I hate whiteboards unless they have funky magnets and its architectural, not algorithms or writing code. So just using it as a means to communicate not as a qualifier tool.
2. Contract to hire
I don't have a problem with this, putting someone on the books is painful if it doesn't work out. Honestly prefer it so tax season is simple so I don't have t4s and submitting for my business.
It depends, I had one startup where it was 1.5 years in and I had to yell all them to put me on the books.
3. More than 3 interviews
More than 3 seems excessive. Depends on the size of the company. If its AWS than I'm expecting 3+
If you less than 100 heads than 3+ is a red flag
4. Culture fit interviews
I don't feel like you know until someone works for you. If its a guise to check for behavioural issues I get it, that's what HR Screen is supposed to do as well.
My attitude is your company is like a soup, and each person you add is a new flavour, your company changes when you add a person, you don't shove people in a box. At least this is how I see it for 15 or fewer employees. Above 15 I understand the cubby hole mentality of hiring.
5. Group interviews
Yeah, these are weird. Government or Schools use panel interviews. I get it. I'm not a big fan when there are two developers in the room. It gets confusing. Normally its because one is a junior shadowing the other so it's not a real group interview
6. Endurance interviews
Can be tiring but since most of the times, people are booking the day, good to get it all done in one day instead of using up multiple sick days. I normally drive into town so they might as well get me all day. Sometimes though I just want to stop after the first interview, so can be a drag if you want to leave and now you have to put a stop to the rest of the process.
7. HR Screens
HR Screening should be part of your process, but not to filter out candidates at the front of your hiring funnel
8. No senior leadership in the interviews
I won't interview where I don't meet the CTO/CEO and I will normally ask I talk to them first before I even talk to a hiring manager. This is for 70 people or less size companies. I do this because I want to influence the key decision-maker and avoid getting filtered by underlings who don't know talent when they see it or might consider me competition which could jeopardize their position.
Also, it shows who serious about hiring or if they are just going through many applicants with no serious pain points that need solving
9. Reluctance to discuss pay or benefits
Again depends. Big companies need to tell me upfront. Small companies and startups, the money is there for the right person, so it comes down to bringing the proof and negation that rate.
10. Required in-person interviews
I don't mind in-person if there is a reason to come. If I still lived down-town I don't care so much but having to drive 40mins for a meeting where they are going to have an impromptu whiteboard is awful.
I agree that many of these things are flexible for 90% of people. I'm pretty strict on them because I've got options, but I wouldn't recommend that every junior follow this list as law.
However, I would recommend that everyone make their own list of interviewing red flags, tech hiring is very broken...
"I would recommend that everyone make their own list of interviewing red flags"
It would be impossible as an employer to conduct an interview that would be "fair" to all candidates if everyone made up their own list of "red flags" and held companies accountable to their unknown set of arbitrary rules.
A lot of the things you covered above are minor inconveniences at best rather than "red flags". Having multiple interviews happens because teams are busy, schedules are tight, and there's more to finding a good candidate than knowing whether or not they can code. There are loads of great engineers who are lousy co-workers. Small companies (and large ones too, really) need to be careful about hiring people who are going to be disruptive to their teams. Yeah, it's kind of annoying to have a few interviews, but it's even more annoying to not spend enough time up-front and make a decision that's wrong for either or both parties.
As for HR Screens, there are lots of reasons that those are really useful for companies. An astonishing number of people simply lie on their resumes. Instead of taking the technical team away from work to find that out, an up-front screen can catch things like that. If you're looking for someone who's good with clients, and they fumble through a phone screen with HR, then you haven't wasted your tech team's time. If you want to discuss salary up-front to ensure there's alignment, then an HR Screen is useful. You might be 100% on the up-and-up, and in that case, the screen seems worthless to you, but HR Screens filter out huge numbers of unqualified candidates. They are a reaction to the reality of the job market.
CEO's, CTO's, etc. have better things to focus on than individual hires. Hopefully, they're driving the 5-10+ year vision of a company and not micromanaging every hire. If you have to have a C-level executive present to answer a question from a prospective engineer then something's very broken. Imagine how much time leaders would spend just sitting in interviews, when would they actually lead their companies? Additionally, you say you don't want to do an on-site interview (which I am totally in agreement with) but then you want to require a C-level exec to be present. That's somewhat of a double standard.
A lot of these things I can get behind (whiteboards, group interviews, etc.) but some of this stuff is a bit over-the-top and very much targeted to a specific type of company of a very specific size. That's fine of course, it's your list and your career, and it seems to be working for you. It's just not great advice for others who are trying to land a job.
Hiring very much is a two-way street. Why come to that intersection carrying loads of obstacles?
It's ironic because this is the kind of list of demands that results in the need for HR Screens at a lot of companies. There's a box that says "Is this person super difficult to deal with?" and it gets checked "yes" before the engineers ever bother to take time out to speak with you.
There's a box that says "Is this person super difficult to deal with?" and it gets checked "yes" before the engineers ever bother to take time out to speak with you.
I'm just speaking out the top of my head. Never thought how good it makes for advice for others. I'm generally applying to CTO or VP of Engineering roles so its a different hiring game.
Been using UNIX since the late 80s; Linux since the mid-90s; virtualization since the early 2000s and spent the past few years working in the cloud space.
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Education
B.S. Psychology from Pennsylvania State University
I hate whiteboards unless they have funky magnets and its architectural, not algorithms or writing code. So just using it as a means to communicate not as a qualifier tool.
Though, if someone had some kind of "draw me a funny picture", I'd be impressed by the novelty of the request.
Contract to hire
I don't have a problem with this, putting someone on the books is painful if it doesn't work out. Honestly prefer it so tax season is simple so I don't have t4s and submitting for my business.
It depends, I had one startup where it was 1.5 years in and I had to yell all them to put me on the books.
Frequently, the companies that contact you with this, do so having claimed that they researched you before contacting you ...even though any place they might have looked you up clearly states "no interest in contract-to-hire".
Worse is the tendency for "contract to hire" shops to, when trying to convert you, have the compensation/benefits of the permanent gig be far lower than what you'd have accepted had you considered an up-front permanent offer from them.
One consideration I had not thought is maybe contract work is less risky here in Canada since we have so many social programs.
I'm surprised how many times I've been able to convert places that were looking for employee into contract work.
So I would call places to go through initial screening acting like I want to be on the books, so I can get to key decision-maker, change my story, be told they don't want contract, then ask their pain points, and turn around and deliver with something for free and they would then agree to contract.
In fact, I can't think of one time where that didn't work.
Been using UNIX since the late 80s; Linux since the mid-90s; virtualization since the early 2000s and spent the past few years working in the cloud space.
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Education
B.S. Psychology from Pennsylvania State University
The tinfoil-hat part of me says that part of why corporations fight against outsourcing things like healthcare benefits to the government is that they can reduce employee mobility in the US. By making healthcare part of a job, you make it that much more of a pain-in-the ass and that much more risky to jump to other jobs.
A small company might be in a place where they can't match salary expectations but can offer something else. I'd still expect them to be upfront about it - if they can only offer me half of the money I'd expect but can offer me more time off, or equity in the company, or more freedom to work from home, or whatever else, then I'd want to know in advance. Maybe I'm willing to work for half the cash salary I wanted because the equity is worth something to me, but maybe I can't afford to take a pay cut and hope the equity goes stratospheric in years to come. If you're hiding the package on offer all I can assume is that I'm not going to be impressed when I finally find out.
Startups aren't hiding the package, the don't know what to offer but they are willing to shell out for the right person to drives outcome that grows the business and that person has to make the case.
At the end of the day, they have to gamble their own money or someone else's and its hard sell to hire someone on a piece of paper. The only thing that matters is 1-to-1 with what they need, and you can if you can deliver that then they will bring you that offer.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
1. Whiteboard interviews
I hate whiteboards unless they have funky magnets and its architectural, not algorithms or writing code. So just using it as a means to communicate not as a qualifier tool.
2. Contract to hire
I don't have a problem with this, putting someone on the books is painful if it doesn't work out. Honestly prefer it so tax season is simple so I don't have t4s and submitting for my business.
It depends, I had one startup where it was 1.5 years in and I had to yell all them to put me on the books.
3. More than 3 interviews
More than 3 seems excessive. Depends on the size of the company. If its AWS than I'm expecting 3+
If you less than 100 heads than 3+ is a red flag
4. Culture fit interviews
I don't feel like you know until someone works for you. If its a guise to check for behavioural issues I get it, that's what HR Screen is supposed to do as well.
My attitude is your company is like a soup, and each person you add is a new flavour, your company changes when you add a person, you don't shove people in a box. At least this is how I see it for 15 or fewer employees. Above 15 I understand the cubby hole mentality of hiring.
5. Group interviews
Yeah, these are weird. Government or Schools use panel interviews. I get it. I'm not a big fan when there are two developers in the room. It gets confusing. Normally its because one is a junior shadowing the other so it's not a real group interview
6. Endurance interviews
Can be tiring but since most of the times, people are booking the day, good to get it all done in one day instead of using up multiple sick days. I normally drive into town so they might as well get me all day. Sometimes though I just want to stop after the first interview, so can be a drag if you want to leave and now you have to put a stop to the rest of the process.
7. HR Screens
HR Screening should be part of your process, but not to filter out candidates at the front of your hiring funnel
8. No senior leadership in the interviews
I won't interview where I don't meet the CTO/CEO and I will normally ask I talk to them first before I even talk to a hiring manager. This is for 70 people or less size companies. I do this because I want to influence the key decision-maker and avoid getting filtered by underlings who don't know talent when they see it or might consider me competition which could jeopardize their position.
Also, it shows who serious about hiring or if they are just going through many applicants with no serious pain points that need solving
9. Reluctance to discuss pay or benefits
Again depends. Big companies need to tell me upfront. Small companies and startups, the money is there for the right person, so it comes down to bringing the proof and negation that rate.
10. Required in-person interviews
I don't mind in-person if there is a reason to come. If I still lived down-town I don't care so much but having to drive 40mins for a meeting where they are going to have an impromptu whiteboard is awful.
Thanks for the informed response.
I agree that many of these things are flexible for 90% of people. I'm pretty strict on them because I've got options, but I wouldn't recommend that every junior follow this list as law.
However, I would recommend that everyone make their own list of interviewing red flags, tech hiring is very broken...
"I would recommend that everyone make their own list of interviewing red flags"
It would be impossible as an employer to conduct an interview that would be "fair" to all candidates if everyone made up their own list of "red flags" and held companies accountable to their unknown set of arbitrary rules.
A lot of the things you covered above are minor inconveniences at best rather than "red flags". Having multiple interviews happens because teams are busy, schedules are tight, and there's more to finding a good candidate than knowing whether or not they can code. There are loads of great engineers who are lousy co-workers. Small companies (and large ones too, really) need to be careful about hiring people who are going to be disruptive to their teams. Yeah, it's kind of annoying to have a few interviews, but it's even more annoying to not spend enough time up-front and make a decision that's wrong for either or both parties.
As for HR Screens, there are lots of reasons that those are really useful for companies. An astonishing number of people simply lie on their resumes. Instead of taking the technical team away from work to find that out, an up-front screen can catch things like that. If you're looking for someone who's good with clients, and they fumble through a phone screen with HR, then you haven't wasted your tech team's time. If you want to discuss salary up-front to ensure there's alignment, then an HR Screen is useful. You might be 100% on the up-and-up, and in that case, the screen seems worthless to you, but HR Screens filter out huge numbers of unqualified candidates. They are a reaction to the reality of the job market.
CEO's, CTO's, etc. have better things to focus on than individual hires. Hopefully, they're driving the 5-10+ year vision of a company and not micromanaging every hire. If you have to have a C-level executive present to answer a question from a prospective engineer then something's very broken. Imagine how much time leaders would spend just sitting in interviews, when would they actually lead their companies? Additionally, you say you don't want to do an on-site interview (which I am totally in agreement with) but then you want to require a C-level exec to be present. That's somewhat of a double standard.
A lot of these things I can get behind (whiteboards, group interviews, etc.) but some of this stuff is a bit over-the-top and very much targeted to a specific type of company of a very specific size. That's fine of course, it's your list and your career, and it seems to be working for you. It's just not great advice for others who are trying to land a job.
Hiring very much is a two-way street. Why come to that intersection carrying loads of obstacles?
It's ironic because this is the kind of list of demands that results in the need for HR Screens at a lot of companies. There's a box that says "Is this person super difficult to deal with?" and it gets checked "yes" before the engineers ever bother to take time out to speak with you.
I would never apply.
Thanks for sharing! 🤠
I'm just speaking out the top of my head. Never thought how good it makes for advice for others. I'm generally applying to CTO or VP of Engineering roles so its a different hiring game.
Though, if someone had some kind of "draw me a funny picture", I'd be impressed by the novelty of the request.
Frequently, the companies that contact you with this, do so having claimed that they researched you before contacting you ...even though any place they might have looked you up clearly states "no interest in contract-to-hire".
Worse is the tendency for "contract to hire" shops to, when trying to convert you, have the compensation/benefits of the permanent gig be far lower than what you'd have accepted had you considered an up-front permanent offer from them.
One consideration I had not thought is maybe contract work is less risky here in Canada since we have so many social programs.
I'm surprised how many times I've been able to convert places that were looking for employee into contract work.
So I would call places to go through initial screening acting like I want to be on the books, so I can get to key decision-maker, change my story, be told they don't want contract, then ask their pain points, and turn around and deliver with something for free and they would then agree to contract.
In fact, I can't think of one time where that didn't work.
The tinfoil-hat part of me says that part of why corporations fight against outsourcing things like healthcare benefits to the government is that they can reduce employee mobility in the US. By making healthcare part of a job, you make it that much more of a pain-in-the ass and that much more risky to jump to other jobs.
A small company might be in a place where they can't match salary expectations but can offer something else. I'd still expect them to be upfront about it - if they can only offer me half of the money I'd expect but can offer me more time off, or equity in the company, or more freedom to work from home, or whatever else, then I'd want to know in advance. Maybe I'm willing to work for half the cash salary I wanted because the equity is worth something to me, but maybe I can't afford to take a pay cut and hope the equity goes stratospheric in years to come. If you're hiding the package on offer all I can assume is that I'm not going to be impressed when I finally find out.
Startups aren't hiding the package, the don't know what to offer but they are willing to shell out for the right person to drives outcome that grows the business and that person has to make the case.
At the end of the day, they have to gamble their own money or someone else's and its hard sell to hire someone on a piece of paper. The only thing that matters is 1-to-1 with what they need, and you can if you can deliver that then they will bring you that offer.