7 ms·

People's intuitions around hiring aren't Bayesian enough. I think a good process reduces down to something like: - Are they smart? (understands quickly + commu

by smeeth 3y ago

People's intuitions around hiring aren't Bayesian enough. I think a good process reduces down to something like: - Are they smart? (understands quickly + communicates effectively) - Are they cool? (won't put poison in the keurig + pleasant to be around) - Are they high energy? (initiative + action bias) - Do they have the experience needed to be successful in the role? Those are pretty strong priors for success. If you find someone with all the above, you've got an ~80% chance of a hit. No need to over-complicate. In my experience, adding more boxes tends to index towards box-checkers who grew up wealthy. That's how you miss the hyper-smart/diligent state school kids who happened to spend their summers working instead of doing model UN.

CharlieDigital 3y ago
I have a 4-quardrant way of thinking about this that's similar. - Y-axis is "drive" - X-axis is "aptitude" - low drive + low aptitude: never hire - low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise - high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth - high drive + high aptitude: hire on the spot There's an indirect way of testing for this which is to test for curiosity and lack of ego. My experience has been that candidates with high curiosity tend to have low ego (they know what they don't know and are curious to learn). These candidates make great hires because you can teach them anything. Wrote about this a little bit here (with a handy diagram): https://charliedigital.com/2020/01/15/effective-hiring-for-small-or-all-teams/ https://charliedigital.com/2020/01/15/effective-hiring-for-s...
- powerset 3y ago
  How do you test for curiosity?
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    > How do you test for curiosity? uh? tell me more
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    You take the person off the beaten path in the interview.
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    Curiosity and ego seem to be inversely correlated. If you ask relevant but technically hard and esoteric questions _without the expectation of an answer_ you can sometimes see it in the manner of the response. Do they probe the question? Do they explore the idea, even if they don't know the answer? Do they readily admit that they don't know?? Or do they become defensive? Do they fake their way through it? If they make a mistake and you point it out, how do they respond?
- smeeth 3y ago
  I like this, but I do think it misses the social stuff. Just a few neurotic/unethical people can completely ruin a team and make all the best people quit. I find this to be extra true on diverse teams (all types of diversity).
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    Yes, I now call this "vibes".
    - babyshake 3y ago
      This is an interesting area because there's a lot of room for debate about what a good "vibe" is. Is being really positive all the time the right vibe? In many/most office environments, it is considered to be the right vibe. In a small startup where you're trying to validate PMF, it's not necessarily the best vibe IMO.
      - CharlieDigital 3y ago
        "Vibe" isn't so easy defined as being positive; more like the way you interact feels "natural" and doesn't lead to negative emotions. In a startup, lots of mistakes will be made. A team with the right vibe knows and acknowledges this, but focuses on fixing the problems rather than finger pointing. In that sense, "vibe" is not inherent to the individual, but I like to think of it as "we're on the same wavelength" when it comes to key things. So it really means "does this person fit with this team and this mission?" -- "vibes" sums that up for me.
  - jprete 3y ago
    As nineplay@ remarked elsewhere, "there's a nauseating bias here against people who've had horrific childhoods". Unethical is one thing, neuroticism should not be a disqualifier from decent employment.
    - 93po 3y ago
      neuroticism, no. asocial or antisocial behavior, yes.
- agumonkey 3y ago
  out of curiosity, do you often run into low aptitude + low drive but highly politically skilled ? do they get caught early ?
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    It has happened. But generally, at least in tech, it is possible to filter this out with a good tech screen.
  - ska 3y ago
    > low drive but highly politically skilled These two don't really match up, they are just driven for different things I suspect.
    - agumonkey 3y ago
      low drive toward efforts :)
- walthamstow 3y ago
  Aren't these quadrants from about 100 years ago? Some Prussian General von Whatshisname? Edit: General von Hammerstein I divide my officers into four classes as follows: the clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.
  - Tangurena2 3y ago
    They're simply 2-variable Karnaugh maps. Widely used in logic design in electrical engineering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnaugh_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnaugh_map
    - walthamstow 3y ago
      I mean the smart/dumb lazy/hardworking axes, not the underlying concept
  - conro1108 3y ago
    It's a similar shape but with quite different conclusions - low drive + low aptitude: never hire Hammerstein thinks some use can be made of these folks - low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise Hammerstein has this group as high leadership positions - high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth These are the ones who Hammerstein avoids - high drive + high aptitude: hire on the spot These go to the "General Staff"
    - CharlieDigital 3y ago
      > These are the ones who Hammerstein avoids My experience has been that aptitude can be developed. In the context of "low experience" (generally junior engineers), the ones that succeed are the ones that put the work in to learn and get better. But I can appreciate Hammerstein's perspective, especially if there isn't an added nuance of Carol Dweck's "fixed" vs "growth" mindset. A high drive, low aptitude individual -- seen through a fixed mindset lens -- is indeed dangerous!
- dboreham 3y ago
  > Y-axis is "drive" Someone I learned much from way back called this "wattage". As in: "he's too low wattage".
- brianmcc 3y ago
  High on both sounds like Spolsky's "Smart and Gets Things Done", and not surprisingly your conclusions rather agree :-) https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guide-to-interviewing-version-30/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...
- BeetleB 3y ago
  > high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth This needs to be subdivided. There are plenty of people who've had a lot of opportunity for aptitude growth, but they didn't grow. And having high energy in those circumstances really messes up a lot of stuff (they're incompetent, but jump into and be involved in everything, and you have to politely tell them to get off your project).
- gen220 3y ago
  This is The Way™! I've heard this alternatively described as "slope" (for drive, which incorporates the curiosity, lack of ego, excitability) and "intercept" for "aptitude". Implication is that if you're high-slope, you'll eventually become high-intercept. If you're a startup, you want to bias towards a mix of high slope, low intercept and positive slope, high intercept. I think it's also worth pointing out that people can have negative slopes (due to social reasons, ego reasons), and that slope is not invariant over a person's career but often changes. Ideally, you want to find people whose slope is positively-impacted by the environment of the company – a great hire is only a great hire if it's a great mutual-fit, in that way.
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    Both can definitely change over time and that change can be influenced by a variety of factors including the types of projects, company culture, "vibes" with the rest of the team, and so on. I think the industry really wants an objective, formulaic way of identifying these individuals, but the reality is that a lot of it does still come down to subjective factors since there's so much variability along so many different facets. What I can say personally is that I've had pretty good success hiring, but I wouldn't claim that my "intuition" can be systematically applied by anyone to achieve the same success.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  But aptitude can be split into "experience" and "natural talent", which are different things and I think that's meant to be the whole point of the article.
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    In Chinese philosophy, there is a school of thought called "legalism" that was founded by Han Fei-tzu. There is a piece of writing in there that I'm quite fond of [0]: If it were necessary to rely on a shaft that had grown perfectly straight, within a hundred generations there would be no arrow. If it were necessary to rely on wood that had grown perfectly round, within a thousand generations there would be no cart wheel. If a naturally straight shaft or naturally round wood cannot be found within a hundred generations, how is it that in all generations carriages are used and birds shot? Because tools are used to straighten and bend. But even if one did not rely on tools and still got a naturally straight shaft or a piece of naturally round wood, a skillful craftsman would not value this. Why? Because it is not just one person that needs to ride and not just one arrow that needs to be shot. If you only rely on natural talent, then your pool of candidates will always be very, very small and you'll be competing against Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and so on. Better that you can identify candidates with potential and have a system of knowledge transfer and training to make them productive. [0] https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/11/14/han-fei-tzu-d-233-bce-legalist-views-on-good-government/ https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/11/14/han-fei-tzu-d-233-bce-lega...
- PeterStuer 3y ago
  I'd go with the crazy/hot axis myself. You meet minimum requirements on both, and if you do your contribution better exceed your high maintainance demands.
- intelVISA 3y ago
  how do you keep 'high drive + high aptitude' from escaping to run their own venture?
  - stanleydrew 3y ago
    You don't. You just harness what they have and direct it while you can. But one way to try is to wholly hand off greenfield projects within your company. The whole idea of a "startup within a company" is fundamentally flawed, but you can attempt it anyway.
- astura 3y ago
  >low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise If you do choose to hire this person make sure to isolate them from other. I've seen a single low drive + high aptitude person single handly ruin teams. They are a cancer.
randomdata 3y ago
> adding more boxes tends to index towards box-checkers who grew up wealthy. Yeah, but that's the point. Those who come from wealth bring connections. Connections are what make or break a business. A mediocre worker with rich parents is far more beneficial to the business than a standout worker that came from the slums.
- throw18376 3y ago
  i think that in the United States, this is simply not the case up until the true super-rich. the vast majority of rich people are not well-connected enough to drive any business your way. if you have a tech startup do you really care that you hired the son or daughter of a car dealership magnate from the other side of the country? in the USA it's possible and in fact more common to become a very wealthy without becoming hugely influential. they may be well-connected in their particular geographic region or within a certain business sector, but this would be a specific advantage which usually wouldn't benefit your business. this may be different in some other countries, where nearly everyone wealthy is part of the same national elite group. but generally, in America, you'd be better off hiring the better employee.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > if you have a tech startup do you really care that you hired the son or daughter of a car dealership magnate from the other side of the country? Of course! That's an incredible resource. Even if they don't specifically drive business your way, having the person's ear is something that can be leveraged to great effect. You don't exactly become a car dealership magnate without knowing a thing or two about business and they can teach your startup a lot. A magnate is more likely to chum with investors who might be interested in helping your business. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately, at least statistically, the poor parents will never be able to offer the same. American individualism may be the American identity, but individualism doesn't get you far in business. America is not unique like you are trying to suggest.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
CobrastanJorji 3y ago
How do you measure "are they cool" without just directly transforming all of your biases and stereotypes about the candidate into a numeric score?
- 946789987649 3y ago
  Have a diverse team and have them also score for cool? Of course a bit of a chicken and egg with hiring the diverse team.
- grdgyredb 3y ago
  As long as you aren’t illegally discriminating, it’s more important that you avoid hiring shitty people than it is that you eliminate all bias. You can’t single-handedly solve the systemic problem of unequal access to opportunity.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    I can't clean the world, but my kitchen is my responsibility.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    One bad apple poisons the whole team. It's totally morale destroying.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  "Cool" isn't a good word to use, but it is important to filter for people who can get along with others. Some candidates can't make it through an interview without being condescending to someone, making snide remarks, being arrogant, trying to start arguments about trivial things, or other negative behaviors. If they're doing this during the interview, you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. It's going to be 100X worse when you have to deal with that person 5 days a week. Other candidates behave well during interviews but have a history of causing social problems at other companies. It takes some work to uncover these (and, importantly, validate their veracity). Some of the most toxic people I ever worked with were very charming in interviews. They swung from company to company, leaving a trail of unhappy coworkers behind them. They could only get hired into new companies where nobody knew any of their past coworkers, because a simple reference check would reveal how difficult they were to work with. Filtering this behavior out before someone joins the team is very important. Hiring a single socially toxic or subversive person into a team is like dropping a bomb on a healthy team dynamic. You may lose multiple good employees before you figure out what's going on and put together a case for firing the bad apple.
mixermachine 3y ago
> who happened to spend their summers working It is a super cool story to hear in what jobs somebody already has worked in and a good indicator. I worked as a dancing instructor assistant and learned so much about people. This job does not correlate with my current job as a Java/Kotlin/Android dev but was taken quite well by everyone the interviewed me 10 years back. You just have very little time during a job interview and mistakes are costly. > Are they smart? > Are they cool? ... Are the right questions that need to be answered, but not asked directly. The article talks especially about what to ask to get meaningful answers.
bigbillheck 3y ago
> People's intuitions around hiring aren't Bayesian enough. People's intuitions around hiring are extremely Bayesian, which is why we have all sorts of laws and regulations and HR departments that try to counteract various prejudicial priors.
s0rce 3y ago
This is pretty much how I hire but also try to gauge "conscientiousness". Some people are smart, cool, high energy and decently experienced but just don't seem to care about the success of the team and aren't the best for a lot of roles. Its hard to judge because extraversion/cool/high energy can appear similar in an interview.
babyshake 3y ago
Is "poison in the keurig " a euphemism for spreading bad morale?
j7ake 3y ago
What you state do not seem like priors at all. They look like observed data. A prior would tell you how much each of those attributes would change your viewpoint. Having very strong priors actually means your decision won’t change unless you have very strong evidence on the contrary.
Shocka1 3y ago
Breath of fresh air to see this at the top. The focus on leetcode always confused me, and this is coming from someone who took all the fancy graduate level algo courses.

by smeeth 3y ago

CharlieDigital 3y ago

I have a 4-quardrant way of thinking about this that's similar. - Y-axis is "drive" - X-axis is "aptitude" - low drive + low aptitude: never hire - low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise - high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth - high drive + high aptitude: hire on the spot There's an indirect way of testing for this which is to test for curiosity and lack of ego. My experience has been that candidates with high curiosity tend to have low ego (they know what they don't know and are curious to learn). These candidates make great hires because you can teach them anything. Wrote about this a little bit here (with a handy diagram): https://charliedigital.com/2020/01/15/effective-hiring-for-small-or-all-teams/ https://charliedigital.com/2020/01/15/effective-hiring-for-s...

powerset 3y ago
How do you test for curiosity?
- pvaldes 3y ago
  > How do you test for curiosity? uh? tell me more
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  You take the person off the beaten path in the interview.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  Curiosity and ego seem to be inversely correlated. If you ask relevant but technically hard and esoteric questions _without the expectation of an answer_ you can sometimes see it in the manner of the response. Do they probe the question? Do they explore the idea, even if they don't know the answer? Do they readily admit that they don't know?? Or do they become defensive? Do they fake their way through it? If they make a mistake and you point it out, how do they respond?
smeeth 3y ago
I like this, but I do think it misses the social stuff. Just a few neurotic/unethical people can completely ruin a team and make all the best people quit. I find this to be extra true on diverse teams (all types of diversity).
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  Yes, I now call this "vibes".
  - babyshake 3y ago
    This is an interesting area because there's a lot of room for debate about what a good "vibe" is. Is being really positive all the time the right vibe? In many/most office environments, it is considered to be the right vibe. In a small startup where you're trying to validate PMF, it's not necessarily the best vibe IMO.
    - CharlieDigital 3y ago
      "Vibe" isn't so easy defined as being positive; more like the way you interact feels "natural" and doesn't lead to negative emotions. In a startup, lots of mistakes will be made. A team with the right vibe knows and acknowledges this, but focuses on fixing the problems rather than finger pointing. In that sense, "vibe" is not inherent to the individual, but I like to think of it as "we're on the same wavelength" when it comes to key things. So it really means "does this person fit with this team and this mission?" -- "vibes" sums that up for me.
- jprete 3y ago
  As nineplay@ remarked elsewhere, "there's a nauseating bias here against people who've had horrific childhoods". Unethical is one thing, neuroticism should not be a disqualifier from decent employment.
  - 93po 3y ago
    neuroticism, no. asocial or antisocial behavior, yes.
agumonkey 3y ago
out of curiosity, do you often run into low aptitude + low drive but highly politically skilled ? do they get caught early ?
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  It has happened. But generally, at least in tech, it is possible to filter this out with a good tech screen.
- ska 3y ago
  > low drive but highly politically skilled These two don't really match up, they are just driven for different things I suspect.
  - agumonkey 3y ago
    low drive toward efforts :)
walthamstow 3y ago
Aren't these quadrants from about 100 years ago? Some Prussian General von Whatshisname? Edit: General von Hammerstein I divide my officers into four classes as follows: the clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.
- Tangurena2 3y ago
  They're simply 2-variable Karnaugh maps. Widely used in logic design in electrical engineering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnaugh_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnaugh_map
  - walthamstow 3y ago
    I mean the smart/dumb lazy/hardworking axes, not the underlying concept
- conro1108 3y ago
  It's a similar shape but with quite different conclusions - low drive + low aptitude: never hire Hammerstein thinks some use can be made of these folks - low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise Hammerstein has this group as high leadership positions - high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth These are the ones who Hammerstein avoids - high drive + high aptitude: hire on the spot These go to the "General Staff"
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    > These are the ones who Hammerstein avoids My experience has been that aptitude can be developed. In the context of "low experience" (generally junior engineers), the ones that succeed are the ones that put the work in to learn and get better. But I can appreciate Hammerstein's perspective, especially if there isn't an added nuance of Carol Dweck's "fixed" vs "growth" mindset. A high drive, low aptitude individual -- seen through a fixed mindset lens -- is indeed dangerous!
dboreham 3y ago
> Y-axis is "drive" Someone I learned much from way back called this "wattage". As in: "he's too low wattage".
brianmcc 3y ago
High on both sounds like Spolsky's "Smart and Gets Things Done", and not surprisingly your conclusions rather agree :-) https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guide-to-interviewing-version-30/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...
BeetleB 3y ago
> high drive + low aptitude: hire, train, and foster aptitude growth This needs to be subdivided. There are plenty of people who've had a lot of opportunity for aptitude growth, but they didn't grow. And having high energy in those circumstances really messes up a lot of stuff (they're incompetent, but jump into and be involved in everything, and you have to politely tell them to get off your project).
gen220 3y ago
This is The Way™! I've heard this alternatively described as "slope" (for drive, which incorporates the curiosity, lack of ego, excitability) and "intercept" for "aptitude". Implication is that if you're high-slope, you'll eventually become high-intercept. If you're a startup, you want to bias towards a mix of high slope, low intercept and positive slope, high intercept. I think it's also worth pointing out that people can have negative slopes (due to social reasons, ego reasons), and that slope is not invariant over a person's career but often changes. Ideally, you want to find people whose slope is positively-impacted by the environment of the company – a great hire is only a great hire if it's a great mutual-fit, in that way.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  Both can definitely change over time and that change can be influenced by a variety of factors including the types of projects, company culture, "vibes" with the rest of the team, and so on. I think the industry really wants an objective, formulaic way of identifying these individuals, but the reality is that a lot of it does still come down to subjective factors since there's so much variability along so many different facets. What I can say personally is that I've had pretty good success hiring, but I wouldn't claim that my "intuition" can be systematically applied by anyone to achieve the same success.
nerdponx 3y ago
But aptitude can be split into "experience" and "natural talent", which are different things and I think that's meant to be the whole point of the article.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  In Chinese philosophy, there is a school of thought called "legalism" that was founded by Han Fei-tzu. There is a piece of writing in there that I'm quite fond of [0]: If it were necessary to rely on a shaft that had grown perfectly straight, within a hundred generations there would be no arrow. If it were necessary to rely on wood that had grown perfectly round, within a thousand generations there would be no cart wheel. If a naturally straight shaft or naturally round wood cannot be found within a hundred generations, how is it that in all generations carriages are used and birds shot? Because tools are used to straighten and bend. But even if one did not rely on tools and still got a naturally straight shaft or a piece of naturally round wood, a skillful craftsman would not value this. Why? Because it is not just one person that needs to ride and not just one arrow that needs to be shot. If you only rely on natural talent, then your pool of candidates will always be very, very small and you'll be competing against Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and so on. Better that you can identify candidates with potential and have a system of knowledge transfer and training to make them productive. [0] https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/11/14/han-fei-tzu-d-233-bce-legalist-views-on-good-government/ https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/11/14/han-fei-tzu-d-233-bce-lega...
PeterStuer 3y ago
I'd go with the crazy/hot axis myself. You meet minimum requirements on both, and if you do your contribution better exceed your high maintainance demands.
intelVISA 3y ago
how do you keep 'high drive + high aptitude' from escaping to run their own venture?
- stanleydrew 3y ago
  You don't. You just harness what they have and direct it while you can. But one way to try is to wholly hand off greenfield projects within your company. The whole idea of a "startup within a company" is fundamentally flawed, but you can attempt it anyway.
astura 3y ago
>low drive + high aptitude: hire for targeted use cases where you need expertise If you do choose to hire this person make sure to isolate them from other. I've seen a single low drive + high aptitude person single handly ruin teams. They are a cancer.

randomdata 3y ago

> adding more boxes tends to index towards box-checkers who grew up wealthy. Yeah, but that's the point. Those who come from wealth bring connections. Connections are what make or break a business. A mediocre worker with rich parents is far more beneficial to the business than a standout worker that came from the slums.

throw18376 3y ago
i think that in the United States, this is simply not the case up until the true super-rich. the vast majority of rich people are not well-connected enough to drive any business your way. if you have a tech startup do you really care that you hired the son or daughter of a car dealership magnate from the other side of the country? in the USA it's possible and in fact more common to become a very wealthy without becoming hugely influential. they may be well-connected in their particular geographic region or within a certain business sector, but this would be a specific advantage which usually wouldn't benefit your business. this may be different in some other countries, where nearly everyone wealthy is part of the same national elite group. but generally, in America, you'd be better off hiring the better employee.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > if you have a tech startup do you really care that you hired the son or daughter of a car dealership magnate from the other side of the country? Of course! That's an incredible resource. Even if they don't specifically drive business your way, having the person's ear is something that can be leveraged to great effect. You don't exactly become a car dealership magnate without knowing a thing or two about business and they can teach your startup a lot. A magnate is more likely to chum with investors who might be interested in helping your business. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately, at least statistically, the poor parents will never be able to offer the same. American individualism may be the American identity, but individualism doesn't get you far in business. America is not unique like you are trying to suggest.
  - ryandrake 3y ago

CobrastanJorji 3y ago

How do you measure "are they cool" without just directly transforming all of your biases and stereotypes about the candidate into a numeric score?

946789987649 3y ago
Have a diverse team and have them also score for cool? Of course a bit of a chicken and egg with hiring the diverse team.
grdgyredb 3y ago
As long as you aren’t illegally discriminating, it’s more important that you avoid hiring shitty people than it is that you eliminate all bias. You can’t single-handedly solve the systemic problem of unequal access to opportunity.
- klyrs 3y ago
  I can't clean the world, but my kitchen is my responsibility.
- TylerE 3y ago
  One bad apple poisons the whole team. It's totally morale destroying.
Aurornis 3y ago
"Cool" isn't a good word to use, but it is important to filter for people who can get along with others. Some candidates can't make it through an interview without being condescending to someone, making snide remarks, being arrogant, trying to start arguments about trivial things, or other negative behaviors. If they're doing this during the interview, you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. It's going to be 100X worse when you have to deal with that person 5 days a week. Other candidates behave well during interviews but have a history of causing social problems at other companies. It takes some work to uncover these (and, importantly, validate their veracity). Some of the most toxic people I ever worked with were very charming in interviews. They swung from company to company, leaving a trail of unhappy coworkers behind them. They could only get hired into new companies where nobody knew any of their past coworkers, because a simple reference check would reveal how difficult they were to work with. Filtering this behavior out before someone joins the team is very important. Hiring a single socially toxic or subversive person into a team is like dropping a bomb on a healthy team dynamic. You may lose multiple good employees before you figure out what's going on and put together a case for firing the bad apple.

mixermachine 3y ago

> who happened to spend their summers working It is a super cool story to hear in what jobs somebody already has worked in and a good indicator. I worked as a dancing instructor assistant and learned so much about people. This job does not correlate with my current job as a Java/Kotlin/Android dev but was taken quite well by everyone the interviewed me 10 years back. You just have very little time during a job interview and mistakes are costly. > Are they smart? > Are they cool? ... Are the right questions that need to be answered, but not asked directly. The article talks especially about what to ask to get meaningful answers.

bigbillheck 3y ago

> People's intuitions around hiring aren't Bayesian enough. People's intuitions around hiring are extremely Bayesian, which is why we have all sorts of laws and regulations and HR departments that try to counteract various prejudicial priors.

s0rce 3y ago

This is pretty much how I hire but also try to gauge "conscientiousness". Some people are smart, cool, high energy and decently experienced but just don't seem to care about the success of the team and aren't the best for a lot of roles. Its hard to judge because extraversion/cool/high energy can appear similar in an interview.

babyshake 3y ago

Is "poison in the keurig " a euphemism for spreading bad morale?

j7ake 3y ago

What you state do not seem like priors at all. They look like observed data. A prior would tell you how much each of those attributes would change your viewpoint. Having very strong priors actually means your decision won’t change unless you have very strong evidence on the contrary.

Shocka1 3y ago

Breath of fresh air to see this at the top. The focus on leetcode always confused me, and this is coming from someone who took all the fancy graduate level algo courses.