A topic that was predominant last week was the hiring system for software engineers (here and here). The underlying message of the articles and the discussions on Twitter were that the current system is broken, and excludes many people that would be a great fit.
What is your experience? And do you feel the system is broken?
Developers are in such high demand in Amsterdam and having skills in react and node there are very few hoops I would jump thought to get a job as a developer.
The average tenure of a software developer is 18 months, so, I would say the breakage runs far deeper than the hiring process.
I would be willing to go with a on-site programming interview, whiteboard questions (I think they're useful to decode how someone thinks), take home questions that last for an hour, and take home quizzes.
I'm not willing to do take home tests that last for hour or more, or creating and giving presentations when that is not part of the job description. Also going on site more than once. Once is easy to do, multiple times is harder.
I will suffer hanker rank if it doesn't take more than an hour of my time.
When sending in this one job application takes a whole day and then I have to go through a five round interview process, that is hopeless.
Personally, don't want to go through any kind harassment or mental torture in the name of Jumping the Hoops.
I don't mind going through:
Are these burning? At a high level, No. but anyone can turn these to frustrating enough by unnecessary drags, biased opinion and imposing bad culture on the interviewee.
Now-a-days, I am mostly at the other side where I have every chance to partner the crime or make it better. I am still trying my best!
Recently I attended an Interview on ThoughtWorks which took two days.
I am okay with it. I am like It does not matter what hoops coming through, prepare to jump
Realistically it's just a matter of the best ratio of job quality vs hoops.
If I know it's a great opportunity, wasting several days on useless or unpleasant hoop-jumping would be tolerable.
In practise though, I find it hard to know which jobs are worth a lot of hoops, and there's a lot of jobs I can apply for. So if there are too many hoops, I might just try somewhere else.
As to the specific hoops, I kind of like the at-home programming puzzles. I mean, I've done Hackerrank for fun, why not for a job? I don't think it should take more than about 4 hours, I've seen people spend way more than that.
I'm not sure it's smart for a company to reject people who can't solve algorithmic challenges. But I don't really mind myself if I am asked about those. I'd like to do work that requires those skills.
I'd be a big plus if I don't need to take several days of my current job. So I'd be willing to do more if I can do it in evenings or weekends.
Pretty much any hoop that presents itself. I just want to be doing what I like doing and learning more.
Hoops ... actually things I think are reasonable.
such things. I usually, based on the hoops, check if the company is worth my time :). I got a limited amount of time on this planet. There are so few things that are worth the effort besides prestige or money (both I only got little interest in, money is just a question of principle).
Idk. I would say I would do a lot for a topic I find super interesting, with people I find interesting. Usually I am more interested in learning and working with other people than the actual project.
And if the people are engaging usually the project is as well. That's ofc just my narrative I want to believe in ;D ... I am more the weird, crazy person who likes to understand things. Others probably have different values or needs.
When I was younger and less experienced I would jump trough every hoop :) but back then I didn't know the consequences or meaning of them. Now after having multiple roles I understand certain underlying concepts or why they exist.
Anyhow ... basically I say ... no hoops that are not burning, having a pit of poisonous snakes or other cruelties at the end .... because the normal ones became boring a while ago ;D ....
Personally, I have gone through "traditional" hiring cycles.
For my role at Microsoft, I had a pre-screen, a programming assignment, followed by a phone interview, and finally, an onsite-interview packed with 10 hours of coding challenges and discussions. Fortunately, all of my interviewers were reasonable people. Not a single jerk amongst them. The interviews were challenging but pleasant.
But that's not always guaranteed. And I had some horrible experiences with judgemental interviewers and questions that were completely out of context at other companies.
Why did I go through all of this? Well, probably because I knew there isn't a way around if I really want to land that particular job. I knew I have to "prove" myself by going through this process. But now, that I prove to myself that I have what it takes to go through such an interview, I am super hesitant to do it again. Why?
Because I think this process and the high-pressure that comes with it is not a particularly good one to assess people in a holistic way. But also, because I feel more and more that it is disrespectful to ask developers to study up on algorithm, complexity theory and all of that for each interview every single time they interview again. Well, the topic is much more complex than that. Now that I write this, I think I should deep dive into my experiences and thoughts in a separate post. What do you think?
Paul M. Watson
Works with humans and digital technology to solve problems. Say hello. They\them.
I won't jump through hoops for a job. The job isn't hoop jumping so why would the interview process be. If they make you jump hoops before you even sign a contract imagine what it will be like once hired. As Anil Dash says there should be "zero gaps between our stated and lived values."
(This is from the privilege of an experienced developer in IT. Ideally all jobs would treat candidates properly though.)