4 ms·
This fear of hiring inept people kind of surprises me. Can't they just let people go who interview very well but are poor performers on the job? If they don't c
by cmiles74 4y ago
This fear of hiring inept people kind of surprises me. Can't they just let people go who interview very well but are poor performers on the job? If they don't care to follow up on the performance of new hires, I have to wonder if it really matters one way or the other.
I'm outside any major metro area, when we've needed to hire there haven only been a handful of people responding. When people come in for an interview it's been pretty easy to tell if they really can't code at all without making them actually code. I haven't found this to be challenging.
I suspect the issue is interviewing a large number of people in a short period of time. If you don't have 45 minutes or so to spend on each person, using automated leetcode style problems probably starts to seem like a pretty attractive way to weed people out.
Lastly, usually one or two people from my team would take part in interviews. If there aren't any developers available at interview time (i.e., it's a manager and a someone from HR), I can start to see how people without any real coding experience can make it through the process. Again, this is probably a place where automated testing looks like a reasonable solution.
- sokoloff 4y ago> Can't they just let people go who interview very well but are poor performers on the job? Eventually, yes. But it takes time for them to start, time and money to onboard them, evaluate how they’re ramping up, then if not acceptable, to follow whatever performance management process is indicated by the company and local law, then transition whatever work they were doing. This could be several months and tens of thousands of dollars just to get back to a worse state than when you walked into interview that candidate. Interviewing even slightly better than last year can pay large dividends.