6 ms·

I entered the workforce 25 years ago and interviews were less than an hour many times hired by the time you made it home. Somewhere in the last 5 years someone

by ipaddr 2y ago

I entered the workforce 25 years ago and interviews were less than an hour many times hired by the time you made it home. Somewhere in the last 5 years someone thought I don't want to be on the hook for a bad hire and I will not get in trouble for not hiring so unless someone else recommended a person don't hire until it's not your decision. Get as many people in the loop as possible and make sure they meet with everyone twice. Now no one is responsible. Instead of hiring restart the process. At year's end talk about the amount of people you put in the pipeline and how many interviews you did and put your flag down. A bad hire might cost you 3 months salary 30,000. A bad hiring process costs millions. In the end these companies are not shutting down because of not hiring developers so maybe their process is working as intended. The demand for developers was inflated precovid because manager headcount pride, hiring so other companies wouldn't and company valuations tied to spending. Back in the day you had small teams and little management. Now you have layers of management, and huge teams that use complex tools designed for huge teams that create new work so even bigger teams are needed. They produce the same amount of work the small team does but take much longer. Management is able to measure daily progress in an artificial way through constant status meetings. They get addicted to the constant data stream and think they have a pulse on the team. Meanwhile the amount of important work that gets done hasn't changed just the cost.

farhanhubble 2y ago
You're almost right, but firing a bad hire in many places is near impossible.
- gen220 2y ago
  I think this is the root cause of most problems. No hiring process has a zero false positive rate. A company needs to be able to fire people quickly and humanely, otherwise good people will leave and you have a mediocracy / Peter principle problem. If you keep a reasonable hiring bar and enforce a reasonable firing bar, you’ll do fine. Netflix famously did a lot of experiments on this that have been written about in public. Being squeamish about freeing people to find a better mutual fit job is really harmful, to an underrated extent.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > Netflix famously did a lot of experiments on this that have been written about in public. Did Netflix really succeed with their strategy though? I don't see them branching out and making new things, so they seem to lack the people to to branch out into more domains like the top giants do.
  - thayne 2y ago
    > be able to fire people quickly and humanely In order for that to happen there needs to be a culture shift, where being fired because you aren't a good fit doesn't mark you as unhireable for most other employers.
    - gsbcbdjfncnjd 2y ago
      Since when is the firee’s future employment prospects any business of the company doing the firing?
      - ornornor 2y ago
        It hasn’t been since we’ve elevated sociopathic techbros to near god status. You might also remember it as human decency.
      - intended 2y ago
        The previous comment capstoned the discussion by concluding, correctly imo, that this is a cooperative, non-zero sum game.
      - thayne 2y ago
        Well, in the current culture, if you get a reputation for firing people three months after hiring them, you'll have an awfully hard time finding people who want to work for you. And you will probably see your best workers leaving to work elsewhere.
  - ornornor 2y ago
    > freeing people to find a better mutual fit job is really harmful, to an underrated extent. That’s a wonderful corporate speak sentence. I’m almost looking forward to being “freed to find a better mutual fit job.” And I’m not even eligible for unemployment benefits. You have very strong management potential.
- emseetech 2y ago
  Not in the US though. And the op comment applies just as much there as anywhere.
- mbivert 2y ago
  Even in France, there's a trial period during which the employee can leave, or be fired freely; in most cases, 2/3 months should be long enough to detect a bad hire. Assuming there's enough time & resources to manage the new hire properly; if there isn't, then I think it's fair to consider this a failure of the hiring process.
- afpx 2y ago
  Where do you live? In the US (private sector), I've seen people get let go pretty regularly. When they can't let them go (like if it's government), I've seen people put them on the job that no one cares about and no want wants to be on.
- konschubert 2y ago
  In Germany, within the first 6 months, you can fire without giving a reason.
jknoepfler 2y ago
This is so very wrong it's almost shocking. How have you been working 25 years that you've learned bad hires get weeded out in three months? (They don't, at a minimum there's usually a PIP for legal reasons, but it takes a six months if you're lucky and usually at least a year) Or that the cost of onboarding a dud is just that person's salary? (It's not, it's at least triple that in terms of time and resources... a bad hire is vastly, vastly worse than no hire over the same period of time). The "good hiring process" of "spending an hour chatting with someone" isn't good, it's noisy. Why would a more restrictive hiring process that has a lower false-positive rate cost my company "millions" in the long term? Especially compared to what you're advocating? "Back in the day you had small teams and little managment" - what? Big Corp programming wasn't an invention of the 21st century. If anything it was more endemic twenty to thirty years ago at airlines, banks, tech, logistics/shipping, government agencies, big box stores, and all of the major groups hiring software / database / etc. hiring engineers.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Even in sales, there's ramp-up time and then you probably need to miss your numbers for a couple of quarters before you're going to be pushed out. There are probably environments where timeframes will be shorter but a year is probably a pretty rule of thumb for how long it takes to ease out a new hire who isn't working out unless maybe they obviously just lied about their qualifications. And someone who just isn't a good fit any longer for some reason probably has an even longer runway.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  Your comments are based on a handful of FAANG companies. PIP didn't exist and doesn't exist in most places now. The three months probation allows an employer to let someone go without notice. If they are let go within a year 2 weeks are owed. I'm not worried about big Faangs spending millions on bad hires so logically they have to spend tens of millions on a hiring process that bleeds money and produces not great results. They play this game where they push back stock grants to the last years of a 4 year vest and offer a low base rate. That first year isn't costing them much and with an average of less than 2 years of employment (Amazon) it becomes a profit center. You would think a faang should be able to find the best people the easiest but they struggle more than a smaller shop.
kkukshtel 2y ago
> A bad hire might cost you 3 months salary 30,000 I think this sounds "correct" at first glance but really neglects the fact that there is onboarding and other team dynamics at play. Maybe if you are a giant org and can deal with churn it's okay, but if you're a "small" company, new hires are a drain on everyone's time and emotional resources. You're going to lose that persons salary sure, but also what's the dollar equivalent for how much time others spend onboarding? Probably 2-3x that? And then if you keep hiring and firing people you are going to burn out your team of people that liked being at your job but now hate that you have so much churn and they are tired of onboarding people that are going to quit or be fired in a few months.

by ipaddr 2y ago

farhanhubble 2y ago

You're almost right, but firing a bad hire in many places is near impossible.

gen220 2y ago
I think this is the root cause of most problems. No hiring process has a zero false positive rate. A company needs to be able to fire people quickly and humanely, otherwise good people will leave and you have a mediocracy / Peter principle problem. If you keep a reasonable hiring bar and enforce a reasonable firing bar, you’ll do fine. Netflix famously did a lot of experiments on this that have been written about in public. Being squeamish about freeing people to find a better mutual fit job is really harmful, to an underrated extent.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > Netflix famously did a lot of experiments on this that have been written about in public. Did Netflix really succeed with their strategy though? I don't see them branching out and making new things, so they seem to lack the people to to branch out into more domains like the top giants do.
- thayne 2y ago
  > be able to fire people quickly and humanely In order for that to happen there needs to be a culture shift, where being fired because you aren't a good fit doesn't mark you as unhireable for most other employers.
  - gsbcbdjfncnjd 2y ago
    Since when is the firee’s future employment prospects any business of the company doing the firing?
    - ornornor 2y ago
      It hasn’t been since we’ve elevated sociopathic techbros to near god status. You might also remember it as human decency.
    - intended 2y ago
      The previous comment capstoned the discussion by concluding, correctly imo, that this is a cooperative, non-zero sum game.
    - thayne 2y ago
      Well, in the current culture, if you get a reputation for firing people three months after hiring them, you'll have an awfully hard time finding people who want to work for you. And you will probably see your best workers leaving to work elsewhere.
- ornornor 2y ago
  > freeing people to find a better mutual fit job is really harmful, to an underrated extent. That’s a wonderful corporate speak sentence. I’m almost looking forward to being “freed to find a better mutual fit job.” And I’m not even eligible for unemployment benefits. You have very strong management potential.
emseetech 2y ago
Not in the US though. And the op comment applies just as much there as anywhere.
mbivert 2y ago
Even in France, there's a trial period during which the employee can leave, or be fired freely; in most cases, 2/3 months should be long enough to detect a bad hire. Assuming there's enough time & resources to manage the new hire properly; if there isn't, then I think it's fair to consider this a failure of the hiring process.
afpx 2y ago
Where do you live? In the US (private sector), I've seen people get let go pretty regularly. When they can't let them go (like if it's government), I've seen people put them on the job that no one cares about and no want wants to be on.
konschubert 2y ago
In Germany, within the first 6 months, you can fire without giving a reason.

jknoepfler 2y ago

This is so very wrong it's almost shocking. How have you been working 25 years that you've learned bad hires get weeded out in three months? (They don't, at a minimum there's usually a PIP for legal reasons, but it takes a six months if you're lucky and usually at least a year) Or that the cost of onboarding a dud is just that person's salary? (It's not, it's at least triple that in terms of time and resources... a bad hire is vastly, vastly worse than no hire over the same period of time). The "good hiring process" of "spending an hour chatting with someone" isn't good, it's noisy. Why would a more restrictive hiring process that has a lower false-positive rate cost my company "millions" in the long term? Especially compared to what you're advocating? "Back in the day you had small teams and little managment" - what? Big Corp programming wasn't an invention of the 21st century. If anything it was more endemic twenty to thirty years ago at airlines, banks, tech, logistics/shipping, government agencies, big box stores, and all of the major groups hiring software / database / etc. hiring engineers.

ghaff 2y ago
Even in sales, there's ramp-up time and then you probably need to miss your numbers for a couple of quarters before you're going to be pushed out. There are probably environments where timeframes will be shorter but a year is probably a pretty rule of thumb for how long it takes to ease out a new hire who isn't working out unless maybe they obviously just lied about their qualifications. And someone who just isn't a good fit any longer for some reason probably has an even longer runway.
ipaddr 2y ago
Your comments are based on a handful of FAANG companies. PIP didn't exist and doesn't exist in most places now. The three months probation allows an employer to let someone go without notice. If they are let go within a year 2 weeks are owed. I'm not worried about big Faangs spending millions on bad hires so logically they have to spend tens of millions on a hiring process that bleeds money and produces not great results. They play this game where they push back stock grants to the last years of a 4 year vest and offer a low base rate. That first year isn't costing them much and with an average of less than 2 years of employment (Amazon) it becomes a profit center. You would think a faang should be able to find the best people the easiest but they struggle more than a smaller shop.

kkukshtel 2y ago

> A bad hire might cost you 3 months salary 30,000 I think this sounds "correct" at first glance but really neglects the fact that there is onboarding and other team dynamics at play. Maybe if you are a giant org and can deal with churn it's okay, but if you're a "small" company, new hires are a drain on everyone's time and emotional resources. You're going to lose that persons salary sure, but also what's the dollar equivalent for how much time others spend onboarding? Probably 2-3x that? And then if you keep hiring and firing people you are going to burn out your team of people that liked being at your job but now hate that you have so much churn and they are tired of onboarding people that are going to quit or be fired in a few months.