Skill focused Tech hiring and not public speaking
In today’s world, hiring qualified technology engineers is becoming very challenging, and our industry continues to struggle with it The focus has been just charisma and akin to choosing someone with a personality test rather than an audition for the role itself. Our world is full of people who can speak expertly about programming and technology, but can’t effectively design and implement. Majority of those who are good in technology aspect (design, code and implement) can’t do well in an interview. These are techies with good social skills to actively listen to someone else’s points, to guide a discussion on their own, or to spot opportunities to redirect a tough question back to familiar territory. These build impressive resumes. They effortlessly pass “culture fit” tests. For every genuinely competent and effective developer can’t. Interviews today select for the ability to control a conversation. They miss the ability to fix broken software. Some of highlights (should say Low points) are:
- Resumes don’t provide much useful information about candidates. Most of the resumes look similar and gets tailored based on the job advertisements
- Adversarial tech-out phone as this creates a handicap to candidates, who do not know what to expect.
- Tech Industry is one of the most diverse field in the world. Understanding someone over the phone is a huge challenge and hence candidates underperform.
- Online theoretical tests provides some degree of relief faced by both candidates and employers. But, more often, they assess the knowhow rather than the actual skill. Also, the measurement used in them can never be correlated properly to the Job itself.
- Some employers try to indulge in an trial period where candidates are paid to fix random bugs. This is expensive, time consuming and not necessarily standardized.
With a little change, employers could benefit a lot and gain a good ROI.
We all seem to be oblivious to implications of bad phone screens and interview processes. In the end, hiring teams pay the steepest price for poor, biased, and unreliable selection. Candidates cannot be blamed for irrational processes. So ask yourself some questions about the current hiring process.
- Is it consistent ? Does every candidate get the same interview?
- Does it generate data beyond hire/no-hire?
- How are you collecting and comparing that data? Are you learning both from your successes and failures?
- Does the process make candidates demonstrate the work your do? Imagine your candidate is a “natural” who has never done the work, but has a preternatural aptitude for it. Could your hire that person, or would you miss them because they have the wrong kind of GitHub profile?
- Are candidates fully prepared? Does the onus for showing the candidate in their best light fall on you, or the candidate?
- Show me you are capable, instead of asking question about the kind of work they do, have candidates actually prove their mettle
- Real World challenges, that mirror the actual work a candidate will perform.
- Standardized measurement process, to measure everyone in the same scale.
- Generate meaningful analytics, to provide insight into the skills of the candidates and needed for the Job. We don’t just rant, but probe the candidates strengths in different technical dimensions
- Don’t “fast-path” candidates, bring clarity and decisiveness to the evaluation process.
- Collect object facts, things like “unit test coverage”, “algorithmic complexity”, and “corner cases handled”, are facts. Remove guesswork, observe facts and decide on them.
- Ready scoring rubric to decide on a candidate, if you’re scoring candidates differently, you’re missing the point.
- Avoiding “Gotchas”, let candidates do work on their own time and at their own comfort. A perfect platform to identify the best match.
If you would like to learn more, ping us and we will be happy to assist you with a Demo .