4 ms·

They missed one of my favorite (least-abusive) tactics, the paid trial project. I.e., pick a real project that will take 10-40 hours. Pay them to do it as a c

by fsk 11y ago

They missed one of my favorite (least-abusive) tactics, the paid trial project. I.e., pick a real project that will take 10-40 hours. Pay them to do it as a contracting/interview project. That even works for someone who already has a job, because they can do it in the evening/weekends. Asking me to do a 5 hour homework project is an insult, but a paid short-term contract is fair. (However, some people have employment contracts that forbid side work.) However, even that is abusable, because the person might find a more-qualified friend to help them on the trial project, who wouldn't be helping out for real projects. I read another interesting post by someone else (I think it was the Monsanto guy), who said "Don't filter people out at the phone interview stage, unless they really fail the phone interview." His reasoning is that you're selecting for people who sound good over the phone.

mlitchard 11y ago
I'm now imagining the Monsanto approach getting more and more constrained at each stage. Meaning, phone screen is subject to least scrutiny and one becomes more and more scrutinized as the interview proceeds. This doesn't sound bad at all. I may be biased, I like that company.
- fsk 11y ago
  They expect you to study and be an expert in their niche before applying, which rules out people who don't already know their specialty, or aren't too desperate to spend weeks preparing for one interview.
jghn 11y ago
"That even works for someone who already has a job, because they can do it in the evening/weekends" That assumes they're allowed to work on the side as part of their employment contract.
dmoy 11y ago
How does this tactic avoid missing out on a large number of potential applicants? e.g. 1) People who are employed and are prohibited from working for a second company (which may (I don't know) preclude all of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc etc). 2) People who do not have much time outside of work (because they work too much, maybe missing them is a good thing?) 3) People who do not have much free time outside of work because of non-work (e.g. family with a bunch of kids) Also how does that work for companies where 1) Source code for their projects is quite secret (unless, are you suggesting the project be some random thing unrelated to the company? In which case, that might be a lot of money down the drain) 2) Spin-up time for new employees vastly exceeds a 10-40 hour project (maybe they need a long time to ramp up) I mean I like the idea of a paid project, I just don't see it working for a lot of candidates, or a lot of the industry.
- fsk 11y ago
  Yeah, that approach has issues also. I wouldn't want to spend a week of free time on something unless it was a much higher rate than my regular job or an amazing opportunity. If you're expecting me to put in a lot of time BEFORE I meet you, I'll just pass. After I meet your team, it'll be easier for me to decide if I want to put in more time jumping through hoops. One advantage of giving people homework is that it DOES filter out a lot of candidates! Does it filter out the good ones or the bad ones?
m0llusk 11y ago
Having potential hires do something relevant for the company is a great way to rate their ability to contribute. It may be that this is yet another reason that the free open source movement has been so successful despite facing clearly great challenges. Every contributor is rated by their influence so projects consist primarily of the able and willing. With an increasing number of companies having free open source software as a critical part of their corporate mechanism a transition to this kind of hiring process becoming dominant might even be inevitable.
aaron695 11y ago
Have you ever seen this work? To organise real projects that will take 10-40 hours seems very expense on the companies time, even if it was possible. It takes weeks to months to get people up to speed, you'd need to spec it out, explain context, work place health and safety, legal, insurance, how does team work play into this? If you have easy 10-40 hour projects lying around why haven't you just outsourced them?

by fsk 11y ago

mlitchard 11y ago

I'm now imagining the Monsanto approach getting more and more constrained at each stage. Meaning, phone screen is subject to least scrutiny and one becomes more and more scrutinized as the interview proceeds. This doesn't sound bad at all. I may be biased, I like that company.

fsk 11y ago
They expect you to study and be an expert in their niche before applying, which rules out people who don't already know their specialty, or aren't too desperate to spend weeks preparing for one interview.

jghn 11y ago

"That even works for someone who already has a job, because they can do it in the evening/weekends" That assumes they're allowed to work on the side as part of their employment contract.

dmoy 11y ago

How does this tactic avoid missing out on a large number of potential applicants? e.g. 1) People who are employed and are prohibited from working for a second company (which may (I don't know) preclude all of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc etc). 2) People who do not have much time outside of work (because they work too much, maybe missing them is a good thing?) 3) People who do not have much free time outside of work because of non-work (e.g. family with a bunch of kids) Also how does that work for companies where 1) Source code for their projects is quite secret (unless, are you suggesting the project be some random thing unrelated to the company? In which case, that might be a lot of money down the drain) 2) Spin-up time for new employees vastly exceeds a 10-40 hour project (maybe they need a long time to ramp up) I mean I like the idea of a paid project, I just don't see it working for a lot of candidates, or a lot of the industry.

fsk 11y ago
Yeah, that approach has issues also. I wouldn't want to spend a week of free time on something unless it was a much higher rate than my regular job or an amazing opportunity. If you're expecting me to put in a lot of time BEFORE I meet you, I'll just pass. After I meet your team, it'll be easier for me to decide if I want to put in more time jumping through hoops. One advantage of giving people homework is that it DOES filter out a lot of candidates! Does it filter out the good ones or the bad ones?

m0llusk 11y ago

Having potential hires do something relevant for the company is a great way to rate their ability to contribute. It may be that this is yet another reason that the free open source movement has been so successful despite facing clearly great challenges. Every contributor is rated by their influence so projects consist primarily of the able and willing. With an increasing number of companies having free open source software as a critical part of their corporate mechanism a transition to this kind of hiring process becoming dominant might even be inevitable.

aaron695 11y ago

Have you ever seen this work? To organise real projects that will take 10-40 hours seems very expense on the companies time, even if it was possible. It takes weeks to months to get people up to speed, you'd need to spec it out, explain context, work place health and safety, legal, insurance, how does team work play into this? If you have easy 10-40 hour projects lying around why haven't you just outsourced them?