8 ms·

The "audition filter" here will eliminate those people who are (a) really good, and (b) can get a job without such nonsense. HN has thrashed this out before, b

by kabdib 13y ago

The "audition filter" here will eliminate those people who are (a) really good, and (b) can get a job without such nonsense. HN has thrashed this out before, but what the heck: - My current employee agreement may prohibit me from doing such work (this is definitely true of ALL of my employers up until now) - I'm pretty sure I can get a job at a great company without such a hoop, so I'm not going to bother with yours unless I really want to work at exactly your company [unlikely] You need to work on your ability to assess candidates without involving fear-based behavior on your part.

logfromblammo 13y ago
All things considered, I am more likely to apply to a company that makes starting the process quick and easy. I already have a job. When I search for other jobs, I do that in my free time. I really hate doing it. It is tedious and very unrewarding. So I want to maximize the number of leads I create per unit of time. When I see a code audition, I see many hours of useless bullshit done in my own free time that could create at most one lead. At that point, you pretty much have to pay me to apply for your job. So much gets said about the number of applicants per position, and how to filter those. Well, the converse is true. All those people are also applying to multiple job openings. They filter based on published requirements and ease of application. Not only do you want to hire the best applicants, but you also need to make sure that the best people become applicants in the first place. That won't happen if the very first thing you do is prove unequivocally that you do not value other people's time.
- swampthing 13y ago
  If the applicant doesn't get anything out of it, then it would be a waste of their time. But as an applicant, wouldn't you also want to make sure that your potential future coworkers / managers are people you'd want to work with? You're evaluating the company just as much as they're evaluating you.
  - cwp 13y ago
    Agreed. But what an audition tells me about the company is that everybody there was willing to put up with it. Anybody who has lots of options probably didn't end up there. So maybe the company is so awesome that good people were willing to jump through hoops to get hired there, but even so it's a pretty safe bet that they don't have the the best and brightest working for them.
    - swampthing 13y ago
      You're assuming that everyone views try-out periods in the same negative light that you do. If that were the case, then your conclusion would be right. But not everyone shares your views. Some people prefer to have a try-out period, because it gives them a chance to evaluate the employer.
      - cwp 13y ago
        I'm assuming that the best and the brightest don't have time for a try-out period, because they're busy doing stuff, and don't need one because they can easily get another job.
        swampthing 13y ago
        A try-out can just be on the weekends. I'm sure some people can't even spare any weekends, but there are plenty that can. Many people work on open source in their free time - this isn't all that different. And true, nobody needs a try-out period - but some want one, in order to help them evaluate their potential employer. If your assertion is that none of the "best and brightest" want to test out their potential employer, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
codinghorror 13y ago
If we give you a real project to work on and you view that as "fear-based", "a hoop", and "nonsense" -- those are huge red flags. You'd rather solve B.S. puzzle questions, or debug basic algorithms on a whiteboard standing in front of an interviewer? I like real work. You should too. Otherwise, you are absolutely right, we shouldn't be working together.
- danielweber 13y ago
  I thought grandparent's "fear-based" stuff was over the top, but why are you so sure that your current strategy is the proper one, enough to dismiss other interview methods with talk of "B.S. puzzle questions"?
- hga 13y ago
  Indeed. The proposition is "If you finish this work successfully, we will put it in production and you'll get paid for it." It's hard to get more real in my book. I do agree it's a hoop (what hiring process doesn't have those, even if it's a mutual trusted friend vouching for them?), if you can't get it done then one or more of us has made a mistake, but....
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Essentially then it's a contract-to-hire position.
- kcorbitt 13y ago
  That makes sense, but doesn't address the OP's other major point: how do you deal with people who either 1) are contractually prohibited from freelancing for you or 2) are too busy with their day job to be able to give an honest effort? Have you ever had a candidate that you suspected would be a good hire but was in that situation? How did you deal with it?
- gknoy 13y ago
  I think the GP's point was that if they are looking to get a job, they probably has many options of good places to work (even if perhaps not as good as yours) which would not require this of him, and therefore your audition can be seen as extra work which they do not need. Now, if I were Very Interested in working at Discourse, Fog Creek, or any similar place of work, rather than just at any place with a nice paycheck, I think the audition is a great idea, and something people would be willing to do. The GP's main objection is that you only get the best people who want to work at __your__ company enough to spend time on your auditions. There are likely many engineers like them who have a network of job opportunities compelling enough that the added draw of it being Stack Overflow, Discourse, or Fog Creek is not enough to merit the extra work.
jmccree 13y ago
The big problem is there is two interview/recruitment processes: A) the undiscovered talent, where you want to make someone jump through hoops to find that talent. And B) the established person who's resume and a 5 minute chat can establish their abilities.
swampthing 13y ago
I suppose you could frame just about any behavior as "fear-based" if you really wanted to? In any event, I think the way around contractual obligations is to work on a small open source project together. And to your second point, some employers only want employees that really want to work at their company in particular (e.g. Zappos).
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Thus excluding everyone with a shred of self interest or any experience with drinking the corporate mystery beverage. Clever, but you won't end up with "the best." Somehow, I don't think that "the best" would forego thousands of available opportunities to work for a company that won't even consider hiring someone who might be able to compare their offer to someone else's.
  - swampthing 13y ago
    A lot of people find it within their own self interest to work somewhere that is careful about hiring. Personally, I find that job satisfaction depends a lot on who my colleagues are. And I don't think this hiring practice precludes employees from evaluating other offers - if a company goes through this process and decides to extend an offer (and they're growing fast), they're likely to be willing to hold the offer for you while you evaluate other opportunities.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Indeed. To a first order approximation the job market is a market for lemons (jobs and workers). Generally, the best folks will spend the least time in the job market, if any at all (note that I said generally, there are exceptions which I'll get to, don't write letters). If companies make comparable offers but one requires a bunch more hassle and delay through an audition process then economics 101 says that people are going to choose the option with less hassle more often than not. An audition is a cost, and without something to offset that cost most folks will simply choose to avoid paying it. If you really want to hire the best and brightest and you have to rely on an audition process then at least consider paying above average for the period of the audition and for the job (if you actually are getting the best and brightest, paying them above market should be expected anyway). Alternately, look at other ways to hire. If you truly want a company filled with the best and brightest then I suggest you switch from a "filter bulk submissions" model to a talent scout model. Don't look to fill roles, just continually be looking for new talent, and form relationships with talented folks whether or not they're looking for work right then.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  On the cost of the audition: the programmer who is not employed at the moment may have two, three options to pursue, your company may be one one them. let's say there are two others: One willing to offer full time employment starting tomorrow morning, the second one willing to do 3-month contract-to-hire. The third, you, offer maybe paid audition. Unless your compensation is spectacular, he'll pick you third. If he has only your offer to entertain, then he's not the best, is he? Oh, and on the talent scout model: absolutely.
jrs235 13y ago
"unless I really want to work at exactly your company" And that's exactly what Jeff, Discourse, and Discourse coworkers want. Someone who really wants to work at Discourse and not someone shopping for a new "best" job. EDIT: No, this doesn't address the situation where a potential person who wants to work for Discourse can't because of current obligations. EDIT 2: Wanting to hire the best and brightest is just marketing fluff that really means We Hire Very Talented People* *Who want to work with Discourse.
- johnjlocke 13y ago
  Thanks for verbalizing this. There are a slew of talented developers in the Valley, all of whom can do the technical work. The paid audition is a chance for both the hiring company and the candidate to make sure their values are aligned.

by kabdib 13y ago

logfromblammo 13y ago

All things considered, I am more likely to apply to a company that makes starting the process quick and easy. I already have a job. When I search for other jobs, I do that in my free time. I really hate doing it. It is tedious and very unrewarding. So I want to maximize the number of leads I create per unit of time. When I see a code audition, I see many hours of useless bullshit done in my own free time that could create at most one lead. At that point, you pretty much have to pay me to apply for your job. So much gets said about the number of applicants per position, and how to filter those. Well, the converse is true. All those people are also applying to multiple job openings. They filter based on published requirements and ease of application. Not only do you want to hire the best applicants, but you also need to make sure that the best people become applicants in the first place. That won't happen if the very first thing you do is prove unequivocally that you do not value other people's time.

swampthing 13y ago
If the applicant doesn't get anything out of it, then it would be a waste of their time. But as an applicant, wouldn't you also want to make sure that your potential future coworkers / managers are people you'd want to work with? You're evaluating the company just as much as they're evaluating you.
- cwp 13y ago
  Agreed. But what an audition tells me about the company is that everybody there was willing to put up with it. Anybody who has lots of options probably didn't end up there. So maybe the company is so awesome that good people were willing to jump through hoops to get hired there, but even so it's a pretty safe bet that they don't have the the best and brightest working for them.
  - swampthing 13y ago
    You're assuming that everyone views try-out periods in the same negative light that you do. If that were the case, then your conclusion would be right. But not everyone shares your views. Some people prefer to have a try-out period, because it gives them a chance to evaluate the employer.
    - cwp 13y ago
      I'm assuming that the best and the brightest don't have time for a try-out period, because they're busy doing stuff, and don't need one because they can easily get another job.
      - swampthing 13y ago
        A try-out can just be on the weekends. I'm sure some people can't even spare any weekends, but there are plenty that can. Many people work on open source in their free time - this isn't all that different. And true, nobody needs a try-out period - but some want one, in order to help them evaluate their potential employer. If your assertion is that none of the "best and brightest" want to test out their potential employer, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

codinghorror 13y ago

If we give you a real project to work on and you view that as "fear-based", "a hoop", and "nonsense" -- those are huge red flags. You'd rather solve B.S. puzzle questions, or debug basic algorithms on a whiteboard standing in front of an interviewer? I like real work. You should too. Otherwise, you are absolutely right, we shouldn't be working together.

danielweber 13y ago
I thought grandparent's "fear-based" stuff was over the top, but why are you so sure that your current strategy is the proper one, enough to dismiss other interview methods with talk of "B.S. puzzle questions"?
hga 13y ago
Indeed. The proposition is "If you finish this work successfully, we will put it in production and you'll get paid for it." It's hard to get more real in my book. I do agree it's a hoop (what hiring process doesn't have those, even if it's a mutual trusted friend vouching for them?), if you can't get it done then one or more of us has made a mistake, but....
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Essentially then it's a contract-to-hire position.
kcorbitt 13y ago
That makes sense, but doesn't address the OP's other major point: how do you deal with people who either 1) are contractually prohibited from freelancing for you or 2) are too busy with their day job to be able to give an honest effort? Have you ever had a candidate that you suspected would be a good hire but was in that situation? How did you deal with it?
gknoy 13y ago
I think the GP's point was that if they are looking to get a job, they probably has many options of good places to work (even if perhaps not as good as yours) which would not require this of him, and therefore your audition can be seen as extra work which they do not need. Now, if I were Very Interested in working at Discourse, Fog Creek, or any similar place of work, rather than just at any place with a nice paycheck, I think the audition is a great idea, and something people would be willing to do. The GP's main objection is that you only get the best people who want to work at __your__ company enough to spend time on your auditions. There are likely many engineers like them who have a network of job opportunities compelling enough that the added draw of it being Stack Overflow, Discourse, or Fog Creek is not enough to merit the extra work.

jmccree 13y ago

The big problem is there is two interview/recruitment processes: A) the undiscovered talent, where you want to make someone jump through hoops to find that talent. And B) the established person who's resume and a 5 minute chat can establish their abilities.

swampthing 13y ago

I suppose you could frame just about any behavior as "fear-based" if you really wanted to? In any event, I think the way around contractual obligations is to work on a small open source project together. And to your second point, some employers only want employees that really want to work at their company in particular (e.g. Zappos).

logfromblammo 13y ago
Thus excluding everyone with a shred of self interest or any experience with drinking the corporate mystery beverage. Clever, but you won't end up with "the best." Somehow, I don't think that "the best" would forego thousands of available opportunities to work for a company that won't even consider hiring someone who might be able to compare their offer to someone else's.
- swampthing 13y ago
  A lot of people find it within their own self interest to work somewhere that is careful about hiring. Personally, I find that job satisfaction depends a lot on who my colleagues are. And I don't think this hiring practice precludes employees from evaluating other offers - if a company goes through this process and decides to extend an offer (and they're growing fast), they're likely to be willing to hold the offer for you while you evaluate other opportunities.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Indeed. To a first order approximation the job market is a market for lemons (jobs and workers). Generally, the best folks will spend the least time in the job market, if any at all (note that I said generally, there are exceptions which I'll get to, don't write letters). If companies make comparable offers but one requires a bunch more hassle and delay through an audition process then economics 101 says that people are going to choose the option with less hassle more often than not. An audition is a cost, and without something to offset that cost most folks will simply choose to avoid paying it. If you really want to hire the best and brightest and you have to rely on an audition process then at least consider paying above average for the period of the audition and for the job (if you actually are getting the best and brightest, paying them above market should be expected anyway). Alternately, look at other ways to hire. If you truly want a company filled with the best and brightest then I suggest you switch from a "filter bulk submissions" model to a talent scout model. Don't look to fill roles, just continually be looking for new talent, and form relationships with talented folks whether or not they're looking for work right then.

chris_mahan 13y ago
On the cost of the audition: the programmer who is not employed at the moment may have two, three options to pursue, your company may be one one them. let's say there are two others: One willing to offer full time employment starting tomorrow morning, the second one willing to do 3-month contract-to-hire. The third, you, offer maybe paid audition. Unless your compensation is spectacular, he'll pick you third. If he has only your offer to entertain, then he's not the best, is he? Oh, and on the talent scout model: absolutely.

jrs235 13y ago

"unless I really want to work at exactly your company" And that's exactly what Jeff, Discourse, and Discourse coworkers want. Someone who really wants to work at Discourse and not someone shopping for a new "best" job. EDIT: No, this doesn't address the situation where a potential person who wants to work for Discourse can't because of current obligations. EDIT 2: Wanting to hire the best and brightest is just marketing fluff that really means We Hire Very Talented People* *Who want to work with Discourse.

johnjlocke 13y ago
Thanks for verbalizing this. There are a slew of talented developers in the Valley, all of whom can do the technical work. The paid audition is a chance for both the hiring company and the candidate to make sure their values are aligned.