Adam, There's a lot there so I'm going to try and snip some out and hopefully not break the intent of your discussion: "spent around 1 week on a coding test" I don't think I made myself clear there, the test itself isn't an entire week's worth of coding. It should take a few hours. It's more I get nervous (an therefore more critical) if the code test hasn't returned to me after a week.
"Listening to your critique of candidates made me a little uncomfortable" I'm not surprised, it's an uncomfortable subject and I might suggest that one reason it is uncomfortable is because I focussed on some of the things that shouldn't appear. But I believe someone needs to talk these things. We can't improve if we don't know what needs to improve. "but companies do seem to be becoming somewhat arogant about what is a fair burden to put on a candidate (who after all, is not being paid for their time and often will not get the job)" I stopped believing in my own ability to judge a candidate merely via interview some time ago. I know a number of companies that are more extensive in their recruitment process and I think it's a trend that wil continue for some time yet. Over time I've drifted further and further towards a higher barrier rather than a lower barrier to entry because when it doesn't work out no one gains anything. >From a fiscal POV if you hire on top of the salary I may also pay a placement fee of as high 25% of the annual salary (if I use a recruiter). Worse though is the effect if the candidate doesn't work out. Disrupting the team on an emotional level as well as inflicting a stressful experience on the unsuccessful candidate. Then on top of that I get to spend the time and effort of recruiting again which I've found to be normally measured in months. Meanwhile adding stress to the team and opportunity costs for the business too through a lack of help with the workload. Between those concerns I want to hire once and correctly. My role as a manager is to clear the way for the team to do their thing, making sure they are joined by only those who are going to positively add the team. There's a measure of arrogance there so I guess I'm guilty as charged. "I think that companies that want to put in place such hiring practices need to be prepared to repay unsuccessful candidates for their time with well considered feedback and advice." Personally I've followed up every unsuccessful code test with at personalised feedback on why they failed. Last night's presentation was a cumulative collection of antipatterns I've seen. As I said last night I genuinely don't want anyone to ever fail a code test and if I could I'd rather recruit without doing a code test at all. Regards Rob On 24 February 2012 16:34, Adam Boas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I listened with interest to your talk last night and had a think back over > the many interactions I have had with the recruitment process both as a > candidate and as a hirer. Litening to your critique of candidates made me a > little uncomfortable but I couldn't put my finger on exactly what the > problem was at the time. Apon reflection I think the source of my discomfort > was this: > > Many companies these days, often for good reason, are making the hiring > process considerably more ownerous to candidates (and incidentally to > themselves). Multiple interviews, a requirement to be a good culture fit > (whatever that is), and code tests are becoming more and more common. > Expecting candidates to do all this is fine and well but companies do seem > to be becoming somewhat arogant about what is a fair burden to put on a > candidate (who after all, is not being paid for their time and often will > not get the job). > > I'm not suggesting that companies shouldn't put in place processes to > increase the likelihood of making a good hiring choice, but I do suggest > that such companies should think about what they in turn owe the candidates. > What, after all, does a candidate who has been to 2 interviews and > spent around 1 week on a coding test (I think that was the time frame you > metntioned in your talk) get out of the experience should they fail to get > the job? I think that companies that want to put in place such hiring > practices need to be prepared to repay unsuccessful candidates for their > time with well considered feedback and advice. > > I want to stress, I have never interviewed at C3 and this is not actually > directed at you or C3 in particular. It is more that I started thinking > about how little I myself have given back to condidates who have been > unsuccessful at various companies where I have been a tech lead or dev > manager and how useful it might have been for some of those failed > candidates to get back a really detailed synopsis of problems I saw in their > code test or interview and pair that with some suggested reading or other > resources where they might improve the areas where they had problems. There > is a real power differential that happens when someone applies as a > candidate for a job and it would be awesome if companies who use that > differential to leverage candidates to do a fair deal of work to be > considered, also took their commensurate reponsiblity just as seriously. > > Cheers, > > Adam Boas > m:+61 (0)457 741 117 > e:[email protected] > > > > On 24/02/2012, at 1:44 PM, Robert Postill wrote: > > Thanks to you too for hosting Ben :) > > My slides are on slideshare at > http://www.slideshare.net/robertpostill/how-to-pass-a-ruby-code-test. > > Rob > > On 24 February 2012 11:53, Ben Hoskings <[email protected]> wrote: > > Good stuff :) Cheers Fred. > > > Here's the analogue blogue from last night: https://gist.github.com/1896373 > > > Thanks to Pat, Ivan, Rob & Gareth for their talks last night, I really > enjoyed all of them. > > > And another grateful tip of the hat to Heroku for generously sponsoring our > drinks last night -- I think pretty much everyone had a cleansing ale or two > on the Heroku tab. > > > Cheers! > > Ben > > > > > On 23/02/2012, at 11:54 PM, Fred Wu wrote: > > > Some snapshots of tonight's RORO: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/76172385@N07/sets/72157629436433815/ > > > Love, > > Some creepy dude in the dark > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rails-oceania/-/EkMCqWozfHQJ. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
