6 ms·

Stop trying to blur the lines between you, the company, and me the employee. Nothing would make me come into the office on a Sunday and 'hang out' with another

Stop trying to blur the lines between you, the company, and me the employee. Nothing would make me come into the office on a Sunday and 'hang out' with another employee. Do you really want to fill your company with people who want to be there 24x7? The way these tech interviews are going we'll all end up being sole traders as none of us will put up with these ridiculous parlour games. Just chatting with my girlfriend, she pointed out that we can hire lawyers, doctors, and surgeons on the back of a CV and an hour interview. So how did we get into this crazy mess over hiring programmers?

sgrove 13y ago
So don't go in - it's a wonderfully effective two-way screen for both you and the company. No need to complain.
- xedarius 13y ago
  I agree that's a choice for now, however this style of interviewing is perpetuated and perceived as 'the right way', when it simply isn't.
RandallBrown 13y ago
I think you're misunderstanding the point of the question. It's not about forcing anyone to work on a Sunday, it's about whether or not you feel like this person is someone you'd like to work with. Lets say for whatever reason, this person is in the office on a Sunday. Does the idea of going and working with that person, all by yourself, sound terrible? If you can't be with that person all alone, there's no reason that they should be part of your team.
diminoten 13y ago
There's just so much wrong with your short little comment here, I've rewritten my own comment four or five times trying to capture it all. Here's the bulleted list: * Yes, I really do want to fill my company with people who want to be there 24x7, for many reasons, least of which are the fact that such people exist in large quantities, and while it's not a guarantee they'll put in more work-per-dollar, it's a safe bet that they will. * If what you're saying were true about "sole traders", then Google, Stripe, and all the companies who play these "rediculous parlor games" would not be staffed, and yet they are. So clearly, that's an inaccurate prediction. * Your girlfriend listed professions which come with multi-year vetting built-into the system. No such system exists for programmers, especially, considering some of your best talent is going to have dropped out of college. When you get an applicant for a software dev position, they could be effectively anybody. If you're not willing to play the game at the level other folks are playing, you will need to bring something else to the table to compensate. That's that.
- amasad 13y ago
  I don't think the Sunday test means they're trying to fill the office with people with no lives, if anything, I think to be a likeable person you need to have some social life. >* Yes, I really do want to fill my company with people who want to be there 24x7, for many reasons, least of which are the fact that such people exist in large quantities, and while it's not a guarantee they'll put in more work-per-dollar, it's a safe bet that they will. You obviously have never witnessed or have burnout yourself. That "want to be in the office 24x7" will easily become an implicit rule and eventually everyone involved will burnout. I've seen that myself. It takes maturity to come to terms with the fact that you can't work all the time.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    24x7 is hyperbole. No one literally wants to be there 24x7, but some people want to be at work more than others. If your argument is that no one can maintain any more than a 40 hour work week without burning out, I disagree. So yes, even aware of burnout, I would still want to fill my company with people who want to work more than 40 hours a week. This may be a twisted analogy, but I think of work in a way similar to how one properly cages a dog. Some people make cages a place of punishment for their dog; break a rule, be disruptive, and you enter the cage, which is far away from all happiness or socialization. It's a place for bad dogs. It makes the cage a hugely negative place for the dog, and causes all kinds of anxiety and trouble. The solution? Make the cage an everyday and normal part of the dog's life. Put the cage in the middle of a high-traffic area, leave the door open so the dog can go rest in the cage when it's tired, make the cage a comfortable and happy place for the dog, and it becomes much easier to put the dog into the cage when the time calls for it (company, leaving the house, etc.). Work should be thought of similarly. It can be your 9-5 cage, or it can be a place you come and go, a place to willingly spend free time, a social experience where you interact with cool and interesting people who you'd hang out with even if you didn't work with them. In both cases, you have to be there 9-5, but in the latter case, you actually want to be there, and it's not associated with huge Dilbertesque negatives. So when someone talks about "I want people who want to be there 24x7", they're talking about having a cage that isn't for bad dogs, but a part of their everyday doggy life.
- 13y ago
biot 13y ago
The "Sunday test" is no different from asking "Would you go to Mars with this person?". If your first response is to rant about how you'd never visit that rusty planet -- especially not with a coworker -- you're missing the point by 158 million miles. It's a thought experiment which proposes a hypothetical scenario and asks what your hypothetical response would be. While some may choose to work weekends (or go to Mars), you shouldn't confuse the consideration of a hypothetical scenario with an implied workplace policy.
gdb 13y ago
(I work at Stripe.) As a lot of people have noted, the test has nothing to whether you'll actually work on a Sunday (most people don't). Instead, it's about whether you'd go out of your way to be around that person. Like it or not, we all spend lots of time around all of your coworkers, and I for one want to work with people who make me happier for it. I don't think these problems are actually easier in other fields. Both my parents are physicians, and over the past few years they've been having a lot of trouble hiring the right coworkers. Many of the ones they've ended up with have either ended up not being very good, not being that pleasant, or not being very invested in the role. Ultimately these hiring mistakes have caused a ton of friction and problems for the entire staff, and it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the initial hiring process.
- mcgwiz 13y ago
  Makes sense, and I think most people understand this. That said, I think the name "the Sunday test" and the description "If this person were alone at the office on a Sunday..." is far from ideal. (Off the top of my head, "the Drink test" with the description "If this person were alone at the bar/cafe on a Sunday..." is better.)
- dpweb 13y ago
  Think I have to take issue with the 'likability test' - that opens the door for rejections based on prejudices, stereotypes, conscious and subconscious. Likability means nothing, unless your hiring a sales guy or someone going to be in the public eye. I know who on the team is adding max value and who isn't it has nothing to do with my subjective view of how cool they are.
mcgwiz 13y ago
> we can hire lawyers, doctors, and surgeons on the back of a CV and an hour interview. You can do that with programmers too. And depending on the type of work you are hiring for, this can be sufficient. Menial product maintenance is suitable for one-hour interview hires. Routine legal and medical work likewise. But some work is so demanding that it requires a team. Hiring for a team means recognizing group dynamics. Whether you're starting a new law firm, or hiring someone to join your surgical department, or building a development team that must be able to respond quickly and effectively to changes to a startups understanding of the landscape, you don't settle the hiring question on a one-hour interview. Not all work is the same. Please refrain from acting as if it was.

sgrove 13y ago

So don't go in - it's a wonderfully effective two-way screen for both you and the company. No need to complain.

xedarius 13y ago
I agree that's a choice for now, however this style of interviewing is perpetuated and perceived as 'the right way', when it simply isn't.

RandallBrown 13y ago

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the question. It's not about forcing anyone to work on a Sunday, it's about whether or not you feel like this person is someone you'd like to work with. Lets say for whatever reason, this person is in the office on a Sunday. Does the idea of going and working with that person, all by yourself, sound terrible? If you can't be with that person all alone, there's no reason that they should be part of your team.

diminoten 13y ago

There's just so much wrong with your short little comment here, I've rewritten my own comment four or five times trying to capture it all. Here's the bulleted list: * Yes, I really do want to fill my company with people who want to be there 24x7, for many reasons, least of which are the fact that such people exist in large quantities, and while it's not a guarantee they'll put in more work-per-dollar, it's a safe bet that they will. * If what you're saying were true about "sole traders", then Google, Stripe, and all the companies who play these "rediculous parlor games" would not be staffed, and yet they are. So clearly, that's an inaccurate prediction. * Your girlfriend listed professions which come with multi-year vetting built-into the system. No such system exists for programmers, especially, considering some of your best talent is going to have dropped out of college. When you get an applicant for a software dev position, they could be effectively anybody. If you're not willing to play the game at the level other folks are playing, you will need to bring something else to the table to compensate. That's that.

amasad 13y ago
I don't think the Sunday test means they're trying to fill the office with people with no lives, if anything, I think to be a likeable person you need to have some social life. >* Yes, I really do want to fill my company with people who want to be there 24x7, for many reasons, least of which are the fact that such people exist in large quantities, and while it's not a guarantee they'll put in more work-per-dollar, it's a safe bet that they will. You obviously have never witnessed or have burnout yourself. That "want to be in the office 24x7" will easily become an implicit rule and eventually everyone involved will burnout. I've seen that myself. It takes maturity to come to terms with the fact that you can't work all the time.
- diminoten 13y ago
  24x7 is hyperbole. No one literally wants to be there 24x7, but some people want to be at work more than others. If your argument is that no one can maintain any more than a 40 hour work week without burning out, I disagree. So yes, even aware of burnout, I would still want to fill my company with people who want to work more than 40 hours a week. This may be a twisted analogy, but I think of work in a way similar to how one properly cages a dog. Some people make cages a place of punishment for their dog; break a rule, be disruptive, and you enter the cage, which is far away from all happiness or socialization. It's a place for bad dogs. It makes the cage a hugely negative place for the dog, and causes all kinds of anxiety and trouble. The solution? Make the cage an everyday and normal part of the dog's life. Put the cage in the middle of a high-traffic area, leave the door open so the dog can go rest in the cage when it's tired, make the cage a comfortable and happy place for the dog, and it becomes much easier to put the dog into the cage when the time calls for it (company, leaving the house, etc.). Work should be thought of similarly. It can be your 9-5 cage, or it can be a place you come and go, a place to willingly spend free time, a social experience where you interact with cool and interesting people who you'd hang out with even if you didn't work with them. In both cases, you have to be there 9-5, but in the latter case, you actually want to be there, and it's not associated with huge Dilbertesque negatives. So when someone talks about "I want people who want to be there 24x7", they're talking about having a cage that isn't for bad dogs, but a part of their everyday doggy life.
13y ago

biot 13y ago

The "Sunday test" is no different from asking "Would you go to Mars with this person?". If your first response is to rant about how you'd never visit that rusty planet -- especially not with a coworker -- you're missing the point by 158 million miles. It's a thought experiment which proposes a hypothetical scenario and asks what your hypothetical response would be. While some may choose to work weekends (or go to Mars), you shouldn't confuse the consideration of a hypothetical scenario with an implied workplace policy.

gdb 13y ago

(I work at Stripe.) As a lot of people have noted, the test has nothing to whether you'll actually work on a Sunday (most people don't). Instead, it's about whether you'd go out of your way to be around that person. Like it or not, we all spend lots of time around all of your coworkers, and I for one want to work with people who make me happier for it. I don't think these problems are actually easier in other fields. Both my parents are physicians, and over the past few years they've been having a lot of trouble hiring the right coworkers. Many of the ones they've ended up with have either ended up not being very good, not being that pleasant, or not being very invested in the role. Ultimately these hiring mistakes have caused a ton of friction and problems for the entire staff, and it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the initial hiring process.

mcgwiz 13y ago
Makes sense, and I think most people understand this. That said, I think the name "the Sunday test" and the description "If this person were alone at the office on a Sunday..." is far from ideal. (Off the top of my head, "the Drink test" with the description "If this person were alone at the bar/cafe on a Sunday..." is better.)
dpweb 13y ago
Think I have to take issue with the 'likability test' - that opens the door for rejections based on prejudices, stereotypes, conscious and subconscious. Likability means nothing, unless your hiring a sales guy or someone going to be in the public eye. I know who on the team is adding max value and who isn't it has nothing to do with my subjective view of how cool they are.

mcgwiz 13y ago

> we can hire lawyers, doctors, and surgeons on the back of a CV and an hour interview. You can do that with programmers too. And depending on the type of work you are hiring for, this can be sufficient. Menial product maintenance is suitable for one-hour interview hires. Routine legal and medical work likewise. But some work is so demanding that it requires a team. Hiring for a team means recognizing group dynamics. Whether you're starting a new law firm, or hiring someone to join your surgical department, or building a development team that must be able to respond quickly and effectively to changes to a startups understanding of the landscape, you don't settle the hiring question on a one-hour interview. Not all work is the same. Please refrain from acting as if it was.