> If implemented properly you get a good idea of who can code and solve problems, and who can't. Of course, there are false positive and false negatives, but the signal to noise ratio is pretty good.
I see the idea, and I try to focus interviews on 'show, don't tell', but is there research supporting better outcomes?
Do you trust HR or the hiring team more to filter candidates?
It's a valid question. Keyword / minimums tilt the balance in HR's direction. Whiteboard / algorithm questions tilt towards hiring team.
I essentially hired one guy I interviewed because he seemed intelligent and did motorcycle work on his own. Had some background in the specific subject, but I'd rather hire a demonstrated ability to learn & initiative. (Afaict, he's thriving and a great fit for the position)
Me too, and I respond similarly to information like that. But the #1 hiring bias is hiring people like yourself. It's possibly I am just falling victim to that bias.
Keywords are almost always pointless. I've seen extraordinary resumes that ticked all the boxes, yet 20 minutes in there was not a working FizzBuzz on the door.
Sadly it's all empirical.