8 ms·

>Meanwhile, she said, much of the emotion and uncertainty has been taken out of the interview process. At least it has for the company. Seems like it puts mor

by moonka 12y ago

>Meanwhile, she said, much of the emotion and uncertainty has been taken out of the interview process. At least it has for the company. Seems like it puts more of the risk on the employee.

andrewstuart2 12y ago
Hopefully an interview is a two-way process, though. To me, the fact that the employer is unwilling to take that risk is a red flag. How likely are they to invest in me down the road if they're not willing to from the start?
x0x0 12y ago
Yup, this seems very directly like a transfer of risk from the employer to potential employees. But remember -- there's an engineering shortage! We can't hire good people! We need ten times as many h1b visas! (Pay more? Take a slight risk? Hire someone without five years of experience (in a four year old tech) doing exactly what we think we want them to do? Now why would we do something like that?) Edit: and nonsense like this is going around. I recently talked to a very early stage startup that just raised either a very large angel round or a smallish round A. The phone screen went well, and my experience and skills were a great match. But then the ceo wanted to do a reference check to proceed not to an offer but to an in-office meeting with the other founders! I said that, well, my references are ceos and chief scientists and they're very busy; I can't impose on them just to see if maybe there's a fit. But again, I'll bet good money he's complaining to his peers about how hard it is to hire. edit2: I'm gonna channel michaelochurch: this is beyond fucking amazing. Not all positions lend themselves to candidate auditions. At Entelo, Joor and Weebly, candidates for senior executive positions rarely go through a trial process. So yeah, all that shit about how execs are treated better? That's it right fucking there. At Entelo, Joor, and Weebly, if you're a regular asshole and dumb enough to want to work there, you gotta suck it up and audition. But an executive? Come on -- we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others. All that writing Michael does about high-status and low-status jobs, this is how execs want to treat the low status employees. You should all read this [1] [1] https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/ https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-othe...
- ultrasaurus 12y ago
  Maybe we are somehow insanely good at interviewing engineers, but after a standardized 1 day interview I can't think of a single bad engineering hire we've made in the last year. But, it may be much harder if you're only looking in the pool of people who are willing to work temporary contracts for $25/hour or "who are in jobs where they are unhappy".

by moonka 12y ago

>Meanwhile, she said, much of the emotion and uncertainty has been taken out of the interview process. At least it has for the company. Seems like it puts more of the risk on the employee.

andrewstuart2 12y ago

Hopefully an interview is a two-way process, though. To me, the fact that the employer is unwilling to take that risk is a red flag. How likely are they to invest in me down the road if they're not willing to from the start?

x0x0 12y ago

Yup, this seems very directly like a transfer of risk from the employer to potential employees. But remember -- there's an engineering shortage! We can't hire good people! We need ten times as many h1b visas! (Pay more? Take a slight risk? Hire someone without five years of experience (in a four year old tech) doing exactly what we think we want them to do? Now why would we do something like that?) Edit: and nonsense like this is going around. I recently talked to a very early stage startup that just raised either a very large angel round or a smallish round A. The phone screen went well, and my experience and skills were a great match. But then the ceo wanted to do a reference check to proceed not to an offer but to an in-office meeting with the other founders! I said that, well, my references are ceos and chief scientists and they're very busy; I can't impose on them just to see if maybe there's a fit. But again, I'll bet good money he's complaining to his peers about how hard it is to hire. edit2: I'm gonna channel michaelochurch: this is beyond fucking amazing. Not all positions lend themselves to candidate auditions. At Entelo, Joor and Weebly, candidates for senior executive positions rarely go through a trial process. So yeah, all that shit about how execs are treated better? That's it right fucking there. At Entelo, Joor, and Weebly, if you're a regular asshole and dumb enough to want to work there, you gotta suck it up and audition. But an executive? Come on -- we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others. All that writing Michael does about high-status and low-status jobs, this is how execs want to treat the low status employees. You should all read this [1] [1] https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/ https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-othe...

ultrasaurus 12y ago
Maybe we are somehow insanely good at interviewing engineers, but after a standardized 1 day interview I can't think of a single bad engineering hire we've made in the last year. But, it may be much harder if you're only looking in the pool of people who are willing to work temporary contracts for $25/hour or "who are in jobs where they are unhappy".