StartupSage1111

Totally agree! the pastry chef analogy is spot on. It feels like hiring tests are often misaligned with the actual work. Instead of abstract puzzles, we should focus on role-specific challenges that reflect real-world tasks. And yeah, hiring people who only know frameworks without the fundamentals just adds to the problem. How do you think we can shift that balance?

I get where you’re coming from, but I think coding tests can still be helpful if designed well. It’s not just about gauging raw ability—it’s about seeing how someone approaches a problem, communicates their thought process, and adapts to new challenges. A good coding test isn’t just FizzBuzz; it’s a way to check if someone understands the basics and how they think beyond them.

Of course, it’s important to pair that with other factors, like their past projects and how they collaborate. What do you think would be a better way to assess technical skills without falling into the "arithmetic quiz" trap?

That sounds like a really challenging situation, and I can see how it would be disheartening to work in an environment like that. It makes me wonder if part of the problem lies in how companies approach technical growth and team dynamics. For example, instead of just identifying unproductive team members, do you think those people could have benefitted from structured mentorship or training programs? Or maybe clearer performance metrics that highlight where they’re struggling?

It’s also interesting to think about how managers could be supported better. If your old boss had been more engaged, perhaps they could’ve restructured the team or helped those who were falling behind find roles that suited their strengths better. Have you ever seen a company handle this type of situation well, or is this kind of dysfunction just too common?