Hacker News Reader

>> 3. Will this candidate get along with coworkers?

> Duh. But also, how do you actually test objectively for this without introducing bias?

You can't because it's a bs metric like "culture fit". After about a dozen people, you can no longer ensure people will get along or like each other. I only have five brothers but I don't even like all of them.

People have quirks, and it's easy to find reasons to pass on candidates because of them (reminds me of Seinfeld and how the characters ended relationships because of man hands or toes). I see this a lot in non-technical hiring where marketing folk exclaim "I like the candidate, we have great rapport" only to discover the candidate was subpar.

> I'm really of two minds on this topic.

I used to be, but after suffering through a bout of mental illness that rendered me an anxious mess when I was once the life of the party really changed how I evaluate this dimension. Be kind and assume the best, which we can all agree would be amazing if the tables were turned.

> You can't because it's a bs metric like "culture fit".

I'd disagree. An indirect metric is "Can I as the technical lead [1] communicate effectively with the candidate?" If the leadership is stable, then a "yes" to this question is likely to imply "yes" to the "getting along" question. If all "subordinates" can effectively communicate with the "hub" (lead), it's not unreasonable to expect that they'd be able to get along with each other using the same mode of communication they use with the lead. That's what my intuition tells me. May be wrong though.

[1] Presumably, the technical lead takes part in the interview process.

I translate this as wanting a candidate that is compliant and can remove his ego to work in a hierarchal management structure. This is fine, of course, but let's not confuse that as "getting along" or "culture fit" when it's really "following orders".

We have taken out any mention of "culture fit" which to me means more of the same. Instead, we measure culture addition. How will this person add to our culture?

I love this. Such a better way of framing the situation. Thank you.

I disagree that this is a bs metric.

When I look for personality, I'm looking three things:

* How they ask questions for things they don't understand

The problems I give are directly applicable but I leave a few slightly vague. Someone really experienced could fill in the missing pieces easily, but usually this doesn't happen. I then ask them if the problem makes sense or if I missed anything. If they can't tell me that the problem isn't clear, or they need more information, then they'll have trouble working with a team trying to solve and communicate problems.

A mediocre candidate will say that the problem isn't clear with "I don't understand". A good candidate will explain what they don't understand. A great candidate will ask for clarification on the vague piece without much fuss.

* Reaction to not knowing something.

I have a hard problem that I give at the end. I clearly tell them it's not expected to be solved and that I just want to talk about how it might be approached. If they get angry, say "oh I know how, just give me 5 more minutes" then stand there blank, etc, then they're not going to fit in a team that is trying to solve hard problems together.

A good candidate will stay calm and provide any sort of input, ask any sort of questions, or show any sort of interest. Sometimes people get nervous here, so I keep this very very lighthearted.

* Are they full of themselves/assholes

This is pretty evident within the first few minutes, and really rare (and almost always accompanied with a stream of buzzwords after every sentence).

A good candidate won't be an asshole.

Everything you've mentioned are shallow assumptions based on brief exchanges with people. These are not qualities you can effectively suss out in a few hours through an interview process. You can at best get hints, but just like how GPA is not an indicator of a students on-job success neither is an interview - or our conclusion - any better indicators to the candidates success.

> Are they full of themselves/assholes / This is pretty evident within the first few minutes

Not it's not. People can act awkward during interviews, it's a stressful situation. Some people need to peacock to feel self-confident - I may not like it, but I'm not going to fuck with their future because of an emotional reaction I had to how they present themselves. I've hired plenty of "assholes" that just needed the benefit of the doubt and a chance to grow.

We're not psychologists or therapists, so we should we stop trying to "figure people out" and decipher complex human interactions & behavior by trying to bucket them into checkboxes for whether or not someone is good.

Be kind, give the benefit of the doubt. This is someones career on the line, not a first date. Treat it with the respect and gravity you'd like someone to give you.

Hey, if a candiate is ready to be an asshole in an interview, what are the chances that he will be an asshole to his team members to just get that raise or a promotion?

He's not being an asshole. He's probably stressed out and doesn't know how to cope well. This is behavior that can be addressed and improved. After 20 years and hiring 100+ developers through three exits and an IPO, I've only met 1 actual "asshole" that couldn't integrate and needed to be let go.

The problem is that we're too quick to be offended and we look for excuses. I'm in the middle of hiring a business analyst, and my COO didn't want to hire him because he didn't send her a thank you note after an interview (but he did send one to me). She thought he was an asshole. See the problem with that train of thinking?

Everyone is an asshole to someone.

> Everyone is an asshole to someone.

Amazing, I'm stealing this, thanks.

Also, by the by, great to read someone writing openly and candidly about mental illness.

I wasn't aware sending thank you notes after an interview would ever be a thing

He's not being an asshole. He's probably stressed out and doesn't know how to cope well.

Life is stressful, work is stressful. My manager and his manager are reasonable people but after my second assignment, they said I missed a requirement and that it was a “big f’ up”. Guess what? I found that refreshing after dealing with managers that beat around the bush and you had to constantly try to figure out what they were thinking - or even worse, they didn’t tell you anything until your review.

I’ve had to whiteboard architecture in front of CxOs, be interviewed by potential investors, etc. It’s when things get stressful that you really need people who can keep their wits about themselves.

> they said I missed a requirement and that it was a “big f’ up”

It's free to say things, doesn't make it true. Too often we assume because someone is in a position of power - or is wealthy - that whatever they say must be true. It's not. Sure, we have to nod our heads and pretend it is to keep the job but that still doesn't change the reality.

Shit rolls down hill with exponential momentum. I've seen many instances where a CEO says something innocuous like "I'm a bit disappointed in X" but by the time it gets to someone that can fix it the management in between transformed it from a simple comment into a condemnation. People like to exaggerate things to make something seem more important or impactful than it really is.

There's also a big difference between an interview and dealing with work everyday. I know plenty of people that shine under the pressure of interviews but not under the job itself (and visa versa). You cannot determine these things about a person from an interview. Period. Performance in an interview has very little correlation to job performance (if any).

> you really need people who can keep their wits about themselves.

I need a diverse group of people that I can collaborate with to get things done. If they can't keep their wits about, it's my job to deal with that issue and get them back on track and protect them from organizational crap. Might as well expect every girl or guy you date to be a model with a PhD.

It's free to say things, doesn't make it true

Well, when the requirement was in big bold writing as one of the key features on a PowerPoint slide...

I need a diverse group of people that I can collaborate with to get things done. If they can't keep their wits about, it's my job to deal with that issue and get them back on

That’s not a luxury you have as you move up the ladder - even if moving up the ladder is just being a real senior developer/architect (by knowledge if not by title).

My first job at 22 was as a computer operator trying to get my foot in the door was within 6 months build a custom, networked data entry system used to support a completely new department and a new line of business. Working at small companies, you don’t get the luxury of hiding within the bureaucracy. The one time that I did work at a large company, it was suffocating.

Agreed. My criteria on the technical side are:

1) Can this person DO things? This doesn't even have to be the kind of things we need done. A diversity of experience or interests is mostly what I look for.

2) Can this person LEARN things? Again, some diversity of experience goes a long way.

3) Is there enough interest in learning to DO what we need them to, and enough education/experience to get started reasonably well.

I start by looking for verbs on the resume. It's amazing how many people say "I was on the team that XXX for system YYY which was a type of ZZZ with technologies ABCD" and never say what they actually did. I say "I understand there's this push for being a team player, but I don't care about that, I want to know what you did." Sometimes this shifts them into useful discussion while other times it reveals that they didn't really do much if anything. One of my co-interviewers once started crossing out whole lines of a guys resume right there in front of him which was a little cruel, but made the point to the candidate.

Again, a diversity of things done and an interest in learning to do what we need is almost everything. I leave the personality evaluation to other people in the process but will vote "no" if something about them really bothers me.

This doesn't just apply to technical jobs. There are things managers need to DO. Letting your people handle the tech does not absolve someone from adding value to the organization through what they do.

We took out all mentions of prior knowledge and experience in our entry level job postings. In our more experienced posting, we only ask for prior work experience building software for X years. We list only our stack and even caveat that by saying that it can change. I can wager that most software engineer positions fall in this category.

Another relevant point here is that women are less likely to apply for positions with a predefined list of requirements even if they are only missing 1 of them as opposed to men. So why are we shooting ourselves in the foot with all of these requirements?

>> 3. Will this candidate get along with coworkers? > Duh. But also, how do you actually test objectively for this without introducing bias?

Dev team cohesion and harmony is hugely important for us. We'll pass on a highly skilled engineer any day if we believe they'll sow division and conflict on our dev team.

In the sense of hard metrics, you can't really test for a toxic personality, but here's what we do:

- We have engineering candidates come on-site for a couple hours before formal interviews and chat informally with several of our engineers. Our engineers show them what they're working on, what technologies we're using, etc. You can learn a fair bit about someone just based upon less formal interactions with a variety of different people. Are they showing interest in what we're doing? Are they eager to tell us about something similar they've done? Are they a respectful attentive listener while a junior is showing the candidate something? Can they communicate and express themselves easily? Obviously candidates are on their best behavior when they come in for a visit, but you can still pick up on certain behaviors that might indicate a problem.

- During formal interviews, we ask candidates the following questions: Tell me about a team project when you had to work with someone difficult. How did you work through that? Could you tell me about a time that you disagreed with a rule or approach? Tell me about a time you made mistake that you learned from and what you’d do differently the next time? The answers to these questions can be very telling. We've had candidates who have been unable to think of a mistake they've made as well as candidates who thought of a mistake they made, but then spent the next 5 minutes explaining how it really wasn't their fault. We've seen some people describe some truly awful approaches to dealing with difficult teammates.

> And will we provide the right environment for them to grow?

This.

I'm so tired of investing in my work and my workplace to have obscure management "advice" on fixing my character flaws (e.g. being too soft / too emotional) to have any chance of growth by trying to transform in to something they want.

Part of that is on me- the picking and choosing of battles is a real problem for me- I care a lot about maintaining high standards for code quality with automated linting and formating, for instance.

I like having soft skills and as I tell anyone I'm interested in working with- I want to work with nice, intelligent people; in that order.

> I'd go so far as to ask: "can this candidate learn to do the job?". In our recent job postings, I've started adding a specific paragraph after the desired qualifications stating more or less "if you don't tick all the boxes above but are motivated to learn and grow, please apply. We'll teach you what you need to do the job"

Totally agree. I was involved in the hiring process (new for me) in the last two hires and this was my main motivation. I primarily looked for passion in the field[1]. I didn't care if they explicitly knew what we were programming in, or what frameworks we were using, or w/e. I wanted to know if they were interested in the area, if they wanted to learn (if needed), and if the workload areas (backend, frontend, etc) were areas they wanted to work in.

I wanted to hire a bright person, passionate in what they do, and interested in the problems we'd give them[2]. I felt like if those three were true it didn't matter what they knew.. within reason, of course.

[1]: I'm not saying what I did is right or wrong, just explaining what I did. [2]: By interested, I mean they want to work in X language with Y workload. Not explicitly that they were personally invested/interested in the product domain as a company. I wouldn't expect that of anyone.. rarely, imo, do companies inherently do such interesting work that people should be personally invested. Ie, solving cancer or feeding homeless. A job can be a means to a paycheck. I just want it to be enjoyable for all involved, as much as possible at least.

I agree for most scenarios. However, when building out a team, you can't hire a bunch of people you're going to have to train. Sometimes, like I had to recently, you have to hire an individual that has the skills you need at the moment who can help mentor and help others learn the tools and frameworks needed.

Yea that's definitely fair. It's also a movable "bar", as even in my example I mentioned within reason, because I wanted to hire by passion, but they needed some pre-existing skills. So it's all relative

Duh. But also, how do you actually test objectively for this without introducing bias? And how do you insure you're not creating a monoculture that will eventually harden into navel-gazing and dogma? I'm really of two minds on this topic.

Give them a simplified version of a class that represents what you do everyday with failing unit tests. Have them pair program with another developer to make the unit tests pass.

Then once they do that...

Give them another set of unit tests for the same set of problems and add more requirements. They have to make the second set pass without breaking the first set.

It’s realistic, you can see how they think through a problem, and you can see how well they work with others.

Mind saying where you work? Companies with sane hiring culture are few and far between.

I’m the CTO of a startup in France

Would you mind sending me a link to one of your job postings? I'm a mechanical engineering graduate looking to pivot into a CS career. My temp email: stadumajoc@memeil.top

Thanks!

Hello, as I replied in the thread above I'm based in France, so the job postings are in French. However if I have a bit of time I'll put up an English translation as well.