Comment by cik | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cik | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I couldn't agree more - and it impact how we hire. I refuse to give someone a "take home test"; quite frankly it reaks of a lack of respect for the candidate. Interviewing is two-sided, the organization has to check out the candidate and the candidate has to check out the organization.

Our last hires were brought in for a two-part interview, on the same day. The first was an interview to ensure the personality fit was there, to ensure that the differences we all bring to the table could be a strength.

The candidates were then given a running API server, a postman collection, swagger docs, and an empty directory. We asked them to solve a specific problem - one that we already showed the candidate is solved in production, one we make clear cannot be solved in the two hours they're given. Then, the candidate is encouraged to work on the problem, and ask questions.

Multiple team members check in on the candidate throughout the period, in order to offer support, suggestions, pick things apart, and be a sounding board. Then, when things are done we sit down as a minimum of three people (candidate + 2 staff) to discuss the output and outcome.

This isn't the most fair, and can definitely be stressful. At the same time, I feel like it's pretty equitable.

>> Our last hires were brought in for a two-part interview, on the same day. The first was an interview to ensure the personality fit was there, to ensure that the differences we all bring to the table could be a strength. The candidates were then given a running API server, a postman collection, swagger docs, and an empty directory. We asked them to solve a specific problem - one that we already showed the candidate is solved in production, one we make clear cannot be solved in the two hours they're given. Then, the candidate is encouraged to work on the problem, and ask questions.

As someone who did a few interviews last year, I wish they had been like this. I walked away from most interviews when they started asking me things like:

- "I dont really have time to think up any interview questions or a test so can you bring some code from your last job and we'll take through it..."

- Asked me to do a 2 hour online test without having even spoken to me in any capacity, or asked me to do a homework quiz "it should take around 10 hours" before having spoke to me in any capacity....and they were the ones who contacted me initially.

My favorite was hiring me as a contractor on a short term basis, paying market rates, and then using this time for us to see if we were a good fit.

I appreciate this. The reality though is that there's no setup cost for this. Our team always has a back end that generates swagger - and swagger to postman is a quick command. The most "expensive" part of the setup was creating a new user on the laptop that sat on the desk.

It sounds pretty reasonable. Kudos for doing all the setup beforehand for a smooth experience, and for defining the parameters of the problem and bounding the space for solving it. A guarantee of feedback and clarity around when, where and how that feedback will be given is great for the candidate. I know it already costs a lot to have so many people from your team involved, since you pay for their time (bravo for investing in your process). Is there some way you'd be able to work in compensating candidates for their time as well? What kind of volume do you typically need to put through such a nice-sounding process in order to get a good match?

There's no real cost if you think about it. It's cheaper to invest in the 1-3 candidates you want to bring in and actually hire (i.e they pass the personality fit) than it is to make the wrong hire.

We absolutely don't compensate candidates for their time. From an economics perspective there's no value in the output, and the shared value is the opportunity for each side to determine if we have an alignment on fit. Each side makes an investment with an outcome based goal - that's why this is as equitable as we could make it.

well, you had me until this post. your volume is so low you can absolutely afford to pay candidates. given that your setup process is also automatic, it's offensive that you aren't.

a candidate 'invests' their entire day's output in it and gets paid $0.

your team 'invests' their entire day in the project and gets paid $XYZ dollars.

are these equal "investments"? obviously not.

you can afford it - paying candidates will be a business write off for you anyways.

you're just not doing it because... reasons?

really lost me with this post, it doesn't sound compassionate at all. you're using candidates the same way everyone else is, but the bar is so low that describing the process and giving feeedback got me excited.

I don't expect to be paid when I'm investing my time in my future, any more than I'd expect to pay the organization for giving me the opportunity to explore a future.

There's an equal give and take during the interview process - at least if two parties understand that they're interviewing each other. For those that don't - neither rhetoric, nor money can instill those values.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com