Confidence bias selects for candidates who are good at interviewing [and not necessarily coding]. Solutions:

  • first call: serious applicants get 30-45 min pre-screen call with director
    • put at ease
    • sell job
    • anodyne questions about the candidate, AMA-style Q&A so the candidate understands the role
    • exhaustive explanation of hiring process
  • :warning: assume resume/background/experience have no bearing (!) on ability/performance
  • On that first-call, ask technical Qs to find out how acquainted they were with our field. Many weren’t, at all
    • :warning: Those candidates got a study guide, a couple of free books, and an open invitation to proceed with the process whenever they were ready. Those $80 in books candidates received had one of the best ROIs of any investment we made anywhere in the business. Some of our best hires couldn’t have happened without us bringing them up to speed
  • work-sample tests should:
    • :heavy_check_mark: mirror as closely as possible the actual job
    • :heavy_check_mark: standardized (same for all candidates)
    • :warning: graded (have scoring rubric), not a simple pass/fail
    • not be a 2-week trial period as a contractor… best candidates won’t do this
    • :warning: Kill tests that don’t predict. You need multiple tests :see_no_evil:. monitor ones you rely on consistently, kill the rest
  • Don’t have an elite-candidate fast path
    • :warning: forces you make the standardised tests good
    • gives you grades for elite candidates
  • :warning: Collect objective facts
    • test coverage, Algorithmic complexity, handling known corner cases
  • :heavy_check_mark: Prep candidates
    • “Cleverness under pressure” is not valuable
    • let candidates work on their own time, from their own home, provided them tech support
  • :warning: Standardise and discount interviews
    • interview from a script, every candidate gets the same interview