Ask HN: Why is tech recruiting broken? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why is tech recruiting broken?

4 pointsihadaquestion17 comments

Nowadays it is almost cliche' to hear both startups and mid/large size companies in the software industry complain about how hard it is to find good technical people. I want to understand why, so please indulge me.

The developer's perspective is easy to figure out, we've all heard that one: company's mission is not exciting, the goal isn't clear, I'm being promised .1% equity of something that will likely be worth $0 anyway, tools are boring, doesn't let me telecommute, the pay isn't high enough, the location is unfavorable and much much more..

What about the company's perspective though? If you've ever recruited for a company, then please share your opinion from the trenches.

What's the key problem here? It's my understanding that most startups receive hundreds, if not more, applications weekly. You have access to wonderful resources such as angel.co/talent, GitHub jobs and StackOverflow jobs with hundreds of verified quality developers on there. Recruiters, if you can afford them, will try to poach quality developers from other gigs for you. These days even VCs will talent scout for you! Once again, what's the issue?

Thank you!

The problem is that companies won't employ anyone who isn't perfect. They don't believe anyone is capable of learning, and if they do think someone is capable of learning, they don't want to be "paying them to learn". If you haven't worked at a company that looks exactly like this one, working on exactly the same technologies and processes then you are rejected.

I can tell you from personal experience that very large companies, especially the ones that are no longer perceived as hot as they once were, have a rather low bar of entry. I can see however why a small business would want to be very cautious though. Say you're a 9 person business, the 10th guy you hire is going to determine 10% of the company's success. You want to make sure you don't screw up on that. It's a fine balance, right?

Is your opinion that startups these days are on the excessively cautious end? Would hiring more openly for a trial position and firing fast be a better approach?

The question is, wait six to nine months, have no-one in the job and don't get that stuff done, or recruit a smart person now who needs to learn stuff? Hire smart people with good fundamentals of computer science who have a proven willingness and ability to learn.

It's a good point. The only case I can think of where you wouldn't want that is if you don't even know if you'll have enough runway in 9 months, but that's probably not quite hiring stage.

Employers are cautious, in part, because working with bad programmers sucks.

Their bugs slow down the whole project... and good programmers resent working with someone who doesn't pull their weight.

In many cases, it's better to let a position go unfilled than to fill it with the wrong person.

This is a big question that i face daily. here at our recruitment company, we are actual programmers that do recruitment. first, let me tell you, it does make a big difference in who we choose. When a coder starts talking about how they are using elastic search, AWS or even good old C#, we can talk to them about how the ins and outs and work out how much they actually know.

The challenge that we are facing is with the employers. Many of them that use a HR department rely on a "tick the boxes" approach that cuts out many many good coders. Others rely on "rockstar <insert brandname>" company to choose who gets in. maybe 70%+ of good coders dont make it through because of the above 2 hurdles.

Most of our clients spend 6+months trying to get people, until finally they work out that its the internal process that stops them employing, not the perceived ( and IMHO non existent ) skills shortage.

What is your typical customer, if you don't mind me asking? Can smaller startups afford your services?

Also, do you consider culture fit at all? I read somewhere that because recruiters make their money on volume, their interest in small companies is rather limited. Basically, it doesn't make business sense for them to spend hours to get to know a small company's culture inside-out and then send them one-two candidates. You could be funneling dozens of developers to very large clients with very generic culture requirements in that time frame.

A lot to be said about difficulty in finding a culture fit, personality fit... basically evaluating the person as a whole vs their skillset.

Most people say they want a rockstar engineer (or insert other rockstar positions here). What they really want (or should) is to find someone who fits and can reasonably do their job well. Some times this means learning something fast, but other times, its a bunch of other nuances in between and traits a person may have about their personality or who they are. The smaller the startup, the more critical and true this is.

People will occasionally hint at this. The impression I got is that startups often interview for high technical skills and hope that the brief interaction during the meetings gave them sufficient insight into the person's personality and culture fits.

Supposedly, it often happens that a few months down the line you realize that a lot of expectations and quirks weren't properly discussed and you get into sticky situations.

There aren't enough good developers on the market, demand is significantly exceeding supply.

People doing the recruiting don't know anything about

1. Programming

2. Programmers

3. What makes a programmer 'good'

4. How to identify a 'good' programmer

5. How to appeal to a good programmer

I hear that many small companies cannot afford to use recruiting services because of their prohibitive costs. What about that case?

Refer to items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

I want to make sure I got you correctly. Are you saying that the technical (co-)founder of the startup you're interviewing for on average doesn't know how to spot a good programmer?

No, I said to refer to items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Nowhere did I say that.

If you really want me to get concrete, here's the dirt on startups hiring troubles: they usually flub 4 and/or 5.

Programmers are wising up. Only a small subset of startups are worth their time, unless it's a lifestyle choice, so they're choosy. Even among the small subset of startups that are worthwhile, they're not necessarily adept at communicating what actually appeals to programmers.

I'm an undergrad studying CS and Electrical & Electronic Eng. I'm keen to improve myself.

Just out of curiosity, how would you identify a 'good' programmer? What makes a programmer 'good'?

Cheers for your answers in advance.

If you've ever worked with classmates on a program, you probably already have a sense of what it means to be a good programmer. As you become more advanced and experienced, the differences between good programmers and bad programmers will change some... but not a lot.

You also may be interested in Joel Spolsky's views on what employers should be looking for in a programmer. It's at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com