Ask HN: Are startup hiring practices asking too much? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Are startup hiring practices asking too much?

4 pointsalangibson7 comments

I recently did a trial day at a local startup for a position as a microservices developer. During the day, the conversation leaned more toward DevOps than pure development. This is right in line with my interests, so I was happy when they came back the next day and asked if I would be interested in more of a 50% microservices, 50% platform position.

Then they asked me to come in for another trial day focused on that position. Having just spent 7+ hours there, I politely declined with words to the effect of "7 hours should be enough to make a decision on pretty much anything." And that's not even to mention the code sample, open source project links and extensive resume I'd already sent them. But in reality, I totally lost interest in them. I thought it was incredibly presumptuous to ask for 2 days of my time in-office, and not even offer to buy lunch in return.

Then I see job notices on HN like "Drchrono (YC W11) Looking for Python/Django Engineers" (https://www.hackerrank.com/tests/527036edb11ff/0ca5532381fbebad9fffaa28dc90475f) where they want you to 1) do a hacker challenge 2) phone screen 3) phone screen again 4a) come in for a 3 DAY hackathon (where presumably they keep whatever you produce) after 4b) "learning Django ~ 4-6 hours a week."

This all seems far beyond what's required to make a good hire. Are there really now so many developers competing for the same startup jobs that employers can make such excessive requests? Or does every startup now think that it's a baby Google that can ask for the world, just because?

I don't think its a baby Google thingy. The costs associated with hiring the wrong person are huge. But its not only the money - it really is a pain in the ass and most people trusted with hiring other people at a startup have made many painful experiences in the past. Which, over time, makes them quite risk averse. I think this is the main reason why many startups implement intensive screening processes.

But having an intensive hiring processes doesn't guard you from hiring the wrong person. So they fail again and again, while making the hiring process even harder every time. Its a death spiral. You can easily spot a startup stuck in this death spiral if someone trusted with hiring other people tells you they get a lot of applications but none of them are any good.

I'm sorry that doesn't help you much in your situation, but I hope it explains why you see a lot of defunct hiring processes these days.

It irks me tremendously when we take this attitude. I think the problem is that developers have no spine or backbone and are used to bending over too easily - largely because of the personalities we tend to be "nice people".

As developers we have a number of failsafes and checks and balances in our processes: code reviews, TDD, unit through to integration testing, audit trails on every byte of code changed etc. To suggest that a wrong hire is "too costly" is ridiculous.

Compare this with a management consultant who is often on client site alone and whose work is heavily based on personality - "the airport test" - any wrong move could end up risking the client relationship with the business.

I totally agree: Developers should show more backbone in situations like these.

The "too costly" mantra really is ridiculous, exactly. Maybe we also need to make sure the people trusted with hiring other people learn that their job is not risk assessment or risk management, but finding great talent.

I get the desire to avoid Bad Hires, especially before the team is big enough to take up the slack of some C students. What's interesting though is what these practices imply about the Good Hires. They would have to be junior enough to not scoff at these requests, willing to put in loads of time for not much, and borderline fanatical about wanting to work there. People often talk about startups being cultish, and there would appear to be a lot of self selection happening to support that.

As for me, I've been around long enough to remember sleeping under my desk during a 72 hour shift at a Web 1.0 dot-com I worked at when I was 19. I can't imagine many others with 10+ years industry experience subjecting themselves to multi-day hiring gauntlets. If I'm right, they must be excluding a lot of experienced people. But then again, startups are so focused on speed and output at any cost that maybe excluding us mid-career types is part of the design.

I'm inclined to agree. This is where I tend to prefer BigCo practices. Interviewed with a Big4 software company. 30 minute phone screen, flew me out as soon as convenient for me, great per diem, 6-7 interviews and they gave a hire decision within 24 hours.

Contrast this with some startups I've applied for:

-one did a phone screen where I explicitly said I wouldn't work for less than X dollars. Gave me two weeks to build an email client in a poorly documented platform. Then made me come in for interviews. A month from the application date, they extend an offer for X/3, citing that I didn't implement one of the three bonus features in the email "test". I would have made more flipping burgers.

-another one made me develop another sample app, then had phone screens, then proposed a full day of interviews.

-one startup proposed I quit my job and work on contract paying zilch for a month.

-and of course there always those lesser startups/angel investors that suggest you work for free to get a "feel" for the startup world.

Only one startup that I have interviewed so far has done it well. Made me come in for a day of work (virtually) after the first stage of the interview, but paid me 500USD after I wasn't accepted. I would have been happy with less frankly.

That last interview is genius. That's exactly what employers should be doing. Ask for enough from the interviewee to confirm that they're competent, but also show respect for them by compensating them for their time.

It sounds like the startup world is such an echo chamber that those running startups have convinced themselves it's a privilege to work in it. In fact, the employee is taking a big risk given startup failure rates. At this point, so many BigCos have adopted enough of the startup culture in their development departments that I'm not really sure what makes working at a startup compelling, other than Cool Points and maybe (almost certainly worthless) stock options.

It sucks the way you have been treated, and I am surprised that they did not cave in and offer you the position after you held your line on not coming in for the second day.

Having made hiring mistakes myself, I am afraid of the getting the wrong person on board and the only way to truly know is to test a relationship by working together. Contract-to-hire is a good way to go, but good developers have full-time jobs, and it is hard for them to jump ship without concrete promises from the employers.

I doubt they are thinking of these requirements as "we can ask for anything because we are awesome". They are adding more and more check and requirements after unsuccessful relationships trying to prevent another failed hire. "Last guy was a drug user, let's add a urine test to our offer process."

As far as consolation, I have seen DrChrono positions for months on HN so can't be easy to hire with all those requirements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com