4 ms·

Standardization reminds me of old stories about 1970-80's blue chip companies trying to hire programmers like they hired secretaries. They'd test applicants for

Standardization reminds me of old stories about 1970-80's blue chip companies trying to hire programmers like they hired secretaries. They'd test applicants for things like word per minute typing speed, simple programming tests, hire in bulk and then dole batches of them out to various departments. Which sounds like triplebytes model, the motivation behind things like clean code and the webshitification of everything. Opposite of that is the idea that work and interpersonal habits, communication skills, and domain knowledge are more important than raw programming skill for most jobs.

rachofsunshine 2y ago
Standardized process doesn't have to mean a purely checklist-based rubric. Triplebyte wasn't - and Otherbranch especially isn't - devoted to the idea that a good engineer can be reduced to checkboxes. And speaking for myself as a founder, I in particular believe very strongly in the idea of intangibles as important criteria. Having a standard process makes intangibles easier to detect, not harder, because you can look for those ethereal little bits of signal against a familiar backdrop. The last question on the grading form for our interviewers is, to quote it exactly in its current form: ----- Full interview overall score (Would you vouch for this person's skills?) * No no no no no * Some redeeming qualities but not someone you'd recommend even as a junior hire * Good for a junior role, still a bit short of a senior one * Would recommend for a senior role * Incredible, get this person a job right now ----- That, to me, is the opposite of what you're talking about. Expert opinion is a central part of what we do, and a big part of what I think gives us an advantage over something like an automated coding test. We just take treat expert opinion as a type of data in its own right so that we can, for example, adjust for whether one interviewer grades more harshly on average than another and make sure that it is actually producing valid results down the line.

rachofsunshine 2y ago

Standardized process doesn't have to mean a purely checklist-based rubric. Triplebyte wasn't - and Otherbranch especially isn't - devoted to the idea that a good engineer can be reduced to checkboxes. And speaking for myself as a founder, I in particular believe very strongly in the idea of intangibles as important criteria. Having a standard process makes intangibles easier to detect, not harder, because you can look for those ethereal little bits of signal against a familiar backdrop. The last question on the grading form for our interviewers is, to quote it exactly in its current form: ----- Full interview overall score (Would you vouch for this person's skills?) * No no no no no * Some redeeming qualities but not someone you'd recommend even as a junior hire * Good for a junior role, still a bit short of a senior one * Would recommend for a senior role * Incredible, get this person a job right now ----- That, to me, is the opposite of what you're talking about. Expert opinion is a central part of what we do, and a big part of what I think gives us an advantage over something like an automated coding test. We just take treat expert opinion as a type of data in its own right so that we can, for example, adjust for whether one interviewer grades more harshly on average than another and make sure that it is actually producing valid results down the line.