3 ms·

You do you. I can't see how your approach can scale to hire tens or maybe hundreds of engineers. Sounds like something that may somewhat work for you when you

You do you. I can't see how your approach can scale to hire tens or maybe hundreds of engineers. Sounds like something that may somewhat work for you when you're the only one doing the hiring for your small team of buddies at a startup somewhere. You're not even trying to tackle things like hiring for multiple roles, interview fairness, subconscious bias, technical diversity, feedback, or making the interview process accessible to a larger group of people that don't fit your cookie-cutter from the get go. On a different note - I really hate the tone of your post. You come off as an arrogant person who's full of it and "has it all figured out". I'd easily pass on you just by reading these posts.

jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
If you need hundreds of engineers to solve a related set of business problems[1], I wager you've done something wrong. [1] and if these problems are unrelated (think Uber's human driver app vs self driving), then why are candidates passing through the same committee?
- csmpltn 5y ago
  There's a difference between hiring your 2-3 buddies that'll work with you on your toy startup (many of which ended up shutting down fairly quickly, reading OP's blog) - and actually staffing a diverse team that works on a complex product that's used by many clients and is held up to a high standard. Mature products require competence in areas such as security, architecture, compliance, devops, research and much more. Hiring has to reflect that and account for it. It's silly and immature to suggest a 90-minute chat about some crap your candidate will bring with them is somehow the answer here (and claiming that if they don't have anything to bring with them, then chances are that they're worthless anyways and you shouldn't waste your time on them). Especially without backing this up with any meaningful data (ie. attrition, number of people hired, actual impact on business, feedback received, etc).

jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago

If you need hundreds of engineers to solve a related set of business problems[1], I wager you've done something wrong. [1] and if these problems are unrelated (think Uber's human driver app vs self driving), then why are candidates passing through the same committee?

csmpltn 5y ago
There's a difference between hiring your 2-3 buddies that'll work with you on your toy startup (many of which ended up shutting down fairly quickly, reading OP's blog) - and actually staffing a diverse team that works on a complex product that's used by many clients and is held up to a high standard. Mature products require competence in areas such as security, architecture, compliance, devops, research and much more. Hiring has to reflect that and account for it. It's silly and immature to suggest a 90-minute chat about some crap your candidate will bring with them is somehow the answer here (and claiming that if they don't have anything to bring with them, then chances are that they're worthless anyways and you shouldn't waste your time on them). Especially without backing this up with any meaningful data (ie. attrition, number of people hired, actual impact on business, feedback received, etc).