"Hiring remote engineers by flying them in turned out to be a disaster. Great engineers — and great people — can sometimes turn out to be shitty at being remote,” Smith said. “The reason is they’ve never worked remotely before and they’re not used to distractions at home so they’re on their best behavior."
That's an interesting argument. I guess it's just an example and I shouldn't read too much into it, but to me the opposite is true: at home I am completely in sync with my surroundings, have no distractions and have certain "rituals" that make me more productive. It's the constant interruptions and distractions at the office that would make me terribly unproductive if someone would fly me in to assess my abilities on-site.
Absolutely this for me, too. I find it hard to buckle down and hack productively in flow in any open office plan (which is all startups). I end up going to one of the "meeting rooms" and staying in there holed up all day with headphones on facing away from the windows into the hallway just to get any work done, and even then, I get constant interruptions because I end up having to turn the lights off because they're too bright, and people think the room's empty and available (even when "booked" through those fancy systems some companies use).
Meanwhile, working remote, I can lay on the couch or in bed and hack meaningfully for 12 hours and do it again the day after. Actually, this is what I do for side projects while I'm on vacation, and it's how I truly de-stress and relax. It strikes me as completely strange that I have to explain this to pretty much every single (non-recruiter) person that emails me about a job about why I am only interested in remote positions. How can the tech industry be so old and this idea still so foreign?
I've been remote for about 3 years, and I do agree a little with the idea that being at home can pose new distractions.
But IME it's a solvable problem: Train others in the house that just because you're "home" doesn't really mean you're "home", during the workday. Improve soundproofing as needed. Adjust work-habits in some cases, etc.
If companies would put as much money and attention into getting remote workers properly setup as that otherwise would have put into facilities management, office-space rental, etc., I bet the gap would close pretty quickly.
Anecdotally, I am completely unable to work at home. I need an office, or a cafe, or some space away from my personal private spaces. Keeps me accountable, and removes a large class of distractions that (from experience) I would be unable to resist.
On the "running" side of things, lately I've been looking for solutions to fact that distributed teams can't gather in front of an actual whiteboard for discussion / design.
I've been surprised by how hard it is to find cheap, effective alternatives. Cost is a particular concern when each person works from his/her own location.
(1) At the high end, you have dedicated large-screen devices with dedicated software, like Google Jamboard. Gorgeous, awesome, very expensive. $5k+ USD.
(2) Next step down in terms of price and glitz: the combination of a real whiteboard + a projector + special hardware for monitoring pens and/or hands. About $1k USD if you have to buy the whiteboard, and already have the computer.
(3) Next step down in terms of size, but about the same price: tether a touch-/pen- sensitive display to your computer. E.g., iPad Pro, or Wacom Cintiq or a cheap knockoff. ~$400-$1200 USD, depending on device and size.
Pros: Portable.
Cons: Much smaller area to draw.
(4) Status quo: Each person sits at his/her desk, using a mouse or (if they don't mind smudges and/or gorilla arms) a touch-sensitive laptop screen.
Pros: Ubiquitous.
Cons: Not fluid way to draw / annotate for most people.
* Note: The breakdown above focuses on HW. I'm assuming that the SW side is at least somewhat solved by online, shared docs such as Google Draw, Realtimeboard, etc.
* Note 2: A lot of the online collaboration sites are a hard sell in corporate environments if sensitive information is to be shared.
The hardware may still be prohibitive cost-wise and/or underdeveloped, but mixed reality headsets may eventually be a potential solution for this problem.
I strongly (very strongly) disagree with the idea of a "hack week". Having multiple rounds of interviewing and a programming challenge seems reasonable to me, but if you think you've found someone who is the right fit, hire them. Everyone makes mistakes, but have some courage, and be willing to fire fast if it isn't a good fit. People want to work at places that value them, and "conditionally" hiring someone does not convey that message
It's part of the continual corporate drive to push risks off the company and onto the employee. No self-respecting employee should do a take home exam, or do a "hack week", because every time you do, you normalize and reward this behavior.
OMFG. their hiring process is ... worrying. An online test, phone screen, hour of paired hacking then a conditional offer and a "hack week" - a weeks try out.
I balk at doing screening tests like hackerrank. I don't get how you can expect someone to spend a probationary week, with no real guarantee of work. they stop the job hunt, tell other employers no thanks, and bang 50/50 pass rate perhaps?
I don't get it. Hiring remote is hard but this seems too much.
I used to agree with you 100%, but there are so many fraudulent candidates out there, it is ridiculous. My team just went though a round of contractor hiring that was atrocious... literally 80% obvious fraud.
If you attract the wrong kind of attention, there are companies that basically provide phoney resumes for candidates who often don’t exist. Typically you interview remotely, encounter technical issues or even talk to a totally different person, and a different guy shows up for the final interview.
For some skill sets, like SAP or Oracle stuff, candidates go to a boot camp, buy a BS resume with fake references, and have a few months of access to a help desk for somebody to walk them through basic tasks.
Yeah, apart from contractors who are between gigs, I can't imagine very many people who can work for a week as part of the hiring process. And even if many applicants could, I think it takes longer, sometimes quite a bit longer, to accurately assess the degree to which a developer will contribute to a engineering organization.
Hackerranking is not a good proxy, unless the job is solving online quizzes. Nevertheless, most can't turn their back on a job opportunity at the very first red flag.
Yes hacker rank and the like are the result of the credentialist culture, which is a negative influence on the industry as a whole hiring people based on rote learning and memorisation does not really get you the best candidates.
You just get cheap and desperate people with good memory who are unlikely to do the research required and produce a solution when they come up against a solution they haven't rote learned.
Companies employing the strategy of "everyone has to take the test" are missing out on great candidates. The best employees respect their own time enough to not spend time on an exam/busywork. The best employees often also have copious Github repos that you could read up on, or quiz them about.
But maybe the "take home test" strategy is about identifying candidates that will sacrifice their free time for your company.
No matter how you look at it, it doesn't look good.
Like everything in life, encoded into those decisions are tradeoffs.
Just relying on code on Github is okay -- until you realize some people don't like to work on non-proprietary code in their free time, preferring to spend it with family.
Just relying on deep questioning is okay -- until you realize some people are excellent at learning and communicating complex topics but haven't actually implemented it yet.
Just relying on live coding is okay -- until you realize some people have bad anxiety and can't perform in that sort of environment.
Just relying on take home tests is okay -- until you realize people don't like working for free on the off chance you'll hire them.
While I don't like some processes more than others, I've also never been truly satisfied with any hiring process I've put together (and we've tried all types) -- perhaps because hiring is a fundamentally flawed process. Perhaps the best advice is: don't work for a company that interviews in a way you don't like, and don't hire people who don't like the way you interview. The best we can do at that point is be transparent up front.
It all sounded reasonable until a conditional offer with a week of trial... I’m a consultant and certainly used to that but WTF for an employee that’s going on a fraction of my rate.
I guess if you hire really remote folks from other countries (that might not have internet connection or be on the right time zone), but still.
stingraycharles|8 years ago
That's an interesting argument. I guess it's just an example and I shouldn't read too much into it, but to me the opposite is true: at home I am completely in sync with my surroundings, have no distractions and have certain "rituals" that make me more productive. It's the constant interruptions and distractions at the office that would make me terribly unproductive if someone would fly me in to assess my abilities on-site.
fapjacks|8 years ago
Meanwhile, working remote, I can lay on the couch or in bed and hack meaningfully for 12 hours and do it again the day after. Actually, this is what I do for side projects while I'm on vacation, and it's how I truly de-stress and relax. It strikes me as completely strange that I have to explain this to pretty much every single (non-recruiter) person that emails me about a job about why I am only interested in remote positions. How can the tech industry be so old and this idea still so foreign?
ktothemc|8 years ago
DoofusOfDeath|8 years ago
But IME it's a solvable problem: Train others in the house that just because you're "home" doesn't really mean you're "home", during the workday. Improve soundproofing as needed. Adjust work-habits in some cases, etc.
If companies would put as much money and attention into getting remote workers properly setup as that otherwise would have put into facilities management, office-space rental, etc., I bet the gap would close pretty quickly.
beisner|8 years ago
jcadam|8 years ago
Another of life's little Catch-22s I suppose.
DoofusOfDeath|8 years ago
I've been surprised by how hard it is to find cheap, effective alternatives. Cost is a particular concern when each person works from his/her own location.
(1) At the high end, you have dedicated large-screen devices with dedicated software, like Google Jamboard. Gorgeous, awesome, very expensive. $5k+ USD.
(2) Next step down in terms of price and glitz: the combination of a real whiteboard + a projector + special hardware for monitoring pens and/or hands. About $1k USD if you have to buy the whiteboard, and already have the computer.
(3) Next step down in terms of size, but about the same price: tether a touch-/pen- sensitive display to your computer. E.g., iPad Pro, or Wacom Cintiq or a cheap knockoff. ~$400-$1200 USD, depending on device and size. Pros: Portable. Cons: Much smaller area to draw.
(4) Status quo: Each person sits at his/her desk, using a mouse or (if they don't mind smudges and/or gorilla arms) a touch-sensitive laptop screen. Pros: Ubiquitous. Cons: Not fluid way to draw / annotate for most people.
* Note: The breakdown above focuses on HW. I'm assuming that the SW side is at least somewhat solved by online, shared docs such as Google Draw, Realtimeboard, etc.
* Note 2: A lot of the online collaboration sites are a hard sell in corporate environments if sensitive information is to be shared.
edmundhuber|8 years ago
sekou|8 years ago
peterlk|8 years ago
edmundhuber|8 years ago
lifeisstillgood|8 years ago
I balk at doing screening tests like hackerrank. I don't get how you can expect someone to spend a probationary week, with no real guarantee of work. they stop the job hunt, tell other employers no thanks, and bang 50/50 pass rate perhaps?
I don't get it. Hiring remote is hard but this seems too much.
Spooky23|8 years ago
If you attract the wrong kind of attention, there are companies that basically provide phoney resumes for candidates who often don’t exist. Typically you interview remotely, encounter technical issues or even talk to a totally different person, and a different guy shows up for the final interview.
For some skill sets, like SAP or Oracle stuff, candidates go to a boot camp, buy a BS resume with fake references, and have a few months of access to a help desk for somebody to walk them through basic tasks.
arenaninja|8 years ago
The one time I took one that was 4 hours it was (luckily for me) a disaster
dhd415|8 years ago
a_imho|8 years ago
Hackerranking is not a good proxy, unless the job is solving online quizzes. Nevertheless, most can't turn their back on a job opportunity at the very first red flag.
walshemj|8 years ago
You just get cheap and desperate people with good memory who are unlikely to do the research required and produce a solution when they come up against a solution they haven't rote learned.
silverdemon|8 years ago
[deleted]
edmundhuber|8 years ago
But maybe the "take home test" strategy is about identifying candidates that will sacrifice their free time for your company.
No matter how you look at it, it doesn't look good.
bryanh|8 years ago
Just relying on code on Github is okay -- until you realize some people don't like to work on non-proprietary code in their free time, preferring to spend it with family.
Just relying on deep questioning is okay -- until you realize some people are excellent at learning and communicating complex topics but haven't actually implemented it yet.
Just relying on live coding is okay -- until you realize some people have bad anxiety and can't perform in that sort of environment.
Just relying on take home tests is okay -- until you realize people don't like working for free on the off chance you'll hire them.
While I don't like some processes more than others, I've also never been truly satisfied with any hiring process I've put together (and we've tried all types) -- perhaps because hiring is a fundamentally flawed process. Perhaps the best advice is: don't work for a company that interviews in a way you don't like, and don't hire people who don't like the way you interview. The best we can do at that point is be transparent up front.
sheeshkebab|8 years ago
I guess if you hire really remote folks from other countries (that might not have internet connection or be on the right time zone), but still.