3 ms·

I interviewed at GitHub last year for a Frontend role, I went through this process then at the time. I have to say as a candidate it was extremely off putting

I interviewed at GitHub last year for a Frontend role, I went through this process then at the time. I have to say as a candidate it was extremely off putting being asked to create a CRUD API for a Frontend role. It wasn't a hard ask, but I feel like the skillset being tested is not the same. After reading this blog, it seems it would be easy to automate the exercise toward creating a CRUD API versus a drop-down menu component for example. Another downside I disliked about this approach is that I never spoke to a hiring manager or an engineer from the company. It went from Recruiter straight to automated tests. I understand it saves the company time, but it felt very dehumanizing. How far along the process do I have to make it to before I know if it's a team I even want to be on? I didn't bother and focused on companies where I spoke to someone technical first. Got a better sense of the company culture immediately and knew which interviews to focus on. At least with other companies like Facebook/Meta they stick another Engineer with you when doing their technical assessment. Felt like they had skin in the game when conducting interviews at least. Aa an aside, companies that use Karat [1] for interviewing (basically outsourcing the technical interview to a 3rd party) get a hard pass from me. If you read around other SWE communities, it's a common sentiment. If you can't even conduct your own interviews, what does that say about your culture? [1] https://karat.com/ https://karat.com/

dolni 5y ago
> Another downside I disliked about this approach is that I never spoke to a hiring manager or an engineer from the company. It went from Recruiter straight to automated tests. I understand it saves the company time, but it felt very dehumanizing. How far along the process do I have to make it to before I know if it's a team I even want to be on? I didn't bother and focused on companies where I spoke to someone technical first. Got a better sense of the company culture immediately and knew which interviews to focus on. This sort of stuff makes it so obvious to me that companies like GitHub "caring about inclusion" don't, actually. You, as a candidate, are reduced to a pull request. There are so many attributes that a great employee can bring to the table which will not come through in a pull request, like: Are they excited about the work? Do they have a positive demeanor (maybe boost morale of other employees)? Are they a big-picture type? Are they a self-starter? Are they constantly looking for improvement opportunities? Can they provide mentorship?
- 6486396927 5y ago
  I think it's the opposite. Reducing the candidate to a pull request means that gender, race, etc. become completely irrelevant, as it should be. It also means you can assess many more candidate and don't need to sift based on CVs. It's the most inclusive option, with the trade-off that it makes the candidates feel worse and may mean you lose some of the most sought after candidate who have many other options. All of the attributes you mention are subjective and will inevitably lead to bias influencing the process.
  - dolni 5y ago
    Have you ever had to work with a toxic person before? Those subjective attributes have a very real impact on the workplace. It takes only ONE toxic person to sink morale for an entire team. Not filtering out toxic people turns your "most inclusive" into "least inclusive" pretty damn fast because suddenly nobody wants to work at your company anymore.
    - 6486396927 5y ago
      Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. In many workplaces, I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other.
      - dolni 5y ago
        > Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I wonder if that's because there are interviewing processes in place that weed these people out. Possibly even ones that have been standard for decades or longer? > I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. This sounds like a real good way to open yourself up to legal liability for exactly the type of discrimination you are worried about. Even if there isn't any discrimination. > I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. Suppose you hire a candidate who benefits from the interview process you describe (maybe the "deferred culture fit"?) You seem to mostly be concerned with non-white people, so let's assume they're that. In 2022, who wants to put themselves out there and accuse a non-white person of creating problems in a progressive workplace? Nobody, that's who. > I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other. I'm against the idea of assuming that anybody who isn't a "straight, white, Christian male" is going to be discriminated against at every turn during the hiring process. ESPECIALLY not in Silicon Valley or NYC. Somehow everybody in these coastal cities is highly aware of and sensitive to ism/phobia, and still very ist/phobe.
silverlake 5y ago
> At least with other companies like Facebook/Meta they stick another Engineer with you when doing their technical assessment. Felt like they had skin in the game when conducting interviews at least. There’s a small number of engineering hours available for interviews. GitHub must pass on a huge % of applicants. How should they select candidates for those slots? Automated resume scans, automated coding tests, prefer name brand schools/companies. GitHub’s approach seems fairer.

dolni 5y ago

> Another downside I disliked about this approach is that I never spoke to a hiring manager or an engineer from the company. It went from Recruiter straight to automated tests. I understand it saves the company time, but it felt very dehumanizing. How far along the process do I have to make it to before I know if it's a team I even want to be on? I didn't bother and focused on companies where I spoke to someone technical first. Got a better sense of the company culture immediately and knew which interviews to focus on. This sort of stuff makes it so obvious to me that companies like GitHub "caring about inclusion" don't, actually. You, as a candidate, are reduced to a pull request. There are so many attributes that a great employee can bring to the table which will not come through in a pull request, like: Are they excited about the work? Do they have a positive demeanor (maybe boost morale of other employees)? Are they a big-picture type? Are they a self-starter? Are they constantly looking for improvement opportunities? Can they provide mentorship?

6486396927 5y ago
I think it's the opposite. Reducing the candidate to a pull request means that gender, race, etc. become completely irrelevant, as it should be. It also means you can assess many more candidate and don't need to sift based on CVs. It's the most inclusive option, with the trade-off that it makes the candidates feel worse and may mean you lose some of the most sought after candidate who have many other options. All of the attributes you mention are subjective and will inevitably lead to bias influencing the process.
- dolni 5y ago
  Have you ever had to work with a toxic person before? Those subjective attributes have a very real impact on the workplace. It takes only ONE toxic person to sink morale for an entire team. Not filtering out toxic people turns your "most inclusive" into "least inclusive" pretty damn fast because suddenly nobody wants to work at your company anymore.
  - 6486396927 5y ago
    Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. In many workplaces, I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other.
    - dolni 5y ago
      > Personally, I haven't (I hope that doesn't mean I'm the toxic person). I wonder if that's because there are interviewing processes in place that weed these people out. Possibly even ones that have been standard for decades or longer? > I think those people are rare enough that they can be filtered out at the very end of the process when there is already objective evidence that the candidate is competent. This sounds like a real good way to open yourself up to legal liability for exactly the type of discrimination you are worried about. Even if there isn't any discrimination. > I think they may even be best filtered out in a paied trial period with some kind of commitment to hire them unless there is a problem. That way the decision can also be made by the people who will work most closely with the candidate. Suppose you hire a candidate who benefits from the interview process you describe (maybe the "deferred culture fit"?) You seem to mostly be concerned with non-white people, so let's assume they're that. In 2022, who wants to put themselves out there and accuse a non-white person of creating problems in a progressive workplace? Nobody, that's who. > I'm against the idea of testing for cultural fit because I think that leads to less diversity (including less diversity of thought and opinion) which I believe is harmful for teams. I think we work best together with people who are different from us, as long as we are still nice and respectful to each other. I'm against the idea of assuming that anybody who isn't a "straight, white, Christian male" is going to be discriminated against at every turn during the hiring process. ESPECIALLY not in Silicon Valley or NYC. Somehow everybody in these coastal cities is highly aware of and sensitive to ism/phobia, and still very ist/phobe.

silverlake 5y ago

> At least with other companies like Facebook/Meta they stick another Engineer with you when doing their technical assessment. Felt like they had skin in the game when conducting interviews at least. There’s a small number of engineering hours available for interviews. GitHub must pass on a huge % of applicants. How should they select candidates for those slots? Automated resume scans, automated coding tests, prefer name brand schools/companies. GitHub’s approach seems fairer.