3 ms·

> expressing a concern that a fast hiring commitment would be riskier; but that's not necessarily so. I think it is necessarily so. Hiring fast is effectively

> expressing a concern that a fast hiring commitment would be riskier; but that's not necessarily so. I think it is necessarily so. Hiring fast is effectively hiring randomly and that is way riskier. Would you read random books? Watch random movies? Maybe, but probably not. Would you buy a random car? Of course not. Would you buy a random home? Etc etc You can logistically reduce the number of days by maybe doing multiple interviews into a single day, but that’s still hours. I’ve worked back in the dot com days where you were hired on the spot and that was fun until they fired on the spot. Having a well-designed process that takes a while is not perfect, but is better than the other options. “Slow to hire, slow to fire” is a good maxim.

dleslie 5y ago
I'm not advocating for hiring literally anyone. If they pass your credential requirements, reference checks, and team meet then they're already passing through significant filtering.
- rockemsockem 5y ago
  Resumes aren't really credentials. They're lists of things provided by the individual themselves and are almost always inflated in some way. Reference checks are just "I got someone you don't know (and shouldn't trust) to say good things about me", and meet the team is just "I can talk to people and sound smart for about an hour or two". There are a very large number of idiots who can do those things. I strongly disagree that this is a significant filter.
  - dleslie 5y ago
    Those who lie on their resume in a harmful way are immediately apparent upon hiring, and so are quick to fire. Those who do not, are not, and aren't fired. It's really not the risk folks seem to think it is.
    - prepend 5y ago
      Why do you think it’s easy to find who has lied on their resume? It can take weeks for someone to orient, and as mentioned all over this thread it’s hard to fire people. I’d rather use a system that avoids hiring people that will need to be fired. Blindly trusting resumes is silly since resumes are hard to verify.
      - dleslie 5y ago
        It's not easy to find liars. It's easy to find who are underperforming. There's a difference between the two. Resume, references, and team meeting filters out almost everyone who needs to be fired. Folks who lie on their resume, who arrange dishonest references and who defraud their way through a meet and greet are _exceedingly rare_. It's such a vanishingly small segment of possibility that it's not worth troubling oneself over. The reality is that companies use complex and obtuse hiring practices to cover for poor internal practices. They recognize an inability to deliver and perform on their teams, and consider it a hiring failure; but the reality, most of the time, is that it's a structural or management failure. Most hires, most of the time, are sufficiently able to deliver on their desired roles; but often, management is unwilling and unable to identify that they are responsible for poor performance. And so they blame the candidates, the new hires, to their teams. Not themselves.
        rockemsockem 5y ago
        I don't think folks are saying that outright lies are happening very often. What is happening is resumes being written to sound impressive (obviously) and perhaps inflating the difficulty/contribution/impact of past work. Exact same thing with referrals and meet and greets. Honestly all three of those things test the exact same thing, the person's ability to sell themselves. Which is why I would not work anywhere with such lax interviews. I don't want to work somewhere that only values likability and talking oneself up.
        dleslie 5y ago
        The dirty truth is that if a candidate thinks they can perform well in a role then, most of the time, that's true. It is exceedingly rare that people apply for roles that they know they cannot deliver upon. It's dirty because we like to believe that our technical proficiency and ability is elite and rare, but the truth is that with a little training, with a little on the ground experience, many people can do what we do. You don't want to work somewhere where that's proven possible.

dleslie 5y ago

I'm not advocating for hiring literally anyone. If they pass your credential requirements, reference checks, and team meet then they're already passing through significant filtering.

rockemsockem 5y ago
Resumes aren't really credentials. They're lists of things provided by the individual themselves and are almost always inflated in some way. Reference checks are just "I got someone you don't know (and shouldn't trust) to say good things about me", and meet the team is just "I can talk to people and sound smart for about an hour or two". There are a very large number of idiots who can do those things. I strongly disagree that this is a significant filter.
- dleslie 5y ago
  Those who lie on their resume in a harmful way are immediately apparent upon hiring, and so are quick to fire. Those who do not, are not, and aren't fired. It's really not the risk folks seem to think it is.
  - prepend 5y ago
    Why do you think it’s easy to find who has lied on their resume? It can take weeks for someone to orient, and as mentioned all over this thread it’s hard to fire people. I’d rather use a system that avoids hiring people that will need to be fired. Blindly trusting resumes is silly since resumes are hard to verify.
    - dleslie 5y ago
      It's not easy to find liars. It's easy to find who are underperforming. There's a difference between the two. Resume, references, and team meeting filters out almost everyone who needs to be fired. Folks who lie on their resume, who arrange dishonest references and who defraud their way through a meet and greet are _exceedingly rare_. It's such a vanishingly small segment of possibility that it's not worth troubling oneself over. The reality is that companies use complex and obtuse hiring practices to cover for poor internal practices. They recognize an inability to deliver and perform on their teams, and consider it a hiring failure; but the reality, most of the time, is that it's a structural or management failure. Most hires, most of the time, are sufficiently able to deliver on their desired roles; but often, management is unwilling and unable to identify that they are responsible for poor performance. And so they blame the candidates, the new hires, to their teams. Not themselves.
      - rockemsockem 5y ago
        I don't think folks are saying that outright lies are happening very often. What is happening is resumes being written to sound impressive (obviously) and perhaps inflating the difficulty/contribution/impact of past work. Exact same thing with referrals and meet and greets. Honestly all three of those things test the exact same thing, the person's ability to sell themselves. Which is why I would not work anywhere with such lax interviews. I don't want to work somewhere that only values likability and talking oneself up.
        dleslie 5y ago
        The dirty truth is that if a candidate thinks they can perform well in a role then, most of the time, that's true. It is exceedingly rare that people apply for roles that they know they cannot deliver upon. It's dirty because we like to believe that our technical proficiency and ability is elite and rare, but the truth is that with a little training, with a little on the ground experience, many people can do what we do. You don't want to work somewhere where that's proven possible.