Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcg1 | Hacker News Reader

The problem could also be that many teams simply don't have the time or possess the knowledge to do an assessment like you're suggesting (which I agree is a good way to assess candidates). It requires someone to actually design an assignment (which is a task that many coders might not be good at), and requires one or more people to evaluate it.

The ridiculous whiteboard coding of puzzles probably stems from laziness or inability to implement what you're suggesting. I know that personally, if someone asked me to developed a work sample evaluation for my job, it would take me many hours to come up with something, and frankly I even once complete we would have no way of knowing if it is actually a good predictor of whether or not someone is the right employee.

View on HN

Hours? It could take a week, and if you're going to hire more than one person this quarter, it will still be worth it just in the time savings from not having developers deliver bad interviews.

Have you done this? My worry would be that sooner or later you'll have a candidate who posts the assignment online ruining your weeks of effort. It also seems like it makes it much easier to cheat if you make it a take home.

Yes, I ran a process like this for several years. I ran recruiting for the largest software security firm in the US; before that firm bought us, I used this process to more than double the size of my company. When I left, to work on a recruiting startup, not one of the people I'd overseen hiring had quit or been fired.

I'm religious about this topic for a reason. :)

Was the 0% turnover due to great teammates, great projects, or above-market comp? I've never seen 0%!

We paid the market median to new hires; we definitely didn't buy our way to that turnover (NCC pays better than a lot of early stage startups, but not better than late-stage ones).

No, I attribute the turnover to the recruiting mechanism. We found great people who were sorely mispriced by the market, and we took advantage of that to create a win-win scenario: people without the resume to get a similar job at a competing firm got an extremely impactful resume bullet and a good-paying job, and we got people who genuinely wanted to be on our team and weren't applying as a once-a-year lateral job-hopping gamble.

(I have no problem with people job-hopping, by the way, but every employer is trying to minimize their exposure to that.)

You were also recruiting for a "cool" sector where people would be learning marketable skills. Do you have any evidence that the same technique would work for more "boring" companies? (I ask because I'd like to convince my manager that creating a work-sample test wouldn't be a waste of time)

I agree completely. But in many organizations recruiting and hiring would be considered overhead instead of strategic, and thus a target for outsourcing to someone in HR or some outside firm. The problem there of course is that those people have neither the ability nor the inclination to create or evaluate a work sample challenge.

Really my comment was just to help demystify why this sort of thing doesn't happen in many companies based on my own observations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com