7 ms·

> PIPing and firing is a huge time and emotional energy suck, and it sucks So is the 7 interview gauntlet. But I guess it just shifts the burden on the candida

• sevrinsky 5y ago
  Speaking as a senior dev who has interviewed dozens (if not hundreds) of candidates, I assure you that the bulk of the burden is firmly on the interviewers, not the candidates.
• netizen-936824 5y ago
  Cost externalization is the entire basis of businesses/corporations these days it seems. Maybe it was always that way though
  • pirate787 5y ago
    I think it has gotten better in some areas. Sales processes used to be brutal for buyers. Pricing today is more transparent in general.
• hinkley 5y ago
  It also selects for people who will put up with anything, which to a cynical manager might sound like a good employee, except that our job is to replace labor with machines. People who put up with anything are expensive. They keep billing you hours for tasks that could have been reduced to minutes by someone with a lower tolerance for BS.
  • bluescrn 5y ago
    It's probably also selecting for people who are unemployed and therefore much more able to attend the entire gauntlet than those already employed.
    • swader999 5y ago
      How would this really be possible while currently employed, kids, real deliverables?
      • sgtnoodle 5y ago
        To some extent, perhaps it's analogous to poor vs. rich people buying boots. Someone living paycheck to paycheck can only afford cheap boots, so they wear out quickly. Someone with money to spare can afford the high quality boots, and they last years. Similarly, someone with a flexible, relatively good job is more easily able to look around and find an even better opportunity. On the other hand, it takes some courage and risk tolerance to step out from the day to day grind and find something better, even if it could ruffle some feathers. That's not something that comes naturally to most people. Break some eggs to make an omelette.
    • hirako2000 5y ago
      I would think the opposite is more likely.If you are employed, there is no pressure. You may go through 12 interviews for a 12 different jobs and be only so slightly offended. For the unemployed, time is most likely ticking, if not financially, at least emotionally. A relative slowness at any step of the process affects the unemployed mindset. Stress alone lowers interview performance, especially on the soft skills side. I would guess that more people in the employed pool make it through.
      • rascul 5y ago
        If you're employed it's more likely you don't have time for 12 interviews because you're working.
        • gcheong 5y ago
          True but being employed goes a long way to giving the perception that you are employable so in the cases that the decision is a toss-up between an unemployed person and an employed one I’d be willing to bet the employed one wins almost every time.
  • igetspam 5y ago
    I swear some of you have had terrible work experiences. I've been an engineer for the last 20 years. The first time I tried being manager, I sucked and it sucked. (I definitely sucked more because the place sucked but I wasn't great.) That was a decade ago though and I've gradually stepped back into management because I've had great leadership and learned a ton along the way. My primary goal as a manager is to ensure the team is happy and healthy, so that they are able to work effectively. Our hiring process supports this by ensuring we're not hiring dead weight, toxic people or engineers that can't provide value and drag the team down. Where do you people work because I'd like to (a) avoid it and (b) poach people because your world view sucks and I can only assume that's a direct response to a shit environment. To put it into perspective, my first 1:1 with everyone on the team includes questions like "what have previous managers done to help you be successful?" Managing people can be difficult but managers shouldn't be.
  • sgtnoodle 5y ago
    Or it selects for easy going people with patience, grit or humility, which seem like positive traits. It is true that companies tend to only hire the suckers that complete their full interview process. My current company ambushed me with a full interview panel, Gilligan's Island style, when a former coworker invited me to come in for a 3 hour tour. I took it in stride and had fun, and it gave me some additional leverage while negotiating compensation. I remember writing an architecture doc and unit tests when they asked me to code something in an hour and a half. I've been there 6 years and it's been most rewarding for me and my family. My first job out of school was a solid 8 hours of interviews, and I had a lot of fun during that interview too. I got to work on space ships, and in time made a fortune in equity. I remember preparing a presentation slide deck completely in valid C++ syntax. I also remember taking a red-eye after that interview for another 8 hours of interviews at another company, which I also enjoyed despite having only had 4 hours of sleep. The 2nd company I worked for decided last minute to interview me for two different roles. That was like 11 hours of interviews. I actually ended up taking the 2nd role because it was a significantly better fit. I brought a large cast iron skillet to that interview, which was a nice ice breaker. It's true that I put up with a lot of frustrating tasks without complaining, but I personally have zero tolerance for BS. It turns out that the more I push back on BS within an organization, the more I tend to get paid, so in that sense I suppose I am expensive!
    • djbusby 5y ago
      What's with the skillet?
      • sgtnoodle 5y ago
        One of the interview sessions was with an industrial designer. Seemed silly to me as a software engineer but what do I know. Leading up to the interview, they asked me to bring in a photo of something I thought had elegant design. After brian storming for not very long I decided on my skillet, and I thought it would be more fun to bring it along. When they asked for my photo, I pulled it out and plopped it on the table. After the initial WTF moment, we had a lengthy and interesting discussion about the merits of cast iron cook wear. All the subsequent interviews started with, "why is there a cast iron skillet?" Going through TSA with a cast iron skillet in your carry-on is actually pretty fun because it's impossible for the screener not to giggle. I've also gone through airport security with a 20lb printed circuit board with about 90% copper fill, which surprisingly got less scrutiny. Having something fun to make your interview memorable seems to go over well. I got selected for an internship because I showed up to the "interview" in a Hawaiian shirt. Apparently every other candidate showed up in a suit. We were meeting at a coffee shop on a college campus, so I just dressed for the environment.
• sgtnoodle 5y ago
  In my experience, it seems to take a company about 1-1.5 years to fire someone that's well intended but ineffective in their role. 15 or so "wasted" person-hours up front is well worth avoiding thousands of wasted person-hours, especially considering maybe 1 in 5 candidates that make it to a full interview are a good fit.
  • thirdwhrldPzz 5y ago
    How do we know this isn’t blind faith and the numbers are “made up”? Other than fiat wealth generation, what gains are there to treating each other like this?
    • sgtnoodle 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean? Are you suggesting that companies shouldn't avoid hiring unqualified people that generate less value than their cost on average?
      • mr_toad 5y ago
        I’m dubious that companies can accurately measure ability or performance, either in the interview process or on the job.
        • google234123 5y ago
          Have you ever been in a job or taken a class with other people and not been able to see the different between the more competent and more incompetent people?
          • sgtnoodle 5y ago
            Indeed. Experienced interviewers can size up a candidate in the first 10 minutes and fairly accurately predict how their debrief will go. The rest of the interviews are just building up confidence, and making sure there's enough redundancy to tolerate the occasional bungle or accidental awkwardness. Folk get hired all the time despite getting imperfect interviewer feedback. I've had interviews where the first 45 minutes were painful but then the candidate blew me away in the last 15 minutes.
• anyfoo 5y ago
  Compared to PIPing and firing? Interviewing is probably way, way less of a time and emotional energy suck. Granted, I've only ever taken and given interviews, never given (or, fortunately, been under) a PIP or firing. But interviewing is just a few weeks or so of preparation and then a day or two, and the preparation is often fun, and so are some of the interviews. Nobody thinks PIPs and firings are fun.
• skeeter2020 5y ago
  No kidding! The best people already have jobs and you want to steal them away from somewhere else. 5+ interviews? giant take-home projects or multiple coding assessments? Pass, they're not going to put up with it. "Our 7-interview process ensures we only hire the best" ... of the 10% willing to go through this nonsense.
• mateo411 5y ago
  Well no. It's expensive for the company too. All of the people involved in the interview process are still getting paid while they are interviewing the candidates. They aren't working on their projects that they have to complete. The company probably has a recruiting or talent acquisition team and the people on that team don't work for free. The company might also work with outside agencies or external recruiters. If you hire one a candidate from one of these sources, you have to pay them too. It's really expensive in terms of time and money to hire people. It's really hard to build a great team.
  • rascul 5y ago
    > All of the people involved in the interview process are still getting paid Except the interviewee.
    • MichaelBurge 5y ago
      There's often a signing bonus. If there's a 10% chance of getting the job and a $50k signing bonus is common, then your EV is $5000 per interview. Even if there weren't, then 10% of the extra compensation vs. an easier-to-hire company with your discount horizon applied would also count as payment.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • CogitoCogito 5y ago
        If you’re 10% likely to get a job with a 50k signing bonus and you’re doing 7 interviews for that job your expected value is $715 per interview.
      • bacheaul 5y ago
        > $50k signing bonus is common I clearly live in a different labour market to this conversation. How many places in the world is this common?
    • icedchai 5y ago
• jnwatson 5y ago
  It doesn’t externalize costs at all. We’re talking easily 20 developer hours per candidate. That’s real money.
• kelnos 5y ago
  Perhaps, but PIPing and firing is bad for the employee, bad for the manager, and bad for the PIP'd employees teammates. PIPs don't happen immediately; it might take a month or two before it's clear to a manager that a new employee isn't performing to the expected level. So I think I'd rather have a candidate spend 7 hours interviewing if it could save months of pain for multiple people later. (This does assume, of course, that the 7-person interview panel actually does decrease the incidence of hiring-the-wrong-person enough to be worthwhile. I don't know if that's actually the case.) Out of all the things I think are wrong with tech jobs -- and with employment in general -- I don't think "I have to interview with 7 people instead of 1 or 2" even cracks the top 50.