4 ms·

The problem with hiring (anyone) is that it's really like "speed dating" - even having multiple interview sessions really doesn't give a greater insight into th

The problem with hiring (anyone) is that it's really like "speed dating" - even having multiple interview sessions really doesn't give a greater insight into the candidate. The idea of "umbrella of cultural fit" is what mostly happens with hires. 37Signal's approach of trying them out for size is a good approach, but not practical for everyone else. ... someone being paid to be a programmer who can't code. But I assure you this is the case. It's shocking but true. This is a shockingly true statement - it's almost beyond comprehensive when witnessed first hand.

codeonfire 14y ago
What is shocking is the fact that in companies where devs have no say in hiring, managers hire those people and then ignore the fact that they do nothing (or try to promote them out of development) to try and cover up their mistake. It is incredibly demoralizing working ten hour days trying to deliver working code while someone else is producing nothing, getting ahead, and going home at 4 pm. This shit is by far the single most enraging thing in all of software development. That's why I 'keep it real' in interviews.
- 127001brewer 14y ago
  How do you "keep it real" in interviews? Concerning the viability of firing under-performing individuals, how likely is that? Are there any implications with indirect costs such as unemployment benefits? (I ask because I do not know - any insight on this would be greatly appreciated.)
  - codeonfire 14y ago
    I ask difficult interview questions and require actual code to be written on the spot. If the questions can't be answered I let everyone know it. The viability of firing under-performing people is zero. Managers just want headcount and don't care about ability. They play the political game not the build-and-ship-software game. Are there cost implications? I should think so since the fakers cost lots of money and are not producing any software.
    - 127001brewer 14y ago
      They play the political game ... Unfortunately, this happens far too often. However, I have completely bombed on "difficult interview questions" and "code to be written" - merely due to the pressures felt in the interview(s). As said elsewhere, identifying the "fakers" is extremely difficult - perhaps that's why people who were referred tend[0] to be more successful? (But how do people outside get in?) [0] Merely a guesstimate based on casual observations.
  - svachalek 14y ago
    Many companies are terrified of being sued for firing and will resort to passive-aggressive behavior instead. Most stuff like this is settled out of court so I don't know what the real odds and risks are but anecdotally I've been in a few orgs that weren't shy about firing at all, and didn't suffer for it.
stcredzero 14y ago
> 37Signal's approach of trying them out for size is a good approach, but not practical for everyone else. If you figure in the possible downside, it is the only practical way.
- 127001brewer 14y ago
  Practical is too much of a general term, but I do agree with your statement that it's the most prudent choice versus the possible downsides. My usage of the term not practical meant that the employer is spending time and effort on something other than generating revenue. And that also means the potential employee is (potentially) working without pay (or other benefits). The statement "without pay" is an assumption since the book, "Getting Real", does not explicitly state compensation.[1] [1] http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch08_Kick_the_Tires.php http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch08_Kick_the_Tires.php

codeonfire 14y ago

What is shocking is the fact that in companies where devs have no say in hiring, managers hire those people and then ignore the fact that they do nothing (or try to promote them out of development) to try and cover up their mistake. It is incredibly demoralizing working ten hour days trying to deliver working code while someone else is producing nothing, getting ahead, and going home at 4 pm. This shit is by far the single most enraging thing in all of software development. That's why I 'keep it real' in interviews.

127001brewer 14y ago
How do you "keep it real" in interviews? Concerning the viability of firing under-performing individuals, how likely is that? Are there any implications with indirect costs such as unemployment benefits? (I ask because I do not know - any insight on this would be greatly appreciated.)
- codeonfire 14y ago
  I ask difficult interview questions and require actual code to be written on the spot. If the questions can't be answered I let everyone know it. The viability of firing under-performing people is zero. Managers just want headcount and don't care about ability. They play the political game not the build-and-ship-software game. Are there cost implications? I should think so since the fakers cost lots of money and are not producing any software.
  - 127001brewer 14y ago
    They play the political game ... Unfortunately, this happens far too often. However, I have completely bombed on "difficult interview questions" and "code to be written" - merely due to the pressures felt in the interview(s). As said elsewhere, identifying the "fakers" is extremely difficult - perhaps that's why people who were referred tend[0] to be more successful? (But how do people outside get in?) [0] Merely a guesstimate based on casual observations.
- svachalek 14y ago
  Many companies are terrified of being sued for firing and will resort to passive-aggressive behavior instead. Most stuff like this is settled out of court so I don't know what the real odds and risks are but anecdotally I've been in a few orgs that weren't shy about firing at all, and didn't suffer for it.

stcredzero 14y ago

> 37Signal's approach of trying them out for size is a good approach, but not practical for everyone else. If you figure in the possible downside, it is the only practical way.

127001brewer 14y ago
Practical is too much of a general term, but I do agree with your statement that it's the most prudent choice versus the possible downsides. My usage of the term not practical meant that the employer is spending time and effort on something other than generating revenue. And that also means the potential employee is (potentially) working without pay (or other benefits). The statement "without pay" is an assumption since the book, "Getting Real", does not explicitly state compensation.[1] [1] http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch08_Kick_the_Tires.php http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch08_Kick_the_Tires.php