
Hire people who aren’t proven - type12
https://leonardofed.io/blog/startups-hiring.html
======
maxxxxx
I think hiring has become more difficult now that programming has been
discovered as a well paying mainstream career. When I started in the 90s most
people I worked with had a passion for the craft but now I find we interview a
lot of people who have a CS degree just for the career prospects but not out
of interest for the craft.

I find it much easier to deal with someone who has no relevant experience but
cares vs someone who had 10 years experience but doesn't care. Now someone who
has 10 years AND cares is rare but pure gold.

~~~
snowwrestler
By all means, you should use whatever criteria you would like to hire your own
staff.

But in general, I would encourage folks in computer tech industries to be
hesitant to assume such a binary approach to evaluating prospects. "Did you
code for fun in high school?" might be a useful question now, because software
development as a field is so young that high school students can try out
significant work easily.

But in most high-end professional fields, that's not true. Imagine asking a
prospective medical resident "did you treat any diseases in high school?" or
"how much surgery do you do in your spare time?"

I think we should take it as a positive sign that people are approaching
software and computer technology as a professional career that they can
professionally pursue. That approach can produce great work too, and a growing
field means a greater diversity in how people find and display their passion.
Getting a CS degree is not easy, and requires some base level of interest and
commitment to complete. Even a bootcamp is not free, and takes some focus and
work.

Anyone above a certain age (like me) came into the industry sideways, as it
was developing, as a result of personal passion and interest. Let's not
mistake that for an inherent property of a good tech employee... every
industry on Earth started that way at some point.

Computer technology industries are maturing, just like railroads, oil
development, aviation, telecommunications, and dozens of other industries have
over time. That's not bad, and we will have to take it into account as we
consider the model employee.

Hiring people who are "not proven" might also mean hiring people who are well
trained, but maybe have not yet proven their passion in a way you recognize.

~~~
namanyayg
Doing software development in high school requires a computer (even a ~$400
that is shared with the family is sufficient), interest, and time (so one can
spend hours required reading tutorials/watching videos). Basically, nothing
too much out of the reach of your average teenager -- with the exception of
interest/dedication to the art.

Doctors, and most other professions, cannot be practiced without a lot more
investment. If we lived in a society where access to resources required for
practicing those careers would be easily available to teenagers, we would see
young high school students do that too. I don't think you're making a fair
analogy here, there is basically no way a high schooler could even _attempt_
treating diseases but it's very possible for a high schooler to program 6-8h a
day and learn.

~~~
Xylakant
> and time (so one can spend hours required reading tutorials/watching videos)

This is maybe not out of reach for an average teenager, but it is definitely
out of reach for quite a substantial portion of the population, the poorest
percentile might just not have the time to dabble in programming. They might
have to take care of siblings, work for a living or to pay for college later.

~~~
snowwrestler
Right, looking for signals of "passion" has to be done carefully so it doesn't
become just a proxy for socioeconomic class. This is also true when thinking
about "cultural fit" within a company.

~~~
munificent
This is an interesting case where the laws around interviewing may make this
harder.

What you want to measure in the interview is passion. What you can see is
their accomplishment. But accomplishment is roughly passion × means. A rich
person can accomplish more for the same effort because they have more power at
their disposal.

But you can't easily cancel out means in the interview because you sure as
hell can't ask any direct questions about their socioeconomic level, for good
reason.

------
laurentl
> 1\. Can this candidate do the job?

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"

> 2\. Will this candidate be motivated?

This. Even more than question 1. I've had a lot of good surprises with
motivated candidates who didn't have all the expected qualifications. Some of
my best hires were people whose CV didn't line up with what I was looking for
but who demonstrated impressive motivation to get the job. On the other hand,
I've often been disappointed with "perfect" candidates who didn't have the
right mind-frame for the job. (Note: I'm not saying I'm expecting slavish
devotion and "giving it 200%" every day of the week. But if your personal,
intrinsic motivations don't align with the job's responsibilities, it won't
work).

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

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.

> 4\. What this candidate will be in three, six, twelve months from now?

Related to the rephrasing of 1. Can the candidate learn and grow? And will we
provide the right environment for them to grow?

One of my favorite quotes is from an ex-manager who hired me when I was far
from ticking all the boxes on the job description. "If you hire someone who
has all the necessary qualifications for the job, they'll be bored in 6
months."

~~~
tomnipotent
>> 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.

~~~
nomel
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.

~~~
tomnipotent
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.

~~~
sound1
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?

~~~
tomnipotent
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.

~~~
scarface74
_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.

~~~
tomnipotent
> 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.

~~~
scarface74
_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.

------
wgerard
My co-founder and I believe so strongly in this that we started a company
around it.

So many companies are willing to let perfect be the enemy of good. It's why
this concept of an MVP has to be hammered in over and over again. And yet, we
still let this mentality pervade hiring. We hire people on the slim chance
that they'll need to re-implement a consensus algorithm and not on the 99.99%
chance that all of their work will be writing CRUD-like code.

We (as in, Headlight) deal with a lot of bootcamp grads and people who are
entering tech later in life (which for tech, means 25+). It's shocking the
number of them who are insanely adept at software development for the amount
of experience they have and are completely overlooked because of any of the
following:

* Their pedigree

* Their experience given their age

* Their program's focus on practical software development and not on more academic topics

It's really mind-boggling. It's great for us, because it's a totally
unappreciated and under-served market. Still, I can't imagine how frustrating
it is for those candidates. We're still new, but so far our clients'
satisfaction with our candidates has been nothing short of enthusiastically
positive.

All that to say, you should really consider adjusting your hiring expectations
drastically. You're building a house. Why are you trying to hire a civil
engineer, and not a contractor?

~~~
davio
Most corporate dev jobs can be effectively handled by someone who can reliably
show up and pull words from a database and display them on a screen.

~~~
mushishi
Yes but it's mind-boggling how complex you can get quite a straightforward
system by just piling new requirement changes on top of old without
maintaining proper data-model in application, even if database is fine-ish,
this results in a monster that slows down the system and the development
speed.

So in principle, a lot of people can do it but only some do it while not
making things more difficult for the next person.

------
docker_up
The problem that has happened at my company is that we take a "chance" on
bootcampers or other people who aren't proven, we spend the time and effort to
mentor and train them, pay them well, and then they turn around in 9-12 months
and leave us for another company with their enhanced experience. It has
happened 3 times so far, so we have stopped hiring bootcampers, and fresh
grads and instead have started hiring people with a couple of years under
their belts or more, since they appear to at least want to stick around enough
to contribute positively to our teams.

~~~
diminoten
Conversely, I found it _really_ hard to establish myself as a solid
contributor and even a technical leader when I joined a team as a (relatively)
newly minted developer.

No matter how far I progressed, or how competent (even excellent) I became, I
was _still_ perceived as the "kid", even though my colleagues are only a few
years older. I think I've mostly overcome this, but TBH I'm still not certain
and I've been here for ~3.5 years in this role, and have been promoted to
senior developer. None of that matters to my coworkers.

Moving teams is a much easier way to shed that "newbie" reputation (a path I
decided not to take). Is it possible someone is creating this culture at your
work that locks people into their role when they join the team?

~~~
techsin101
What diminoten said

------
mirko22
Lately what I have been trying out is telling people: if you want to come for
an interview can you prepare a small presentation of one of the data
structures that you know about or like, or ideally hash tables (as they cover
wide range of topics).

If a person than comes in for the interview in about a week from when he is
told this and can’t present that DS to some depth I don’t bother to go on with
much longer interview.

I got lot of criticism for this ranging from who needs data structures, we are
not building libraries to this is too complex to ask a person.

But in my opinion if someone tells you what you are going to be asked on the
interview and you don’t even bother to prepare at least a little bit i can
assume me you will act like that at work too.

Why a data structure? Why not, you don’t necessarily need to like or know
anything about the domain you will be working in, same way you might not care
or like data structures.

This doesn’t apply to someone writing HTML maybe but for a senior programer it
should be easy to figure out how a simple linked list works, if you don’t care
about learning it I don’t care about wasting my time interviewing you.

I would like if some of you might give me thoughts on this approach.

~~~
varjag
Is it really possible to be a senior programmer without understanding a
concept of linked list? Mindboggling.

~~~
jcadam
I interviewed one who had a lot of trouble finding the largest integer in an
array... I mean, it really was a bozo-filter level problem, and it amazed me
how many people couldn't do it.

Personally, I hate white-board interviews, but I'd be relieved (and yet
annoyed at the same time) if you asked me to find the largest integer in an
array.

------
ravenstine
Why would any company _have_ do hire people and train them? Companies these
days don't really come to a hault if they're in need of a few developers, and
as the market is saturated, they can hold out indefinitely until they believe
they have a "rockstar."

According to my experience, a lot fewer companies than even a few years ago
are in a hurry to talk to you despite them having a job posting and you having
more experience. Most of them will take their sweet ass time, and it will take
even longer if they've replaced their HR or their own recruiting process with
a recruiting firm, and usually they'll engage in the same process of finding a
"rockstar" while taking their time because then they can fit in time for
another client and make more money.

Besides, the incentive for hiring the unproven developers is quickly dying off
with services like Triplebyte that can test and interview developers for you
for a nominal fee. Those who would normally be in charge of hiring at a
company never gets to the point where they've interviewed a bunch of people
and decides that they're tired of interviewing people and hires the candidate
who seems the most intelligent.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> Companies these days don't really come to a hault if they're in need of a
> few developers

My small company has had to put our biggest contract on hold since July after
having 2 senior developers leave in quick succession. We're burning through
cash and have only just this week managed to find a replacement for one of
them. I've almost gone down the agency route (again) but the fees are pretty
hefty for a team our size (3 at the moment).

I'm not looking for rockstars, just someone with some familiarity with .NET
MVC.

Edit: We're in the UK, FWIW.

~~~
bvm
I feel your pain. Trying to hire perm in London at the moment is a real
challenge, even with a recruiter. Contractor rates are obscene (5-8x perm).
Recruiting and retaining is what keeps me awake at night over and above any
tech issues that I'm working on.

~~~
user5994461
How little are you paying your dev that it can be 1/8th of a contractor?

Even the cheapest dev I have ever met in London wasn't as low as 1/5th of the
most expensive contractor I have met.

~~~
bvm
Ah yeh, sorry, my mental maths strayed a bit into hyperbole there, it's more
like 4-5x

~~~
user5994461
How much are you trying to pay your dev that it can be 1/5th of a contractor?
It's no wonder you're having trouble finding anyone.

------
jarsin
I think tons of experienced people that love programming moved on because of
the "Google Interview".

You got all this experience and love making stuff for users, but you don't
know the "insert trick of the week" to solve the latest "elite" programming
question. Bye Bye. No more jobs for you.

~~~
hirundo
Turns out that Google isn't the only outfit hiring coders. I could never have
passed their interview but I've had a long career making a good living working
for companies that never asked me to write a self-balancing binary search tree
off the cuff.

~~~
jarsin
I run into the "Google Interview" almost everywhere now days.

~~~
scarface74
I can speak about my last 5 jobs over 10 years. Before that, I stayed at one
company way too long.

Job 1 - I had already been working at one company way too long. But I wasn’t
asked any tough technical questions. I explained both my professional
experience, and that I got my start as a hobbyist in 86 in 6th grade.

To be honest, with my programming experience I was overqualified for the job,
but I wanted to get into .Net and away from C so I took a high level entry job
as a .Net developer and it was basically a vertical salary move (wage
compression is real).

2\. I remember having a real simple written test that made sure I could write
FizzBuzz, knew the basics of .Net and knew how to design and use databases.
After that, I sat down and did pair programming with an IDE where I had to
make failing unit tests pass. Again I was still punching below my weight
class, but I was more concerned with learning than maximizing salary. It was a
10K bump and with a well known at the time Fortune 10 company.

3\. Basic technical interview making sure I knew .Net, JavaScript and
relational database theory. They asked a lot of questions about architecture
and my “whiteboard interview” was drawing out a relatively complex, scalable
system.

4\. Slightly technical but the main question I remember is “tell me what steps
are you going to take to create this software development department we need”.
I was interviewing for a Dev lead position without knowing it.

5\. “Here are some real world issues we are having with our architecture. We
are on AWS. How are you going to solve them?”

Yes I’m still supposedly a hands on developer.

~~~
kamaal
Companies that consider themselves special generally "Google Interviews". That
include bulk of the FAANG class companies, or any body who pays in the same
ball park.

There are also a huge alumni of the FAANG club, who have a vested interested
in doing "Google Interviews". Basically these people have spent so much
time(thousands of hours) that the only way they can justify it is by making
that interview process that way. Anybody who hasn't spent that kind of effort
is obviously beneath their station.

But I hope you see where this is going.

>>Here are some real world issues we are having with our architecture. We are
on AWS. How are you going to solve them

The "Google Interview" club likely won't ask you these questions. Their job
isn't to build software. It is to get good at interviews, if you are good at
interviews, interviewing is your day job, as practicing questions brings you a
raise/promotion/title-change every year.

Why waste time building software?

~~~
scarface74
And that’s why I’ve never had any interest in the Silicon Valley/Startup
culture.

I’m very happy in a major metropolitan area with a relatively low cost of
living anf a good relative salary working as an “Enterprise
developer/architect”.

------
cashsterling
I have run into some of these issues in the past when trying to get into
software.

I'm a chemical engineer / scientist with some programming experience/skill*
but I would suck at modern coding interviews because I don't program regularly
in my past 3-4 roles. I would have to get up to speed on the job, with pre-
prep before the job started, and I could develop into an awesome programmer.
Most job posting are written such that I am 99% certain my resume would just
be a 'fast pass' in the 10 seconds a recruiter might look at it. Oh well,
engineering is pretty interesting too... so I really can't complain much.

*My programming experience and background: \-- wrote Python/PyQt apps for parsing/analyzing/visualizing semiconductor device data, wrote sensor simulators/analysis tools in MATLAB and Python. Wrote image analysis routines in Java/ImageJ. I taught myself the languages and libraries and wrote correct and performant code.

I dabble in Python, JS, Julia, Rust, C++, various LISP's at home but I don't
have a lot of time or energy after 8-10 hours a day of engineering work.

I have done a fair amount of PLC programming and control system design in the
past. I also have 10+ years of post PhD engineering and physical science in
several different fields and all of the capability and skill sets required to
be successful in those fields.

Software gigs I have applied for in past generally have not even given me the
time of day... oh well.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Job mobility is at an all time low unfortunately, due to the incredibly risk-
averse environment.

------
vorpalhex
I think this is good advice... for larger companies with well established
patterns. One of the issues of a startup is that the founders are breathing
down your neck and often don't care a whole lot about "well designed software"
(or want to overbuild mvp products). Standing up to management, building best
practices, and being agile while still pushing back when needed against
founders/sales isn't easy but it's something engineers in a startup
environment have to deal with directly constantly.

A larger company has more layers of management to, hopefully, help filter that
out. Larger companies have best practices written down and figured out, CI/CD
pipelines in place, etc. It gives newer engineers more opportunity to succeed
in areas where they are strong, while letting them have mentorship in areas
they are new to them.

~~~
chii
> It gives newer engineers more opportunity to succeed in areas where they are
> strong

or just gives people who can fit a mould succeed, but doesn't allow someone
who is creative and can think outside the box to shine as existing beaurocracy
bogs down the smallest of change.

~~~
vorpalhex
One of the hardest challenges of being an engineer, especially at senior
levels, is protecting your peers from bureaucracy - but it is a doable
challenge. A corporate structure is like any other social structure and it can
be navigated and changed over time with persistent work and buy in from the
bottom up.

That being said, larger corporations do have more structure because they don't
want you to repeat the mistakes of the past. That can obviously go too far,
but if any constraint becomes "You're limiting my creative expression!" then
you've missed the goal.

~~~
chii
I find most corporate structures, levels of management and reporting
requirements (that aren't legislation based) all stem from the fact that the
"boss" can't trust the lower level guy to do their job and make decisions
without consulting someone higher on the hierarchy.

In a small startup, this isn't a problem, because decision making happens
immediately. In a large corp, you end up with bureaucracy this way.

How does other organizations that are large solve this problem? In the
millitary (at least, in the US, and other western doctrine millitaries), the
sqad or captain or ground level troop has a lot of freedom to make tactical
decisions, as long as that decision is to move towards the goal (or what's
normally called the commander's intent). Why doesn't this method work in a
corp. environment?

~~~
ryandrake
It works where there is a shared mission. But when team A wants help with
project 1 and team B’s priority is project 2, and they need approval from team
C because it touches their code, well, you get the bureaucracy and constant
escalation that you see in big software companies.

------
aphextron
>Don't hire like FAANG companies, don't use their best practices, don't use
their super oiled processes, don't play their same games with the same rules.

I'm back on the job market for the first time in 4 years and it seems like
things have changed a lot. I'm now stuck in this weird twilight zone where
every single company I talk to has the exact same process that they run
through the motions as if it were dictated from somewhere, and I've yet to
even have a genuine conversation. It inevitably leads to a "live coding"
session over the phone where I completely go blank and am unable to perform
because programming under a time constraint with someone staring at your
screen is absurd. Problems on the level of fizzbuzz become impossible because
my mind simply goes blank in those situations and I freeze up. It'd be nice if
someone would just give me a take home project where I can actually code
something properly and show off my skills, rather than conclude that I'm an
idiot who can't even code after 20 minutes of struggling with some toy problem
through my intense anxiety.

~~~
01100011
I understand the blank mind feeling. I was on a phone interview with Oculus 2
weeks ago and had a simple circular buffer question. I was expecting something
a lot harder, frankly, and hadn't practiced writing a circular buffer in a
while. I was doing fine until I got half-way through and wanted to refactor my
code. Since we're under time constraints I tried to push through and use my
existing design choice but it started the anxiety train rolling. In a couple
minutes my mind fogged over and I literally couldn't comprehend the code I had
written a few minutes ago. The interview ended poorly and I didn't get the
job. I finished the code after the interview, along with some test cases, and
the whole thing worked great. It wasn't that I didn't understand the problem,
I just couldn't implement it with someone breathing down my neck.

I interviewed with Nvidia a week later and almost had a similar issue but in
that case the interviewer sensed my reaction and managed to talk me through
things. I managed to recover and now I'm scheduled for an on-site.

~~~
superqd
Good luck

------
nalipp
Passion can't be measured with credentials so why do companies keep screening
for them?

I spent the last three years studying as a hobby and as a full time student
learning multiple frameworks, front-end and backend, and additional
technologies that made me curious like Vim and I can't even land a single
technical interview.

After coming to the Bay Area, I was thinking my github portfolio and
communication and networking skills would at least get me in the door to prove
myself.

Once coming I found out I would need to learn CS topics to get past the
technical interview and that React would be a good entry point for a first
job. So I left and studied another 6 months before returning. The second time
I got a part time job as a coding instructor at a bootcamp because I have a
history in teaching, but still struggle to get in the door for engineering
interviews.

Nobody takes me seriously without credentials, I always thought that in a
technical interview people would be able to figure out where you stand and not
need credentials. The problem is companies get flooded with resumes so they
build automated software to screen the best candidates but passion can't be
screened.

------
joshfraser
At Origin, we've hired multiple people without computer science degrees and
whose resumes you would never pick out of a stack. One of our key players, for
example, was a commercial real estate broker who taught himself how to code.
The reason we hired him is that we're a 100% open-source project and he just
started contributing. And he turned out to be really great. By the time we
gave him a fulltime offer, he'd had several months to demonstrate what he
could do. For anyone who is struggling with not having the right background or
degree, find an open-source project and start contributing. It's a great way
to prove yourself and you'll learn new skills and make awesome new connections
along the way.

~~~
cure
That makes sense. It's also how I look at hiring. People who have made good
contributions to our codebase (arvados.org) are first in line.

Being able to look past the resume and pick up good people who don't fit a
traditional pattern is definitely a skill. Business people tend to not
understand this because they are stuck on matching patterns. In other words,
don't let non-technical people be in charge of hiring developers :)

------
apeace
I get the sentiment but I have two problems with this.

1) Different stages of companies require different hires. When you're starting
out, find the hungry ones. They'll get better at programming if they care, and
they'll build a lot of stuff. Once you have real customers and are growing
like crazy, hire experienced people to help you scale.

2) There is a difference between the "interview process" and the screening
process. I agree that thinking about "Can this candidate do the job?" and
"Will this candidate be motivated?" is the best way to go. But I don't have
time to sit down with the ~200 junior engineers who sent me their resume on
Indeed in order to figure that out. Hence, I filter by 5+ years of experience,
and track record of working in multiple programming languages (don't screen
specific languages though). Are the metrics perfect? No. But in my experience
they weed out the people who are too junior to be successful on my team.

Interestingly, I think that if my company were bigger we might go back the
other direction. Once we're on a stable path, and we have a few senior
engineers who want to go into management and/or do some mentorship, we can
afford to bring on more junior people and help them grow into great engineers.

There are many stages of companies, startups especially, and in some
situations it makes perfect sense to use some plain old metrics.

~~~
ralmidani
"Years of experience" is a very misleading metric. Someone could have 2 years
of experience but be more motivated and/or have worked in a more demanding
environment than someone with 5 years of experience.

seniority !== skill

~~~
apeace
Which metric do you use which is never wrong? Or do you perform a full-on
interview for every person who sends you a resume?

~~~
ralmidani
Of course not. But finding talent is far more subtle than "how many years has
this person been in industry?" That doesn't account for passion, motivation,
how much they learned and accomplished on the job, etc.

------
chrisseaton
I don't see how 'hire people who aren't proven' can be compatible with 'can
this candidate do the job'. You want to know if they can do the job, but you
aren't interested in any proof for that?

~~~
sharemywin
30-50%(used to be 90%) of any programming job is doing crap you didn't know
how to do before.

If they have a proven track record of figuring things out experience is
minimally valuable.

~~~
chrisseaton
> If they have a proven track record of figuring things out experience is
> minimally valuable.

I can't understand this point of view at all.

When Google wanted to build the world's best JS JIT they didn't hire anyone
who was generally able to figure things out - they hired the person with the
most experience in building dynamic language JITs in the world. Experience is
everything! Experience is knowing which rabbit holes to not go down, knowing
who to speak to when you need help, what ideas haven't been tried yet, etc.

~~~
camel_Snake
I think it's totally unrealistic to compare the average coding gig with
writing a custom JIT from scratch for Google. In most businesses the
difference between 'very good' and 'world class' won't have a large enough
impact to spend the extra resources getting that rockstar.

And then there is the issue of actually retaining top talent...

------
6stringmerc
Unmentioned Important Addition to Headline:

...because if you are trying to hire people that are proven, you will have to
pay them a fair market rate.

~~~
ttoinou
> fair market rate

Or is it that people that have not been proven before have a lower market
rate, justified (so "fair") by this lack of pre-validation ?

------
lvh
There's a critical kernel of truth here that I want to point out: work-sample
tests. The longer I spend building teams, the more I am convinced: there are
people who do WSTs as a way to qualify applicants, and there are people who
just aren't serious about hiring.

It's easy to write a WST for simple things, like "can you literally write a
computer program that does this trivial straightforward thing". It's hard to
write WSTs for things that feel fluffy, like "can you manage a team". But
here's the thing: as long as that fluffy thing feels fluffy, what that really
means is you haven't bothered to figure out what success looks like for that
role, and you couldn't even evaluate that person let alone hire for them.

There's a company in Indy called Woven
([http://www.woventeams.com/](http://www.woventeams.com/)) that'll do it for
you, too. I have no relationship with them other than that they're nice people
who are trying to unfuck hiring.

~~~
throwawaymath
It would be great if you could convince large tech companies to use work
sample tests, but I just don't see that happening. So in that sense maybe work
sample tests can be a differentiator attracting candidates that don't want to
spend a few weeks doing Leetcode prep every time they look for a new job.

On the other hand work sample tests also have drawbacks. I don't know if
they're actually that much better than regular interviewing methods; I think
they just contribute an orthogonal signal instead of a stronger one. I don't
feel I can cheerlead them as much as you do in your first paragraph.

I think in an ideal world companies would allow candidates the option of
choosing either their work sample or their resume-blind, standardized
interview gauntlet. People with a lot of interviewing anxiety could self-elect
a work sample option. But if you impose a work sample on every candidate I
think you'll reduce your pool of available hires.

I was offered a work sample test recently and was told to spend about a week
on it. I started working on it a little bit the first day and really enjoyed
the exercise. But I was also interviewing with at least five other companies
at the same time; I simply didn't have the time between work and traveling for
onsites to really commit to the work sample.

------
75dvtwin
There is definitely economic incentive for a busines to find 'diamonds-in-the
rough', or there abouts, so to speak. (
[https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/diamond+in+the+rough](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/diamond+in+the+rough)
)

The traits to look, suggest:

'lack of' of prestigious education background,

living in non-metropolitan area,

perhaps somewhat muted self-promotion skills

genuine and _continuous_ interest in the particular field

\+ all the other soft-skills (team work, work ethics, respect for others,
etc).

But I think to enable long term, mutual benefit between the business and
employees, the business must be able to place itself, virtually, in the
position of employee.

And ask: in addition to salary, why would the employee continue with me?

I feel that aspect is rarely discussed, written about.

I made some mistakes in my personal career development. And the most
significant ones where due to me believing that the companies (senior
managers) I work for, actually cared about my aspirations.

So, for myself, I had adapted this career management strategy, that I picked
from lawyers:

'Up-or-out'
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out)

Basically, I would not stay in one company for more than 3 (max 5 years), if I
do not make meaningful incremental career growth (that also includes
compensation growth).

Following that, even though late in my career, helped me to get recognition,
better relations in the industry, as well as better monetary compensation.

------
linsomniac
I'd add the caution that you should have clear criteria for what represents
success in the job, and the timeline. If the candidate doesn't meet those
criteria in that timeline, you both should agree that it isn't working.

My previous job was running a small Sys Admin consulting company. We hired 4
people over the years who definitely fit into the "not proven" category, with
very mixed results.

Two really struggled: One of them was "ok" but needed a ton of management, the
other never really got a basic level of proficiency despite spending most of a
year "studying" and working at the elbow of various masters. One worked out
really well and was a great worker. I feel like there was another one, but I
can't dredge up the specifics.

The proven people on the other hand were mostly rockstars. The one that wasn't
was largely due to my mismanagement of them.

So: Yes, absolutely hire the unproven. But have a plan.

------
crdoconnor
>Google's interview best practices strictly focused on algorithms and data
structure questions won't help you in your interview process.

They mostly don't help because they bear no resemblance to what 99% of
developers actually do, even at Google.

Realism in dev job interviews is criminally underrated.

~~~
maybeiambatman
Internships are probably the best job interviews.

~~~
chooseaname
Yeah, but that only[0] works for entry level developers.

[0] I'm sure there are exceptions.

~~~
maxxxxx
True. Contracting is sometimes also a way to find good people.

------
getaclue
As someone who is currently looking for a job I can definitely relate to the
troubling HR in software field. What I started doing is working on my own
content to help recruiters decide if I am what they are looking for. I added
more information about ME, what I am passionate about, what I was passionate
about previously, and what I am looking for to my about page
([https://getaclue.me/about](https://getaclue.me/about)).

This way, recruiters can decide if they like me or not. Another thing I
started doing while reaching out to companies is saying that I am open to 3-6
months "tryouts" if you wish.

I feel like we should have more of those. I also realized that social media is
very powerful for finding your way in 2018. Gone are the days of wanting to
work at a Fortune N company because they are doing great work. Most of those
unicorns turn into corp machines that they were trying to stay away from.

Another thing I started doing is looking for people that share my passion.
Anecdotally, Forums, IRCs, Telegam and the such communities are definitely
booming once again thanks to the dissolution of privacy.

One challenge - esp if you are someone who cares about software and software
engineering field - you have to do A LOT more work on your own. I work full-
time and I work when I get home. I don't see this changing.

EDITed to add some \n

~~~
vidanay
If you are in the Frankfurt Germany area, I have a position open there for a
C# developer.

~~~
getaclue
Thank you for the opportunity but I am located in Toronto, Canada.

------
lordnacho
I find this is incompatible with the list of 4 questions:

> Cut luck out of your system.

You can't decide to do that. If you're a small company, you are only sampling
a little bit and luck will either help you or hurt you. If you are large, the
law of large numbers will give you something like the average. You can't
decide if you're small or large.

As for finding people who are proven, it's up to you what level you are after.
If you want anyone who'd played division 3 football, you have a reasonably
large number of candidates. If you have a left back who's played Champions
League and is under 25, you have a small number of candidates.

Try to go with larger sets, because then the LLN will help you. Don't ask for
anyone who's played any sport for your football team, just anyone who has
played football to the level you need.

Another important thing to think about is how to work with the great mass of
ordinary people. At some stage if things go well, you may have to engage with
people who are not wanting to spend 80 hours at your office, or who don't
spend their weekends contributing to exactly the projects your firm is
interested in, and who maybe aren't even all that interested in what you do.
Motivating such teams has been a major value-add for a large number of
household names.

------
slfnflctd
My initial interest in programming started before 1990. Due to an insane
number and variety of mostly personal factors, the farthest I ever got was a
couple ancient javascript/HTML experiments, a few small-to-medium side
projects in MS Access and some intermediate router configuration. I've
primarily just done tech support. I've performed well in the jobs I've chosen,
though, because I get along well with others and tend to be loyal to the
organization, even if I know this is sometimes foolish. It's simply how I'm
wired.

Despite all the time that's passed and all the things I've dipped my toes
into, I feel no closer to choosing a language, framework or tooling. I have no
friends who are serious developers. I'm good at learning new things, but it
happens slowly. It would probably take me 6 months to a year of dedicated
daily time & effort just to ramp up on any one particular sub-technology
(which, considering that I'm a rideshare driver to make ends meet, is a
challenge)-- and there is no guarantee it would help me find work, since I
have no idea who's hiring for what, or what those jobs are actually like.

All that being said, other than 'professional entertainer' (haha), a software
developer is all I've really ever wanted to be, and I think with enough time
invested the right way, I'd be really, really good at some aspect of it. I
built myself a custom checking account database to better predict its future
balance, and I'm happy every time I interact with it (except when it crashes
for reasons unrelated to my code). The biggest question of all remains,
though: Is it even worth the trouble to try, because would anybody even
consider hiring someone like me?

~~~
onemoresoop
The best place to learn is when you're hired as a software developer at a
company. It doesn't matter if the company is good or not, you'll be forced to
learn to make the product work. Change a few jobs and some years of tinkering
and you'll likely get the fads, buzz, experience, etc.. Best place to start is
as junior dev and quickly move up. Learning at home will never give you work
experience since the 'real world' environment is not replicable at home.

------
chadash
This advice seems kind of crazy to me. I think you want someone who is proven
in some skill-set, just not necessarily the exact one you are hiring for [1].
In software engineering, many skills are easily picked up. If you know C++,
Java probably won't be too hard to learn. Angular and React aren't all that
different. Even backend and frontend development have a lot of overlap.

Many companies want experienced and proven hires and I think this is
completely reasonable. If you can afford it, would you rather have Lebron
James on your team or a rookie who shows some promise? However, I take issue
when companies get too specific in their requirements and exclude candidates
for not possessing skills that are easily learned by someone who is proven in
other areas.

[1] The exception might be junior developers who you are taking more of a risk
on, but also get paid less as a result. However, there are costs to training a
junior developer including paying a salary while they get up to speed and
using up experienced devs' time to train them.

------
tenpoundhammer
> 3\. Will this candidate get along with coworkers?

I think this 'getting along' is often misinterpreted as become best friends. I
think a better way to state this question is

'Will this candidate be able to have successful working relationships?'

There is no reason you can't have a wide variety of people -- that would never
choose to hang out with another-- working successfully together.

------
benkovy
As an unproven, but extremely passionate and motivated person (who is
literally 2 hours away from going into his first Software Developer
interview), I found this calming. If I don't get this position I really hope I
find a company with the same ideals portrayed in this article.

~~~
sound1
Good luck!

------
TictacTactic
As a dev straight out of university this blog resonates with me. I know I
don't even come close in knowledge to a senior dev so in interviews I try to
emphasis that I have a hard working personality, positive attitude, strong
desire to learn, etc. Traits I think a company would really want if a dev was
lacking in the specific skills. Sadly it feels like it always falls flat and I
end up coming across as naive.

I think mainly the problem is rooted in employers cynical approach to hiring
employees. It's hard to evaluate people on less measurable data points when
you don't trust them. It's easier to trust tests with easily quantifiable
results rather than those with grey areas.

------
blauditore
The problem is that those things can be faked during an classic interview by a
good actor (or "salesperson"). It's much harder to fake problem solving skills
on a whiteboard.

The pair programming approach is not terrible, but might be problematic if
skill fields (technologies, environment) of interviewer and candidate are not
perfectly aligned. So either the candidate will have to work in the company's
setup they're not familiar with, or the interviewer will try to follow
something they don't easily understand.

------
gwbas1c
One of my filters when phone screening is to ask simple questions that the
candidate should know given the stated experience. I try to use topics that
will separate out someone who's "faking it" versus someone who has the deep
(or shallow) knowledge that someone with XX years experience should know.

For example, (back when ARC was new,) I'd ask someone with 5-8 years objective
C to explain how autorelease works. (If you programmed in Objective C without
ARC and didn't know about Autorelease...)

Or, for Java and C# I ask some questions about exception handling. It's a very
simple concept that a lot of novices screw up. (If someone with a nontrivial
amount of C# or Java can't explain some exception handling basics...)

(Basically, my pattern is to get the candidate to discuss some well-known
details about memory management or error handling in a language that the
candidate states experience in. Any competent programmer should be able to do
this.)

I then ask some more theoretical questions that are relevant for the kind of
programming needed for the product. These are the kinds of things that someone
who has the experience needed should know without thinking too hard about the
question. If someone can answer with a lot of hemming and hawwing, that's okay
too. Someone who just can't discuss this kind of theory really isn't capable
of the job... Or learning the job.

------
cbg0
Sometimes it feels that even being "proven" isn't enough for a lot of
companies that expect you to happen to know the six programming languages they
put in their job ad, because if the ones you do know don't match up the
recruiters will assume you're not a good fit regardless of your years of
experience.

I do agree though that YMMV, and some companies are better than this and
accept that you might be capable of picking up new languages and technologies.

------
jkingsbery
For what it's worth, I work at one of the large tech companies mentioned. I
would disagree with some of the characterization. For example "Don't do
whiteboard coding on riddles or puzzles" \- I think this is great advice,
because questions like that are frowned on where I work too! Generally, the
coding questions we ask come from real world applications.

I've also worked at a startup, and I think this article misses something that
really could be helpful: there are different skills needed to work at most
large companies and most start-ups. At most early-stage start-ups, scaling is
not a problem. There are examples of companies that had to scale quickly, but
for the most part life at a startup is about finding where your market is. I
think that start-up hires also need to be more flexible: there's more room for
specialization in larger companies, whereas in smaller companies, engineers
that focus on one or two things can be pretty disruptive as the needed work
shifts.

------
tombert
I feel like I tend to value theory more than most people, and when I
interview, I tend to ask extremely theory-heavy questions that I think are
typically pretty difficult.

However, I don't usually care if they can actually work out the answer in a
short amount of time, as anyone can probably find an answer to a question in
about fifteen seconds on pretty much any search engine. What I measure is how
well the person asks questions.

The way I figure it, it's far more important that the worker is good about
unblocking themselves; you can't expect someone to have memorized every
algorithm ever, but it's not unreasonable to expect them to bother someone who
knows a bit more about the subject when they don't.

Just as an FYI, I don't have any fancy credentials, or really any
qualifications at all, so it's not like I'm pushing some kind of
MIT/Harvard/Berkley ridiculous agenda onto people.

------
notananthem
I am very skilled, highly educated, and interview poorly. When companies hire
me, I get big promotions, leadership pulls me in, etc. This is because I'm not
"an engineer" or "a programmer." The departments I work in obviously
know/recognize me but the business doesn't know the job function really, its
starting to be a more recognized area. The fact that I got as far as I did is
hilarious, and I know how to find a lot more people like me at any time, and
they'd never have gotten any of that value without hiring people like me. I
also don't know how you would discern a "fake" me from me, without some of us
on the interview. My interview was conducted by some highly qualified people
and a few not qualified people, so I knew I had room to grow because there was
a lot of dead weight.

------
fsiefken
Very good points, being on the lookout myself I realize this also works the
other way around. I need to be good at answering:

* Can I do the job and can I communicate my weaknesses and strengths?

* Will I be motivated?

* Will I get along with the people?

* What will I be 3, 6, 12 months from now? What do I want to achieve?

* What's my motivation and attitude?

* How do I learn?

* How do I work through blocks?

------
remote_phone
It’s a great sentiment and I would love to hear this blog poster’s success
with his system that he described. Does he have actual metrics as to how
effective his description is, or is this just another example of someone on
the Internet making an edict with no data backing it?

------
amorphous
I recommend "Why Employees Are Always a Bad Idea" by Chuck Blakeman. It
describes how to build a company where everyone is a stakeholder and not a
child that needs constanct watching and stupid rules in order to function. No
titles, no working hours, unlimited vacation time, you hire the whole person
(not just the BS smile at work part). You work together because you want to
find and make meaning. No CVs and skills are far less important than
personality and fit (skills can always be learned).

The book is the reason I'm building my own company because this is how I want
to work and live (I used to work for a company like that, but unfortunately,
due to personal circumstances the founder had to split and the company
disappeared).

~~~
ttoinou
Great idea, but then couldn't they replace you and what you're doing (since
they won't be your employee they'll be business partners) ?

~~~
amorphous
No, it was the unique combination of people that made the company. Once two
key people left, everything fell apart.

------
j45
Having hired folks who weren't proven, most didn't work out. However, the ones
who did work out were great.

One difference that stood out beyond courage and attitude is how engaged in
actualizing one's potential the candidate is.

Everyone has potential. The person doing the hiring may see it. The candidate
may, or may not.

The only thing that mattered in the end was the candidates ability to
actualize their own potential beyond what they may see in themselves, given an
opportunity.

The questions "What do you build/work on when no one is looking" is one
interesting question to elicit a sense of their attitude towards their
potential, and if they have the courage to undertake building/learning
something for the sake of learning.

~~~
sparrish
You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find the prince this way. It can be very
time consuming. If your company has more time than money - it's a reasonable
strategy.

~~~
j45
Agreed on kissing a lot of frogs. I wasn't recommending it, or not, just what
one experience was. Over time, it's less useful, but it's important to still
remain as open as possible.

------
jaclaz
On the actual job ad, and how it sounds, I like to cite:

[https://tudorbarbu.ninja/message-to-
recruiters/](https://tudorbarbu.ninja/message-to-recruiters/)

>We’re looking for a person with more than 100 years of experience in software
development, coding everything from BIOSes to cloud applications, knowledge of
all past, present and future operating systems and setting up secure networks.
The applicant must also be able to juggle up to twenty balls and read
hieroglyphs, be fluent in Swahili and dance like Michael Jackson (especially
moonwalking – nice to have at corporate Christmas parties).

------
AngeloAnolin
Applicants in general I feel are always to be on a disadvantage because _most_
companies leave the hiring to the HR Department, who have very little clue on
what they need to actually be looking. Most of the time, they would have a
checklist, where if the person does not meet enough of their threshold, that
person is immediately passed off for the next applicant.

Add the process that some folks do to screen candidates - lots of times, these
are not objective in nature and tend to skew towards most applicants who seem
to have a very impressive profile made up of fancy words and half truths.

------
nasalgoat
I dunno, I tried to hire based on potential, and I just let them go after six
months of him failing to grasp even the basics of the job. He did fine in the
interviews but ultimately you cannot fake experience.

~~~
wccrawford
We've hired multiple people based on potential. A few of them have worked out
astoundingly well. More than that have quit or been let go for not being able
to handle the job.

It's pretty demoralizing to let someone go. It's pretty annoying to have them
quit in the first week. (Or even the first day!)

But it's pretty awesome when they work out and you get to watch their skill
grow over time.

------
duxup
I wish this was a thing, but it's not.

I worked for a company that did some layoffs of some good people. They're
capable, but their bullet points don't match many jobs .... so they're looking
for and endlessly long time.

These are great people more than capable of learning. At their previous jobs
as a team they did more work than teams 3x their size.

I know a few places that turned them down in favor of folks who matched the
bullet points... but not the job.

It's difficult to watch as I see news of places "desperate to find workers"...
but refusing to hire good people.

------
onion2k
I read " _You must have 10 years experience of <tech>_" as shorthand for "
_Have you stopped learning new things? Come and work here._ "

~~~
chrisseaton
That's ridiculous. Why does learning new technology mean you need to stop
using the old technology?

~~~
onion2k
It doesn't, obviously. My point was about how companies advertise jobs. A
company advertising a job with a requirement of 10 years experience in a
technology wants someone who's able to tackle pretty much any problem from the
outset. _They 're not open to people learning._

------
mrmrcoleman
A major GPS navigation company hired me for a job I wasn't ready for in 2006
when I was 24 years old. It was my first job at a big company.

I'm pretty sure I got through because they were growing way too fast and I
slipped through the process somehow.

Being dropped into the deep end and surrounded by smart and experienced people
was incredible for me. It took me a while to get up-to-speed but when I did
I'm sure I more than repaid their investment.

------
honkycat
I can't disagree with this person more.

More than anything have learned that education and training are hugely
important and hiring to train leads to mediocre staff who think their two
years of development work stack up to your 4 years of college and 6 years of
professional experience.

They take forever to start writing productive code, if they ever bother
leaning at all.

I will never hire someone without a degree or equivalent experience again.
Even for Jr. roles

~~~
nil_pointer
This strategy may weed out duds, but it will also occasionally overlook great
people. One of the brightest engineers I know dropped out of high school and
got a GED, but was obsessed with tech and practiced building things daily.
He's 30 and a VP now.

------
grigjd3
This feels a bit like a strawman. I've interviewed with FAANG companies and I
run interviews and I don't see these puzzle questions. I see people looking
for basics and looking into problem solving and hints that candidates have
done good work before. Granted, I've seen that urge to ask puzzle questions in
some quarters, but I've regularly seen that ignored. Maybe though I've been
blessed..

------
maybeiambatman
The author makes some good points. But, I wish they had offered some ways to
test the dimensions they speak of: courage, attitude etc.

------
warmind
So, with this in mind, can any more experienced professionals say how you can
stand out as an 'unproven' new grad/dev?

I've got work experience that isn't a tech internship (network support at a
major uni), and code projects, but without that internship (I did research
instead), it seems I and people like me are constantly at a disadvantage.

------
willart4food
Yup! Tom Peters - of "In Search of Excellence" fame - advocated the same
mantra back in the late 90's. Yes I am that old.

It makes for great copy. Really.

But then, when push comes to shove, the old search for a lego piece that fits
with all the other lego pieces continues, so that there's the alibi.

It reminds me of IBM's "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".

Life continues.

------
contingencies
In all fields, search for hacker mindset: curious, intelligent, self-
motivated, capable of independent R&D and execution.

------
calferreira
I don't think that the hiring process in terms of what you need is that hard.

You just need to hire people that match your company culture, matching the
skill set you need for a given salary range.

Hiring someone who blends well in the company culture is half way there.

Now, if there's someone that matches this line of thinking in the pool of
talents, is another story.

------
microtherion
> "Don't hire like FAANG companies"

I work for a FAANG, and we don't hire like that either. The motto is often
"hire for potential, not track record".

The dark pattern lurking in that is age discrimination: A motto like this can
easily be taken as an excuse to completely dismiss track record, or even
consider it detrimental.

------
arikrak
Nice post, I think it can be more difficult for less-experienced (but
talented) people to find jobs than it should be. However in some ways the
FAANG companies are better in this regard since they hire many people out of
college and strive to have an objective hiring process that can be passed by
less experienced people.

------
simonhamp
Hope you don't mind me sharing some thoughts I wrote on this topic that are
similar to the linked article...

Hiring is broken.

[https://medium.com/@simonhamp/a-new-way-to-hire-tech-
talent-...](https://medium.com/@simonhamp/a-new-way-to-hire-tech-
talent-942ca2e7db8f)

------
OliverJones
Joel Spolsky figured this out a while ago.

1\. Smart.

2\. Gets things done.

Read this. [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-
guid...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guide-to-
interviewing-version-30/)

~~~
lvh
There are good tidbits in that post, but the way you measure "smart" is awful
and almost entirely subjective. The conversation "just flows"? Really? Gee, I
wonder if that's likely to make you hire people who have the same background
as you.

I agree that the "gets things done" part is important! But I think you should
measure if they can, in a controlled environment, instead of just going off
the resume and seeing if it has worked out in the past. Lots of total dipshits
manage to ride on the coattails of successful teams.

------
rademacher
Seems to me that at some point hiring moved away from hiring based on
potential to hiring based on pure skill and how many boxes the candidate has
checked. Companies seem to just want people who can turn the crank, which
doesn't sound all that appealing.

------
goodoldboys
The author hits on a lot of great points here, that I believe speak to a
larger theme: there's a ton of undervalued programming talent out there and
finding that talent can give your company a huge leg-up on the market.

------
tylerchilds
I think the manhole covers are round because they're really heavy and it'd
probably be tedious to orient a square or any shape with multiple sides to
match up perfectly every time you put them back on.

------
m3kw9
If you look at NFL as an example, even with such intensity of the scouting
methods, that will tell you how hard it is to find talent

------
rllin
not only does the industry not have a labor union, there's a culture of
passion which is almost like having a negative union.

any time passion is involved, you are being paid less than market. cash is a
more liquid currency and can in fact buy passion.

------
zyngaro
So to fix hiring let's hire people on even more subjective bases !

------
kkotak
Don't forget, FAANG are looking for minions that fit the assembly line in 99%
of cases. Not original thinkers or people who are multi-talented, wearing many
hats.

------
whorleater
or be like Netflix and _only_ hire proven people and pay them a lot

------
patientplatypus
What amuses me more than anything else is that this dystopia was created by
software developers. Oh everyone is going to a bootcamp and saturating the dev
job market? Maybe you shouldn't have "disintermediated" every possible job
from accountant to truck driver. What's good for the goose is good for the
gander.

