Building a product in the technical recruiting space? Read this first

[log_n]

I liked the part about internal recruiter's incentive structure. It's basically the old standby that nobody ever gets fired for buying IBM. This implies to me that there's a huge amount of value for companies that can change their hiring metrics and find undervalued engineers.

One thing that I disagree with is the idea that filtering processes can't make candidates better. A properly created process should leave both sides of the equation happy, an engineer can learn new skills and a hiring manager can have a shot at making an offer to an engineer if s/he has the requisite skills. If the candidate doesn't have the skills then give them the tools to learn the skills and see if they come back showing mastery. Work ethic and being ready/willing/able to learn new things is the number one signal that an employee is going to work out well, at least on the teams that I have run.

[leeny]

Author here. What I meant was that right now there isn't much of a feedback loop when it comes to interviewing. If you get rejected, you often don't know why. And that sucks.

[brudgers]

Perhaps the author's point about filtering wasn't so clearly made. The idea is that if the best candidate that enters the funnel is a 6.2 on a 10 point scale, no amount of filtering will produce an 8.3 out of 10 candidate. To get 8.3 candidates to the filter you have to source candidates above 6.2.

[troels]

I found that interesting as well. If that's true - and I assume it is, if the author says so - it's completely bonkers. I wonder what the purpose of those in-house recruiters really is, if all they do is source candidates with pedigree? That's something linkedin can do for you.

[bootload]

@leeny, Q. for you, how should startups tackle the problem of re-qualifying "experienced programmers" outlined in this quote:

"There are good arguments for allowing experienced programmers to skip screening steps, and not have to continually re-prove themselves." [0]

How do you solve this problem? Surgeons, pilots, Infantry soldiers, classical musician have extensive and verified training that equips them for high levels of technical execution in each field. Each of these professions have some form of continual re-testing and evaluation. What makes technical candidates in software a special case?

[0] "Three hundred programming interviews in thirty days" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9766816

[ovi256]

I did five year of engineering school, like a lot of other people. Let's see how I could have used this time in other fields.

In five years, an infantry soldier can go to bootcamp (BCT, 10 weeks), advanced infantry combat school (4 weeks). Then he'll go on to a combat unit, and train with them to prepare for a combat deployment. With a week or two of visits home, this will take up the first year. He could use the remaining four years to conduct up to two 18 months combat tours (with about six month back in country after each one), deployed in a warzone. At the end of his five years, providing everything went well, he will be considered ready to try joining the special forces, if his IQ and fitness are good enough. He could go to NCO school or officer school even sooner, after his first combat tour.

At the end of his five years, a just graduated engineer is considered too green to touch a production server, much less try joining the 'special forces' of our profession. The difference in autonomy in various professions after five years is striking. A surgeon would just start his internship, and assist senior surgeons, but a pilot would already be flying for several years!

[leeny]

Credentialing of some kind needs to exist for software engineering. Clearly traditional means like college degree aren't cutting it, and more and more people are going outside the system to learn to code, so I expect degrees are going to become even more noisy over the next few years.

Whatever this credentialing looks like, I hope it's based on ability rather than proxies.

[gizi]

What makes someone a good engineer? Who would have thought that Larry Page or Sergey Brin were simply magical engineers BEFORE they devised Google Search and created nearly half a trillion dollars in value? In my impression, you will only know when it is too late already, because at that point they no longer need you.

[eru]

They were already at Stanford..

[suttree]

"Engineering hiring isn’t a filtering problem. It’s a sourcing problem." Yes and all hiring is a sourcing problem, when it comes down to it.

There are so many recruitment companies are out there on the horizon, especially in London right now.

It's a big space to dive into and a lot of people assume that they can tech their way out of it, but it takes a lot more than a fancy algorithm and a joint dislike of shitty recruiters to be useful.

[ExpiredLink]

> my advice is based on the current market climate, where engineering demand severely outstrips supply

in Silicon Valley? The entire US? Certainly not in Europe.

[pjc50]

Perhaps this is a good time to float the idea that developers should have a transfer market, like footballers, with the associated talent development process.

It would then be worthwhile to train and improve your employees, as they become a tradeable capital-like asset rather than a form of labour.

(The downside might be greater difficulty in quitting toxic employers; perhaps another job for the standards body / union.)

[itgoon]

Nice writeup, especially the part about internal recruitment incentives.

Thank you.

[eonw]

or really just accept the fact that the recruiting business is sketchy and most people, talent and hiring managers no longer trust most outside recruiters.

[rnovak]

I'm really sorry, but I stopped reading when it was implied that the "good" engineers are the ones at Facebook/Google that went to MIT. If that's your idea of a necessary condition for "good" engineers, I think you deserve what you get.

[jsnell]

The old "I stopped reading at ..." routine is pretty annoying even in the best of circumstances, but particularly so when the basis of the complaint is misinterpreting the article. There is no implication made in the article about only Facebook/Google engineers being "good". There is however exactly the opposite implication being made about both the definition of "good", and how this kind of credentialism is a structural issue. Too bad you stopped reading before getting there.

[tptacek]

Message board nerd pro-tip: You can always --- like, in every single case --- make your comment better by changing "I stopped reading" to "I almost stopped reading". It conveys exactly the same sentiment without broadcasting the notion that you haven't actually read the thing you're criticizing.

[btilly]

You stopped reading too soon. If you'd read through, in Example 1 you'll find an explanation of why companies have an incentive to focus on credentialed engineers, and a footnote indicating that her willingness to source other kinds of candidates has caused problems for her with internal recruiting.

By no means does she think that the only good engineers are credentialed.

[asmithmd1]

You need to keep reading, they explain the mis-aligned incentives of an internal recruiter later: 1. Bring in 10 StanFaceGoogMIT candidates, one gets an offer they don't accept - keep up the good work.

2. Bring in 10 ugly on paper candidates, two get an offer, and one accepts - expect a stern talking to about your performance.

[rokhayakebe]

When you say I stopped reading when then you make a judgment you also have to accept your idea is based on incomplete information.

Edit: Btw I upvoted because I believe we should all try to refrain from making judgments based on incomplete information, WHEN we have the data in front of us but decide not to go through it all. I do this a lot.

[rokhayakebe]

Ok, why do people keep down-voting movak. They just stated his opinion, rectify them if wrong, but down-voting is not very helpful. Also we should up-vote comments we truly disagree with to give others an opportunity to learn what may be wrong.

[ska]

A corollary to "I stopped reading when..." is usually "I don't know enough about what they wrote to support an opinion".

[ionforce]

You don't sound sorry.

[notNow]

I stopped reading at "I stopped reading at ..."

[fsk]

He missed my favorite sleazy tactic. One of these technical recruiting companies is advertising a job ... and you have to sign up for it with their alpha system. It usually is so buggy that I can't complete the process.

[dcre]

She.