unilaterally, you clearly think you're good at hiring but this just means you're not asking others to help with your blind spots. You refer to yourself as a leader, which just makes me cringe. But most importantly, you clearly have no respect for your team because you don't believe they can interview without being horrible humans. If nothing else, wouldn't the candidates want to meet their peers? Everyone's allowed to hire however they want, and that's a good thing... means there's lots of jobs for different types of people. But I have a strong feeling you have high turnover and a pretty bad company culture based on the way you talk. Or, you've never really built a team, just hired a few one-off people. If you're reading this, please don't hire this way.

BlueGh0st 6y ago
Most of these are only red flags if you're hiring robots and not people. I generally have very little professional experience in the fields that I apply for and no education so, for me, getting hired has usually been a matter of showing that I have a work philosophy that aligns with the goals of my peers and an ability to quickly learn the actual work. I think your view on this comes from a bit of privileged perspective where you're looking moreso to fulfill contractual obligations in a field that you've already proved yourself in and not one where you're looking for a culture-fit that fosters development.
- gkoberger 6y ago
  I agree with the concept of getting to know the person; that's not my problem. And a hiring manager advocating for someone that has untraditional qualifications is awesome. There's just so many red flags in the way this guy talks about hiring. I personally definitely aim to hire awesome people regardless of their experience. I write a lot about how I hire, if you wanna read more! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24457170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24457170

emodendroket 6y ago

Wow, I can't meet any of my coworkers, the interviewing process is totally opaque, and I'm quitting the job I already have for a two-week trial at your place? Where do I sign?

fukmbas 6y ago

Lol I'm not doing some bullshit 1 month trail period bro. Hire me or don't, there are a hundred other opportunities out here any given day

geofft 6y ago

Does this work better than the standard process? How do you evaluate whether it does?

mbrameld 6y ago

Your company appears in LinkedIn search results but nobody lists it as an employer, either current or past. That tells me you probably don't hire many people, and therefore probably aren't very good at it.