Hacker News Reader

> so many its not even funny. AI this and that. Personality and behavior assessments. Automate everything. chatbots to save recruiting. BLAH BLAH Fucking blah. Some have certainly made sourcing and outreach better but as iwang mentioned very few of these address the personal side of hiring engineers. The idea that you can assess an engineers ability to code AND collaborate with your team in a 3-5 hour window is just a losing battle. Hackerrank and triplebyte are good for the very large corps to rule people out and slim down the funnel. Not a real reflection of the work, code, or problems you will be solving in the job if hired.

These tools are fine if you are a top 5 firm in your area and offering a 6 figure salary. Everyone does the Google take-home.

If you aren't Google, your completion rate for whatever assessment you use is going to get lower and lower the less you pay or prestige you have. Because strong candidates are already moving to the next stages at better companies.

> Personally I think small companies would be far better served investing in sourcing tools to attract and located the right talent. Have your leadership pitch these people directly hunt talent versus tools to automate volume (95% of which are not the people you are seeking any way).

Spend less on tools and more on signing bonus. Campus career fair is probably the best place to start, along with referral for more senior positions. Also, keep in mind HR is there to sign documents and offers, not to screen technical candidates.

I found that I had to just put in hours on LinkedIn searching and sending notes myself as the Director of Engineering.

That's also a good way to go.

For an engineer, getting a random non-technical recruiter's message is almost always spam.

But getting one from the CTO, no matter if job hunting or not, is always worth at least a response.

I used to think so too but now it's become obvious that someone else is sending on behalf of the "CTO" or I've just been added into an automated funnel.

That's how I felt as well. I even got one from a Cloud Kitchens that "cc'd" Travis Kalanick. Give me a break

> Personality and behavior assessments. Automate everything. chatbots to save recruiting.

Literally every one of those things I would dismiss a company for using.

During my last job search I even politely called out a couple of companies for using them. I did get a nice response that could be summed up as: "yeah we figured someone would say they are bullshit and we agree"

I did get interviews with those companies but declined

It's not like having a bad date, it's them fucking up even asking you out on a date

Now not politely I would say that assessments and personality tests and all the other BS thrown an applicants way are stupid, easily game, a downright waste of everyones time and give an immediate indicator the company sucks. The person that thought it was a good idea at the company should be replaced.

Ideally candidates should be able to toss an assessment back to the person doing the hiring to take on the companies behalf

What's good for the goose after all

I have 12 years of Tech recruitment experience and was about to write exactly this (with worse grammar and style though).

Most'solutions' that claim that recruitment is broken, don't understand recruitment.

This is interesting, from what I have seen the solutions are trying to solve symptoms but not the fundamental root problem.

What is the entire interview process to solve, the problem is trust. Can we trust this person to know what they claim they know, can we trust this person to be a good member of the team etc.

The reason we do code interviews, whiteboard exercises, culture fit assesstments is to make sure we want trust that hire.

Every company tries and checks for different things, the question that I been asking is there a model for someone to provide 'trust by proxy'