Ask HN: Why do software companies hire by committee? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why do software companies hire by committee?

4 pointsafpx6 comments

I’m currently interviewing. I go through one or more phone screens, several rounds of interviews, and meet with multiple groups of people. In total, I spend maybe 8-12+ hours interviewing and often hear silence with little feedback. And, usually, the hiring manager places a tiny role.

In contrast to managers and engineers of other disciplines that I know, they’re often hired by one decision maker in a fast-moving process.

So, what gives? Is there research that shows that committee hiring is more effective for software?

View on HN

I think it comes down to the risk that a single software developer can pose for an organization. With great power comes great responsibility so hopefully if the committee is ruthless then people that are hired are trusted with a lot of power (no guarantees on that however :) ).

I feel your pain, as I recently finished an onsite with multiple developers, and wrapping up with the hiring manager telling me that I "will be developer 'n' on the 'xyz' team" and should expect to hear from the recruiter next week. Needless to say, the recruiter emailed me the next week to let me know that they were moving in a different direction and that I "should keep in touch" ... no feedback given (and none expected).

Good luck in your interviews!

This is an interesting question. I think the software industry (speaking from someone who works at a startup in SF) today puts a high emphasis on "culture fit" which is best determined (imho) by committee. I think you'll find that other industries (banking, consulting, law) also put a lot emphasis on hiring by committee; one hypothesis I have is that these industries, like the tech industry, are high churn industries (average tenure ~2 years), so if your champion leaves, you'd best hope everyone else wants you to be there.

Not that I entirely agree... but bad culture fit can truly poison the well on any given project. Depending on the size of the company that can be even more influential.

In a larger company it can vary a lot. Also, many will do contract to hire, or use mostly contract roles.

I've seen this go wrong a few times. It's absolutely better to hire no one than to hire the wrong person. Consensus is best for that.

You absolutely should be getting feedback quickly though.

Many larger companies are risk adverse, so it's better to give no feedback (lot drop) then to give bad feedback. Microsoft is notoriously bad at doing this. They won't tell you when there's no interest beyond a certain point in the process at all.

curious to know how the wrong hires were wrong, and if they were wrong in the same way

Reply on news.ycombinator.com