4 ms·

No hiring practices work. Which means that you might as well go with the one you like most. There are some hiring practices that really suck, of course. So pro

No hiring practices work. Which means that you might as well go with the one you like most. There are some hiring practices that really suck, of course. So probably don't do those, like choosing people randomly or based on illegal discrimination. But beyond that, just do whatever and iterate.

beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
The best hiring I've done, and been a part of, has had 2 very clear features: 1. The expectations and details in the job were specific to the actual exact role I would be filling and were clearly laid out in the job posting. 2. The "interview" was really just a single long conversation on those specific details and a discussion over whether I fit them and can show/discuss examples of how I fit them. A lot of hiring nonsense is because the actual job requirements and posting is so generic as to be practically meaningless, so you create these pointless hoops to jump through in order weed out an individual from a pool of other generic individuals. The actual employee you pick ends up simply being really good at jumping through hoops rather than a good hire for the specific role. Crazy multi-step hiring processes just seem like selecting for endurance over any ability as a future employee.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
This sounds like somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and is proud of it
- jghn 3y ago
  This has been studied in the past [1] and the results aren't good [1] One example: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20Oh%20validity%20and%20util%20100%20yrs%20of%20research%20Wk%20PPR%202016.pdf https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20...
  - jldugger 3y ago
    I mean, Hunter & Schmidt says three really key things: 1. IQ tests work real good. 2. Structured interviews -- which are not IQ tests -- work about as well and strongly correlated. 3. Work sample tests -- which are _definitely not_ IQ tests -- work as well and in ways NOT correlated. Meaning you can combine these two and get a reasonably effective hiring screen.
    - jghn 3y ago
      Yes, and even when applying those criteria the results still were far from great. They were at least better than random chance though.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        How good can the results possibly be when you have ~1 day with someone to assess how they'll be over the next year or 2?
        jghn 3y ago
        I agree. The person to whom I was replying seemed to be implying that interviews can provide good signal.
        jldugger 3y ago
        I mean, 70 percent is pretty good for a selection strategy. I wasn't aware H&S had published a followup and now I'm curious if it ever got a peer review, because their table contradicts some earlier work suggesting that structured works better than unstructured. It's also pretty keen to recommend Integrity tests which I think the authors play a role in studying. edit: I guess it's "operational validity" which maybe isn't "percent that did well later"?

beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago

The best hiring I've done, and been a part of, has had 2 very clear features: 1. The expectations and details in the job were specific to the actual exact role I would be filling and were clearly laid out in the job posting. 2. The "interview" was really just a single long conversation on those specific details and a discussion over whether I fit them and can show/discuss examples of how I fit them. A lot of hiring nonsense is because the actual job requirements and posting is so generic as to be practically meaningless, so you create these pointless hoops to jump through in order weed out an individual from a pool of other generic individuals. The actual employee you pick ends up simply being really good at jumping through hoops rather than a good hire for the specific role. Crazy multi-step hiring processes just seem like selecting for endurance over any ability as a future employee.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

This sounds like somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and is proud of it

jghn 3y ago
This has been studied in the past [1] and the results aren't good [1] One example: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20Oh%20validity%20and%20util%20100%20yrs%20of%20research%20Wk%20PPR%202016.pdf https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20...
- jldugger 3y ago
  I mean, Hunter & Schmidt says three really key things: 1. IQ tests work real good. 2. Structured interviews -- which are not IQ tests -- work about as well and strongly correlated. 3. Work sample tests -- which are _definitely not_ IQ tests -- work as well and in ways NOT correlated. Meaning you can combine these two and get a reasonably effective hiring screen.
  - jghn 3y ago
    Yes, and even when applying those criteria the results still were far from great. They were at least better than random chance though.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      How good can the results possibly be when you have ~1 day with someone to assess how they'll be over the next year or 2?
      - jghn 3y ago
        I agree. The person to whom I was replying seemed to be implying that interviews can provide good signal.
        jldugger 3y ago
        I mean, 70 percent is pretty good for a selection strategy. I wasn't aware H&S had published a followup and now I'm curious if it ever got a peer review, because their table contradicts some earlier work suggesting that structured works better than unstructured. It's also pretty keen to recommend Integrity tests which I think the authors play a role in studying. edit: I guess it's "operational validity" which maybe isn't "percent that did well later"?