3 ms·

I think it's fairly obvious that there isn't a shortage of applicants, but of highly skilled applicants as determined by a somewhat arbitrary and flawed intervi

I think it's fairly obvious that there isn't a shortage of applicants, but of highly skilled applicants as determined by a somewhat arbitrary and flawed interview process with a strong preference for false negatives over false positives.

lobotryas 13y ago
Sure. Consider incentives though. A false negative is cheap (at most you spent the time interviewing the person), while a false positive is expensive (good luck firing the person in our litigious environment).
- michael_miller 13y ago
  A false positive is expensive for more than just litigious reasons. Hiring a bad apple can destroy the culture of a small company. As Steve Jobs said, "It’s too easy, as a team grows, to put up with a few B players, and they then attract a few more B players, and soon you will even have some C players."
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    Steve Jobs, that noted "good apple" who took advantage of the Woz... Our Jobs who art in Heaven hallowed be thy name
- fossuser 13y ago
  I agree and also prefer false negatives when I do interviews - the cost of having someone terrible join your team is much worse than the cost of missing out on the occasional good person. Of course there is a balance and if you're routinely turning away great candidates there's probably a problem with your interview process that should be checked out. I used 'flawed' in the sense that interviewing is a hard problem in general. Edit: Fixed
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
mindcrime 13y ago
That's very true. The "highly skilled part" in particular stands out to me. Companies want people to start out, who have the equivalent knowledge of someone with 7 years of experience. And few companies seem to want to invest in training / grooming younger folks "on the job".
- joyeuse6701 13y ago
  This seems especially true now that the speed at which products are rolled out has never been higher/start up culture doesn't really have that 'training' aspect built into it. VC's want ROI quickly.

lobotryas 13y ago

Sure. Consider incentives though. A false negative is cheap (at most you spent the time interviewing the person), while a false positive is expensive (good luck firing the person in our litigious environment).

michael_miller 13y ago
A false positive is expensive for more than just litigious reasons. Hiring a bad apple can destroy the culture of a small company. As Steve Jobs said, "It’s too easy, as a team grows, to put up with a few B players, and they then attract a few more B players, and soon you will even have some C players."
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Steve Jobs, that noted "good apple" who took advantage of the Woz... Our Jobs who art in Heaven hallowed be thy name
fossuser 13y ago
I agree and also prefer false negatives when I do interviews - the cost of having someone terrible join your team is much worse than the cost of missing out on the occasional good person. Of course there is a balance and if you're routinely turning away great candidates there's probably a problem with your interview process that should be checked out. I used 'flawed' in the sense that interviewing is a hard problem in general. Edit: Fixed
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

mindcrime 13y ago

That's very true. The "highly skilled part" in particular stands out to me. Companies want people to start out, who have the equivalent knowledge of someone with 7 years of experience. And few companies seem to want to invest in training / grooming younger folks "on the job".

joyeuse6701 13y ago
This seems especially true now that the speed at which products are rolled out has never been higher/start up culture doesn't really have that 'training' aspect built into it. VC's want ROI quickly.