First off, yes, code golfing is not a good indicator of coding skill. I do coding challenges as part of hiring at MousePaw Media, and it's a critical piece of the process, but the challenge is actually a real world problem with multiple viable solutions.
Done right, it's a useful tool. Done wrong, it's nothing but a waste of time.
So, the bulk of your article is right on the money.
BUT, I need to address one thing you said, though, that fundamentally spoils the whole point you were trying to make...
Isn't there an underlying impertinence in saying: before I risk investing one single hour for a face-2-face interview, I expect you to risk investing about 15% of a work week?
No, there's an underlying impertinence in expecting a hiring manager, who has to screen through hundreds of candidates, to make an hour for you merely on your say so. We don't know you. We have absolutely no reason to believe you're worth interviewing. To pitch a fit about having to prove your qualifications is, to put it honestly and objectively, extraordinarily myopic.
I've interviewed for several jobs with over 300 candidates each (after resume weeding). Is it reasonable for the hiring manager to interview all 300 candidates, at 1-2 hours each? Don't be absurd. You're applying for maybe two dozen jobs a week tops, so you're putting in maybe 12-24 hours of work if each one took two hours of effort on your part. But, wanting to spare yourself that inconvenience, you're literally asking each those hiring managers to put in hundreds of hours of extra work to spare you a couple hours each.
To be quite blunt, regardless of who you are: you are not that important. That's not personal; it's true of virtually all of us. Unless you're literally Guido van Rossum or Bjarne Stroustrup, you're going to have to bite the bullet.
And never mind the fact that it could potentially be the candidate who decides not to go forward after finally seeing the company from the inside.
The interview process is two-way. Hiring managers expect that as a legit possibility with every single candidate. Our answering your questions and taking that risk is how we repay you for your effort up to that point. (If the company doesn't, they're not worth it.) If you walk or we walk, we're both out the time.
I mean, somebody must have understood the psychological principle of reciprocity.
And, to be honest, I don't think you do. You're wanting the person with the already large workload to spare you a little extra effort. You're approaching the hiring process with only one ruling mindset: "what's in it for me?" I would never want to hire someone with that attitude, especially when I've worked so hard to hire for and build a team of mutual trust and support.
If someone is not willing to prove they're a viable candidate, they're not a viable candidate...and that attitude spills over into the workplace. If they'll be so myopic with a hiring manager, I'd bet cash it'll be a matter of weeks or months before they do the same thing to the DevOps, the QA Engineer, the UX designer, the technical writer...
So, while coding challenge policies themselves could stand to be seriously improved, the expectation for you to prove your candidacy through such an activity is entirely reasonable.
Passionate generalist conquering the web one project at a time. Whether authoring libraries for node, JS, PHP, or Rust, I am always on the lookout for better solutions to common problems.
Location
USA
Work
Lead Developer & Co-founder at corpscrypt, CTO at REtech
Let's start by saying that this post is about how candidates aren't vetted effectively and not about that they shouldn't be vetted.
It's not that I don't see where you are coming from (although I think you misjudge my attitude massively), but let's put some things into perspective:
First, you seem to assume that I describe that problem only from the perspective of the candidate. Given the context, I can see how you can come to that conclusion, but in order to address some assumptions you made about me, I have to ask: What makes you think I have no experience in how the hiring process looks like from the perspective of the employer? What makes you think I never vetted candidates, worked hand in hand with HR departments and invested time to find the right team member?
I don't mean that confrontational, I just want to make you aware that a lot of what you write is based on things I do acknowledge on one side, but simply aren't as one-sided as you make them sound:
Is it reasonable for the hiring manager to interview all 300 candidates, at 1-2 hours each?
No, of course it isn't. I don't think you even CAN read my lines as "Instead, just talk to anybody sending you a resume", as you imply here.
You're wanting the person with the already large workload to spare you a little extra effort.
So here is where I start to feel a little attacked. Let's look at what you are saying here: I am the arrogant one for "demanding" to spare me some time while it seems to be a given for you that the candidate's workload cannot be compared to the hiring manager? I find that interesting. Not to say distopian. Again, I am not saying that candidates shouldn't be willing to put effort into the process, but at the end of the day it is a give-and-take. If YOUR attitude starts with your time being more valuable per definition, then I can promise you that you will end up "hiring down" instead of with the best possible candidate for the position you seek to fill. It is statistically likely that the ideal candidate sits at another company for 60-80 hours, potentially with similar responsibilities than you. If that isn't even conceivable for you, than you will never talk to that (here hypothetical) person.
And that all wouldn't have bothered me as we don't know each other and I also sometimes make wrong assumptions regarding how something is meant, but then you go on cementing that one-sidedness by going all in:
I would never want to hire someone with that attitude, especially when I've worked so hard to hire for and build a team of mutual trust and support.
Wow! So you would never hire someone with which attitude, precisely? The attitude you project on people who dare to have feedback to your hiring mechanism? You seriously use the words "mutual trust" when you mean:
"If you don't show me that you want it by complying without asking questions, and without knowing much about the working conditions, team or company, then it lacks evidence of an obedient laborer who - god forbid - might wonder what's in it for her/himself"?
Because the candidate has to take your word for it when you say "...especially when I've worked so hard...", but you would never trust the candidate on her/his word?
Yes, I see how that attitude is something you would want to prevent to
spill[s] over into the workplace
That would surely be devastating in a team of mutual trust.
But fight mode aside: Of course the candidates have to "prove they are worth your time". I certainly don't hold the position that it isn't adequate to have a reasonable investment and even agree on the general notion that the "work" of forming a new role must be divided on things like reasonable effort. As such, of course the hiring manager shouldn't spend days interviewing people that could have deemed the wrong match based on effective filtering methods (so back to the topic: let's find effective methods, not a "class war")
If YOUR attitude starts with your time being more valuable per definition, then I can promise you that you will end up "hiring down" instead of with the best possible candidate for the position you seek to fill.
Not "more valuable", but "stretched thinner." There's a profound difference. If a hiring manager is putting in hundreds of hours, it's not unreasonable for them to expect each of their candidates to put in a tiny fraction of that time. It's no different from saying "I've covered the entire meal, and used all my available funds to do so, would you mind taking care of the tip?"
No, of course it isn't. I don't think you even CAN read my lines as "Instead, just talk to anybody sending you a resume", as you imply here.
See your own post:
Is it really okay to ask a job-seeker to invest half an hour for a phone interview, 2.5 hours for a coding challenge, 1 hour for psychological online tests...Isn't there an underlying impertinence in saying: before I risk investing one single hour for a face-2-face interview, I expect you to risk investing about 15% of a work week?
That literally states that you (apparently) believe it unreasonable for a candidate to have to go through a phone interview and a coding challenge before being granted a final interview. There's no other way to read it.
What's further:
Wow! So you would never hire someone with which attitude, precisely? The attitude you project on people who dare to have feedback to your hiring mechanism?
No, I would never hire someone with the attitude I explicitly described:
...only one ruling mindset: "what's in it for me?"
A successful team needs to be mutually supportive. Each person supports and is supported. They recognize their own needs, but also the needs of others, and keep both in perspective.
For someone to have the attitude of "WELL! How unreasonable of that hiring manager, for wanting me to do this coding challenge before I get a final interview!" they must first fail to recognize the position the hiring manager is in. That indicates the person has clear difficulties empathizing with another individual.
Because the candidate has to take your word for it when you say "...especially when I've worked so hard...", but you would never trust the candidate on her/his word?
First, of course I wouldn't expect that! Ergo...
The interview process is two-way. Hiring managers expect [a candidate walking] as a legit possibility with every single candidate. Our answering your questions and taking that risk is how we repay you for your effort up to that point. (If the company doesn't, they're not worth it.)
In other words, you're interviewing us as much as we're interviewing you. It's the principle of reciprocity.
And, in any case, it's quite common that there's a "probation" period after hiring. The candidate may still turn around and walk out (with pay). So I expect to prove myself trustworthy, both in the interview and afterwards.
Interestingly, though, if it turns out the candidate is untrustworthy, guess who's out both the pay and the time of multiple employees involved in onboarding? So, as great as the risk is for the candidate, the risk is greater for the employer. Don't underestimate that.
Second, I would be taking the candidate's word for a lot already. One has to maintain a wise balance. If you say you improved the security of the email servers at your school, chances are, I won't be able to verify that. I'll just assume you're telling the truth...so long as what I can verify matches what you're saying. So, I verify the little I can, and believe the rest based on word alone.
If I hire someone without verifying their technical ability, I am disrespecting my entire team by saddling them with a peer who they will have to entirely carry. I owe it to my existing staff to verify essentials. Period.
Furthermore...
What makes you think I have no experience in how the hiring process looks like from the perspective of the employer? What makes you think I never vetted candidates, worked hand in hand with HR departments and invested time to find the right team member?
As a simple analogy, if you were to tell me that it's unreasonable to ask food service workers to wash their hands before returning to work, it'd be a safe assumption you'd never worked in any public health field. Your statements, as originally written, implied a lack of understand of what a hiring manager's workload is like. Again, your original post...
Is it really okay to ask a job-seeker to invest half an hour for a phone interview, 2.5 hours for a coding challenge, 1 hour for psychological online tests...Isn't there an underlying impertinence in saying: before I risk investing one single hour for a face-2-face interview, I expect you to risk investing about 15% of a work week?
I'm willing to believe you didn't put that in the way you intended.
I certainly don't hold the position that it isn't adequate to have a reasonable investment and even agree on the general notion that the "work" of forming a new role must be divided on things like reasonable effort.
I'm glad you don't. Just understand that your opening "digression" summarily contradicted that, and that is what I took on. I cannot apologize for misunderstanding, because I only took your words at face value.
Passionate generalist conquering the web one project at a time. Whether authoring libraries for node, JS, PHP, or Rust, I am always on the lookout for better solutions to common problems.
Location
USA
Work
Lead Developer & Co-founder at corpscrypt, CTO at REtech
Not "more valuable", but "stretched thinner." There's a profound difference.
Because the hiring manager needs to allocate enough time to state his/her case on dev.to? But joke aside: Again, I think you base that on particular assumptions that translate to either what kind of candidate(s) you personally seek(ed) for or how you think that candidate spends the days. Because let's face it: if the candidate is at home looking for a job than it is more than logical that this person would do anything (including spending all of the available time) to seek employment. And if such a candidate is not willing to invest a large enough time then scepticism is appropriate. But if the candidate reaches out to seek better opportunities, things can look very differently. Do you know how often it happens that highly skilled people are contacted by head-hunters and if they show interest are presented with these procedures? So I guess I simply account for a different hypothetical candidate.
If a hiring manager is putting in hundreds of hours, it's not unreasonable for them to expect each of their candidates to put in a tiny fraction of that time.
So I let that slip the last time as I thought it's more of a generalisation, but let's address it: Why does this hiring manager spend hundreds of hours? Your example was based on 300 applications and I assume that the scenario has an HR department responsible for actual job postings on various platforms etc. So we basically have:
role definition
proof of requirement / reasonability
budgeting
as topics our hiring manager is potentially involved in prior to screening resumes? And then your mentioned 300 resumes on the table. So, if you don't mind me asking, what do I forget that would take hundreds of hours I am not accounting for? So far, it sounds like 40-60h. Not that that wouldn't be a time investment, but I'd look at this from a different angle: If the total amount of hours a company spends on recruiting really is in the hundreds (across multiple employees, of course), it's even more reason to look into the process.
About how I formulated what I find a reasonable demand:
See your own post: ...
Forgive me if I will not join a discussion of how I meant something after being presented with a text you pasted together from my post. The article as a whole is written with sarcasm and humour and taking things out of context is a rhetorical strategy one can use in debates to convince an audience, if you must, but not convincing for the actual author. I do take your word for it that the way you portray it is the way you perceived it. And there is no apology needed or expected for that. But there is really nothing beyond "That's not what I meant" I can add to that either.
A successful team needs to be mutually supportive.
Agreed. Fully! But pretending that the candidate has any kind of loyalty towards a team he/she doesn't know yet would be unrealistic (maybe even delusional). The candidate that doesn't attend an interview with the primary objective to find out "what's in it for him/her" probably doesn't even exists - and if such an exception comes along, I'd be highly interested in the primary motives. I just assume that we can openly talk about this here rather than playing this societal game where we have to pretend that there is any kind of personal attachment towards a (for the candidate at that point) soulless corporation. The human factor first has to grow.
As for most of what you say regarding the risk of hiring a person in the first place as well as the interview process itself I have nothing to disagree with. Again, it's not that I don't know this process (hint: maybe read the very first sentence of the post again). I really don't know how to formulate it any differently: I do not propose not vetting the candidate carefully and appropriately. I simply question how that t(r)ends to be done.
And yes, for the purpose of this post I do explore the topic from the perspective of the candidate. But there might be a future "Why you won't find your unicorn" version from a perspective you will more likely identify with.
Again, this is not about a class war employer vs. employee. I think in the end there is probably more that we agree upon than not (referring to the ideals of a mutually beneficial, invested and loyal team throughout the hierarchy).
Why does this hiring manager spend hundreds of hours? ... So, if you don't mind me asking, what do I forget that would take hundreds of hours I am not accounting for? So far, it sounds like 40-60h.
Yes, 40-60 hours is reasonable, and what I would expect. That's a full work-week, and then some, assuming they have absolutely nothing further to do. God help the hiring manager (like me) who does things OTHER than hiring and HR.
The 300 hours I mentioned was, if you casually skim through again, what it WOULD take if a hiring manager was to take your (reportedly sarcastic) advice at face value and interview all 300 candidates who looked good on paper. Which is absurd.
I can appreciate if that wasn't what you meant, but it is what you said. I didn't need to "paste together" something, as you so strangely accused me of. I copy-pasted your paragraph so I couldn't be accused of misquoting.
I appreciate satire and sarcasm, having written plenty of it over the years. But the truth is, an author is entirely responsible for how that sarcasm is taken. If a reader indeed reads all of what you said, can quote it back to you, and misses your meaning, that responsibility falls entirely on you, the author, for being unclear.
I do not propose not vetting the candidate carefully and appropriately. I simply question how that t(r)ends to be done.
I'm glad you were not serious when you spent several paragraphs roasting hiring managers for expecting coding challenges before a final interview. Unfortunately, that message wasn't quite clear as originally put, as I think you already know given the abruptness of your defensive reaction. In the future, just go "Ah, I think I was unclear, what I meant was X" and move on.
It's not an attack on you. There are just too many entitled people who really believe that the whole hiring system is unfair because they're not being pandered to, and would take the opening of your article at face value as justification for their 'tudes. You and I both have a responsibility to be mindful of that in writing sarcasm, satire, and irony.
Passionate generalist conquering the web one project at a time. Whether authoring libraries for node, JS, PHP, or Rust, I am always on the lookout for better solutions to common problems.
Location
USA
Work
Lead Developer & Co-founder at corpscrypt, CTO at REtech
The 300 hours I mentioned was, if you casually skim through again, what it WOULD take if a hiring manager was to take your (reportedly sarcastic) advice at face value ...
Not only skimmed through it, but read the complete thread to make sure. You repeatedly make it sound like these hundreds of hours are a given, using it as an argument to make your point. I mean, apparently we are experts in misjudging each others words, but you made arguments like "If I pay for the meal you can at least pay the tip" and similar that all underlined that impression.
God help the hiring manager (like me) who does things OTHER than hiring and HR.
Yes, by now I have fully internalized that your position is that you are stretched thin and have a lot on your table (which I honestly don't doubt for a second, just to make that clear), while the candidate could be so kind to pause Netflix for a while to fill out some tests (and here is where I beg to differ). And again, if that's your hypothetical candidate, then that's probably a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I didn't meant to accuse you of misquoting, but of taking things out of context.
But the truth is, an author is entirely responsible for how that sarcasm is taken.
Ah, so we find ourselves in a value-difference. Uff, I don't think I want to get into that discussion. But no, I disagree and have a different opinion.
I'm glad you were not serious when you spent several paragraphs roasting hiring managers
So, about that: Yes, why did you feel so triggered in the first place? I didn't even use the word "hiring manager" once in my original post. My post is structured like this:
The concept
Here I say that vetting is necessary
The investment
Here I say that the effort seems to have a trend of growing.
(And all the two of us talk about is within two short paragraphs in this section)
The conditions
Here I talk about unrealistic conditions of hakerrank & co
The time
Here I open up the discussion to the necessity of time-based assessment vs. the negative effects it has on quality
The challenges
This part is in regards to the use(full/less)ness of common coding challenges.
The tragedy
Here I claim that training for such challenges distorts what those tests are intended to evaluate.
So, I basically inserted a question regarding how much we can ask a candidate to invest in a post that is about coding challenges and that set you off? Let's see:
Unfortunately, that message wasn't quite clear as originally put, as I think you already know given the abruptness of your defensive reaction. In the future, just go "Ah, I think I was unclear, what I meant was X" and move on.
So here we get to the point, don't we? This is not a class-war as I misinterpreted. This is about your ego. And silly me said "No apology needed" when you actually expected me to apologize.
And you know what, I probably would if I shared your believe that
"author is entirely responsible for how that sarcasm is taken". But I don't. I think that the majority here "got it right" and you came in from an angle that didn't allow you to understand where I'm coming from. But tell you what - pinky promise: Should we ever meet in real life, let's have a beer (I pay for the beer, you the tip ;-) ). I think that we might have more in common than this thread would indicate.
Well, you can mischaracterize this as an ego issue if that makes you feel better. I was content at it being about your point stated mismatching your point intended, once that became evident, but I suppose that's not comfortable for everyone.
Everyone comes into an article with a unique perspective. The field of communication (my academic background) is all about learning to account for that. No one can read your mind, only you can do that, so if someone misses your point, it's your job to non-defensively clarify, and possibly to tweak your original post to remove the ambiguity if it seems appropriate to do so. Getting angry at someone for not being able to read what you meant instead of what you said is unreasonable.
As to...
Yes, why did you feel so triggered in the first place?
One can grow tired of hearing the same fallacies repeated over and over again, and can confront them, without being 'triggered'. As a career mentor, I have to deal with misconceptions among young developers about hiring on a regular basis. It's a topic I am passionate about, because I see the results so often, my own company notwithstanding.
But as I said, if you'd rather trade a discussion about ideas and how they're expressed for one about how terrible and sensitive a person you imagine I am, I cannot stop you.
I do hope someday you learn to take responsibility for your role in communication. I will grant that it isn't always an easy one to learn — I myself learned how over years of mistakes as a professional writer — but as such a lesson presently runs contrary to your beliefs, I see no point in continuing this conversation. You have a right to learn things the hard way, so I'll let you get back to it, without me interfering any further in that.
To that aim, if I miscommunicated what I meant about 300-600 hours being abnormal, I apologize for not being clearer.
In the meantime, we're at an impasse, so we'll just leave this here.
Passionate generalist conquering the web one project at a time. Whether authoring libraries for node, JS, PHP, or Rust, I am always on the lookout for better solutions to common problems.
Location
USA
Work
Lead Developer & Co-founder at corpscrypt, CTO at REtech
I am sorry, really expected you to have the last word and wanted to leave it at that as well, but I am baffled.
But as I said, if you'd rather trade a discussion about ideas and how they're expressed for one about how terrible and sensitive a person you imagine I am, I cannot stop you.
Really? My intend, even from the way you took it, is obviously to start a discussion about how we as a developer community can improve the hiring process. Even if I fully emerge into your perspective, one might still wonder why we are talking about hiring managers and attitudes below a post that isn't about that.
As for the personal level: I really don't know you and have nothing against you as a person. I match my tone to the level of arrogance I experience, but that does not mean that any personal grudges derive from it. I have no intend to "express how terrible and sensitive of a person I imagine you to be". You might think I am naive (actually pretty sure you do based on how you address me), but I am not disliking people based on having a different opinion and the willingness to express them strongly. After all, I am not blind towards the fact that there is some irony in this being about my ego as well.
And a quick note about your passion and mentorship: I haven't seen this topic addressed in your posts (but only skimmed your profile, so forgive me). I think it would be of interest to many what you can share about misconceptions regarding hiring and job-searching
That said, you may have the last word now. Promised. I will resist.
Really? My intend, even from the way you took it, is obviously to start a discussion about how we as a developer community can improve the hiring process.
I really believe you did, right from the start! I was addressing a single section in which you were expressing a message that mismatched the rest of your point. I tried hard to keep on the idea, and I apologize if I made it about anything else.
I re-read my posts, and I'm fairly sure I avoided saying anything about your ego, mate. That said...
I have no intend to "express how terrible and sensitive of a person I imagine you to be"
Um, right here:
So here we get to the point, don't we? This is not a class-war as I misinterpreted. This is about your ego.
...and here...
So, about that: Yes, why did you feel so triggered in the first place?
That's when it left ideas and went into characterizing me as being sensitive and egotistical, rather than me just addressing a topic I'm passionate about based on my actual experience.
And perhaps I do owe you a citation of my credentials: I've been doing hiring successfully for a small, diverse team for nearly a decade. My processes have been vetted by university career services departments, and proven by the actual results of hiring. Like I'd said, I don't know your experience, but your statement seemed to suggest that you didn't understand what a hiring manager's workload tended to be like. Armchair experts on this topic are a dime a dozen, and you'd made no mention in your post of doing this before (unless I missed it? Correct me here!). One of the core principles of public speaking is to cite your credibility up front; that applies here.
But again, I believe that one section did not adequately express your opinion on the topic, and I'm well aware it mismatched the rest of your post.
I've been on the flip side of this before, by the way. I once got schooled in how Java actually compiled by one of the engineers responsible. I wanted to be able to dismiss him as "arrogant", but the fact was, he had knowledge I didn't. Between the two of us, we were able to figure out how to disambiguate some build vocabulary, which I later put into a post.
By the way,
I am not disliking people based on having a different opinion and the willingness to express them strongly. After all, I am not blind towards the fact that there is some irony in this being about my ego as well.
I can appreciate that you don't altogether dismiss it, especially as you haven't yet crossed the Code of Conduct line (even if that was a close shave one post ago, see above.) Things get heated. I wouldn't be surprised if I used less-than-ideal phrasing a few times myself, as much as I tried not to.
I think it would be of interest to many what you can share about misconceptions regarding hiring and job-searching.
I haven't written a lot about hiring in my DEV posts. Most of my work in this area is on a more individual basis as a mentor, although I've been involved in many conversations on DEV about good and bad hiring practice. I plan to someday write an article about it, but at this time, I've got bigger fish to fry.
My last point on the topic of responsibility of meaning: imagine a reader who is feeling put out because he was vetted for coding skills he claimed he had, and was found wanting because he couldn't code at all. He's oscillating between the idea that not being selected was on him, for not having the essential minimum skills before applying, and the idea that the hiring manager was just cruel and unreasonable. He happens across your post and reads that one section. How do you think he'd react? Would he thoughtfully consider how he can prepare for job applications, or would he just conclude that "any coding interview that expects me to verify my skills before the final interview is unreasonable!" Read your own post with a jaded eye, and you may see what I mean.
In any case, I digress.
I don't need to have the last word; in fact, your last post has only made me want to discuss different vetting methods with you! But I don't believe it's worth doing that under all that noise. I'll respond a second time, and we can focus on that instead. After all, it IS the bulk of your article's point.
Passionate generalist conquering the web one project at a time. Whether authoring libraries for node, JS, PHP, or Rust, I am always on the lookout for better solutions to common problems.
Location
USA
Work
Lead Developer & Co-founder at corpscrypt, CTO at REtech
I don't need to have the last word; in fact, your last post has only made me want to discuss different vetting methods with you!
Glad you're having fun as well.
I will use the new thread you started for that (probably a little later as I have things to attend to). Just quickly some remarks/questions on language to end this thread:
This is not a class-war as I misinterpreted. This is about your ego.
Yes, sorry. I probably should have said "our egos" right there. The actual epiphany here was to realize we manoeuvred ourselves in something I would formulate differently in a bar (hence the beer reference). It was regarding a male trait where two can realize that all the evolution and intelligence we gained doesn't spare us from sometimes finding ourselves in what is often referenced as a comparison of certain extremities.
So, about that: Yes, why did you feel so triggered in the first place?
I am aware of the connotation the word "triggered" recently gained in society. And I think we loose a physically accurate word describing "cause and effect" if we just use it in that "new, negative" way. "A caused B" is simply not the same as "A triggered B". So yes, I meant that something I wrote is directly responsible for you reacting in a certain way. But beyond that, there is no (neither negative nor positive) connotation I wanted to convey. I will always "trigger" webhooks, won't I?
Connotation is weird, innit? It's the one thing that kills me every time. I'm extremely literal in verbal communication, a residual side-effect of a traumatic brain injury in 2008, so I will often completely miss the connotation of a word or phrase, since I'm selecting it purely for its denotative meaning.
For whatever reason, this doesn't happen quite the same way for me in written communication. But that struggle with connotation in verbal communication has given me empathy for differences in interpretation. I think "triggered" as you intended it certainly ties into this; I've been exposed to so many complainers unduly whining about the hiring process that hearing those same phrases in a different context is associated with the same ideas, ergo my (incorrect) assumption you were merely a disgruntled candidate who wound up on the wrong side of a coding challenge (paired with the lack of anything to indicate the opposite, ergo that whole "cite your credibility" thing.
I'm not sure our conversation was really all that "males in a bar" flavored, however. I've had similar conversations with people of all genders and backgrounds. The essential point is that we were, as you said, on opposite extreme positions. Unfortunately, in a public forum, backing down from a position you feel passionate about invites observers to conclude you have nothing valid to say; if we'd had this conversation in private, I'd have honestly just quit after your initial rebuttal. In the end, I think we both made our points, so even if we can't entirely agree, our cases are established well enough for the intelligent observer to draw a sensible conclusion for themselves.
But, yeah, "triggered" is an unfortunate victim of language evolution, and that means we cannot effectively use it in its original context in random conversation. So what do we use instead? Maybe "Yes, why did you feel so strongly to that point in the first place?" (I'm sure there are other alternatives, besides.)
At the risk of sounding overly P.C. (which I'm seldom accused of...if anything, diplomacy is often lost to me!), connotation is inescapable, and we have to factor it in. If you ever get the chance, I definitely recommend picking up any courses or books you can on intercultural communication! It's been incredibly helpful in my career, especially in writing and public speaking. I'm certain you would find a lot of enjoyment and practical insight from it; but then, every person breathing could benefit from communication studies.
Of course, on the note of knowing connotation and taking full responsibility for "misunderstandings" (I hate that term) of one's own writing, I wouldn't advise anything I wouldn't do. I will often go back and clarify my own articles, sometimes well after the fact, even when I have reason to believe my point was deliberately misinterpreted by an angry commentor. The fantastic upshot of that is that it reduces the mental load involved in reading my work. I sincerely believe that aspect of my writing is a major reason I got a book contract.
Passionate generalist conquering the web one project at a time. Whether authoring libraries for node, JS, PHP, or Rust, I am always on the lookout for better solutions to common problems.
Location
USA
Work
Lead Developer & Co-founder at corpscrypt, CTO at REtech
That might be a generational issue as well. I noticed that the use of smilies and emojis help putting the right tone into written communication. But I seem to be too old to get the hang of it yet too young to not being expected to "read" it.
As for triggered: I feel like the final word on that isn't out yet. There is always a "point of no return" when certain words or expressions tip over and cannot be used anymore without being understood in a certain way. I am not declaring the fight for the term "triggered" as over, yet. I started to be used in a psychological realm to prevent exactly that: to carry blame. "I am triggered by..." does not mean "It is your fault that I feel...". It simply declared the emotional effect something had on a particular individual. And it was a suitable use. Then one side added the connotation if blame and the other side made fun of the use in general. And all of a sudden that makes it derogatory in all contexts? Let's hope that's a fluke.
As for communication in general: I actually do invest some time in the topic and agree everyone should. But as you noticed, not only is language a living, constantly changing beast, we also live in a world where most of the people we communicate with use English, but didn't grow up with it (me included). This causes many local differences in forms of expression, between-the-lines interpretations and tone. It's something I always try to take into account, and therefore cannot go with you regarding your standard of "writing so everyone understands what you mean". At the end of the day, you have to aim for a percentage. If 60% get what you mean, there is room for improvement. But even if 99% of the readers put things together how you intended them to be understood, you will still "fail" to get your point across towards some.
And the feedback always feels distorted. If your book (congrats, BTW) gets sold 1 00 000 times and only 1% feel misrepresented/misunderstood, you will hear from that 1%. You won't get feedback from the ones nodding it off, and you probably won't get much feedback from the ones who loved it. But that 1%. These 1000 individuals will way more likely get vocal.
As for communication in general: I actually do invest some time in the topic and agree everyone should. But as you noticed, not only is language a living, constantly changing beast, we also live in a world where most of the people we communicate with use English, but didn't grow up with it (me included).
Well, and that's just it. Communication emphasizes paralinguistics — aspects of communication beyond written/spoken language — so heavily, it really helps deobfuscate some of the weirder things about language, such as connotation. Intercultural communication, in particular, focuses heavily on differences in cultural and societal norms and expectations, where those come from, and how those influence communication.
It's something I always try to take into account, and therefore cannot go with you regarding your standard of "writing so everyone understands what you mean". At the end of the day, you have to aim for a percentage. If 60% get what you mean, there is room for improvement. But even if 99% of the readers put things together how you intended them to be understood, you will still "fail" to get your point across towards some.
Yes, you'll always lose someone, no doubt. The trouble comes in recognizing when we wrote something that's at a notable risk of being misunderstood. Wit, humor, and sarcasm are especially high risk in this regard, such that many authors will call out sections of satire outright. In other cases, you can "cushion the blow" to reduce the risk, especially if the context is missed.
(Thanks for the edit, by the way!)
If I were to take a shot at writing those two paragraphs we've been debating about, it would probably look something like the following. (You do NOT have to rewrite it; your edit is just peachy! This is just my demonstrating what I mean.)
After experiencing assessments ranging from 5 minute multiple choice quizzes to 2.5 hour coding interviews, it seems to me that the commitment expected from a candidate keeps growing and growing.
And we should think about that for a second:
How much value are you really getting out of piling on pre-interview expectations: a half an hour for a phone interview, 2.5 hours for a coding challenge, 1 hour for psychological online tests, ignoring the additional hour the candidate presumably put into writing a cover letter and learning about the position/company.
If most of that is doing little to effectively screen the candidate, isn't there an underlying impertinence in saying: before I risk investing one single hour for a face-2-face interview, I expect you to risk investing about 15% of a work week, most of which won't really tell me anything useful about you? And never mind the fact that it could potentially be the candidate who decides not to go forward after finally seeing the company from the inside. I mean, somebody must have understood the psychological principle of reciprocity.
See what I mean? Most of it is untouched, but a few words add clarity: your issue is the usefulness and return on those practices, not the practices in and of themselves. You're not dismissing phone interviews and coding challenges, but rather, you're challenging how they're done!
Anyhow, moving on...
And the feedback always feels distorted. ... But that 1%. These 1000 individuals will way more likely get vocal.
Definitely true. Usually you only get 2% of your audience giving feedback: the people who either love it so much they'd keep a copy under their pillow, or hate it and wish you'd go jump in a lake. ;) I'm exaggerating, obviously, but yes, there's a bias.
To that aim, however, one has to remember that for every person who WILL speak up about their dislike, there are probably a dozen or more who didn't say anything and just moved on. That's why I try to take feedback seriously (although not necessarily to heart): the one superfan speaks for a horde of moderate fans, the one harsh critic speaks for the horde of moderate critics.
There is a point where you have to ignore any particular critic, but only once you've seriously evaluated whether there's anything of merit in their criticism. Being a professional author really helps you develop a tough skin.
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.
First off, yes, code golfing is not a good indicator of coding skill. I do coding challenges as part of hiring at MousePaw Media, and it's a critical piece of the process, but the challenge is actually a real world problem with multiple viable solutions.
Done right, it's a useful tool. Done wrong, it's nothing but a waste of time.
So, the bulk of your article is right on the money.
BUT, I need to address one thing you said, though, that fundamentally spoils the whole point you were trying to make...
No, there's an underlying impertinence in expecting a hiring manager, who has to screen through hundreds of candidates, to make an hour for you merely on your say so. We don't know you. We have absolutely no reason to believe you're worth interviewing. To pitch a fit about having to prove your qualifications is, to put it honestly and objectively, extraordinarily myopic.
I've interviewed for several jobs with over 300 candidates each (after resume weeding). Is it reasonable for the hiring manager to interview all 300 candidates, at 1-2 hours each? Don't be absurd. You're applying for maybe two dozen jobs a week tops, so you're putting in maybe 12-24 hours of work if each one took two hours of effort on your part. But, wanting to spare yourself that inconvenience, you're literally asking each those hiring managers to put in hundreds of hours of extra work to spare you a couple hours each.
To be quite blunt, regardless of who you are: you are not that important. That's not personal; it's true of virtually all of us. Unless you're literally Guido van Rossum or Bjarne Stroustrup, you're going to have to bite the bullet.
The interview process is two-way. Hiring managers expect that as a legit possibility with every single candidate. Our answering your questions and taking that risk is how we repay you for your effort up to that point. (If the company doesn't, they're not worth it.) If you walk or we walk, we're both out the time.
And, to be honest, I don't think you do. You're wanting the person with the already large workload to spare you a little extra effort. You're approaching the hiring process with only one ruling mindset: "what's in it for me?" I would never want to hire someone with that attitude, especially when I've worked so hard to hire for and build a team of mutual trust and support.
If someone is not willing to prove they're a viable candidate, they're not a viable candidate...and that attitude spills over into the workplace. If they'll be so myopic with a hiring manager, I'd bet cash it'll be a matter of weeks or months before they do the same thing to the DevOps, the QA Engineer, the UX designer, the technical writer...
So, while coding challenge policies themselves could stand to be seriously improved, the expectation for you to prove your candidacy through such an activity is entirely reasonable.
Let's start by saying that this post is about how candidates aren't vetted effectively and not about that they shouldn't be vetted.
It's not that I don't see where you are coming from (although I think you misjudge my attitude massively), but let's put some things into perspective:
First, you seem to assume that I describe that problem only from the perspective of the candidate. Given the context, I can see how you can come to that conclusion, but in order to address some assumptions you made about me, I have to ask: What makes you think I have no experience in how the hiring process looks like from the perspective of the employer? What makes you think I never vetted candidates, worked hand in hand with HR departments and invested time to find the right team member?
I don't mean that confrontational, I just want to make you aware that a lot of what you write is based on things I do acknowledge on one side, but simply aren't as one-sided as you make them sound:
No, of course it isn't. I don't think you even CAN read my lines as "Instead, just talk to anybody sending you a resume", as you imply here.
So here is where I start to feel a little attacked. Let's look at what you are saying here: I am the arrogant one for "demanding" to spare me some time while it seems to be a given for you that the candidate's workload cannot be compared to the hiring manager? I find that interesting. Not to say distopian. Again, I am not saying that candidates shouldn't be willing to put effort into the process, but at the end of the day it is a give-and-take. If YOUR attitude starts with your time being more valuable per definition, then I can promise you that you will end up "hiring down" instead of with the best possible candidate for the position you seek to fill. It is statistically likely that the ideal candidate sits at another company for 60-80 hours, potentially with similar responsibilities than you. If that isn't even conceivable for you, than you will never talk to that (here hypothetical) person.
And that all wouldn't have bothered me as we don't know each other and I also sometimes make wrong assumptions regarding how something is meant, but then you go on cementing that one-sidedness by going all in:
Wow! So you would never hire someone with which attitude, precisely? The attitude you project on people who dare to have feedback to your hiring mechanism? You seriously use the words "mutual trust" when you mean:
"If you don't show me that you want it by complying without asking questions, and without knowing much about the working conditions, team or company, then it lacks evidence of an obedient laborer who - god forbid - might wonder what's in it for her/himself"?
Because the candidate has to take your word for it when you say "...especially when I've worked so hard...", but you would never trust the candidate on her/his word?
Yes, I see how that attitude is something you would want to prevent to
That would surely be devastating in a team of mutual trust.
But fight mode aside: Of course the candidates have to "prove they are worth your time". I certainly don't hold the position that it isn't adequate to have a reasonable investment and even agree on the general notion that the "work" of forming a new role must be divided on things like reasonable effort. As such, of course the hiring manager shouldn't spend days interviewing people that could have deemed the wrong match based on effective filtering methods (so back to the topic: let's find effective methods, not a "class war")
Not "more valuable", but "stretched thinner." There's a profound difference. If a hiring manager is putting in hundreds of hours, it's not unreasonable for them to expect each of their candidates to put in a tiny fraction of that time. It's no different from saying "I've covered the entire meal, and used all my available funds to do so, would you mind taking care of the tip?"
See your own post:
That literally states that you (apparently) believe it unreasonable for a candidate to have to go through a phone interview and a coding challenge before being granted a final interview. There's no other way to read it.
What's further:
No, I would never hire someone with the attitude I explicitly described:
A successful team needs to be mutually supportive. Each person supports and is supported. They recognize their own needs, but also the needs of others, and keep both in perspective.
For someone to have the attitude of "WELL! How unreasonable of that hiring manager, for wanting me to do this coding challenge before I get a final interview!" they must first fail to recognize the position the hiring manager is in. That indicates the person has clear difficulties empathizing with another individual.
First, of course I wouldn't expect that! Ergo...
In other words, you're interviewing us as much as we're interviewing you. It's the principle of reciprocity.
And, in any case, it's quite common that there's a "probation" period after hiring. The candidate may still turn around and walk out (with pay). So I expect to prove myself trustworthy, both in the interview and afterwards.
Interestingly, though, if it turns out the candidate is untrustworthy, guess who's out both the pay and the time of multiple employees involved in onboarding? So, as great as the risk is for the candidate, the risk is greater for the employer. Don't underestimate that.
Second, I would be taking the candidate's word for a lot already. One has to maintain a wise balance. If you say you improved the security of the email servers at your school, chances are, I won't be able to verify that. I'll just assume you're telling the truth...so long as what I can verify matches what you're saying. So, I verify the little I can, and believe the rest based on word alone.
If I hire someone without verifying their technical ability, I am disrespecting my entire team by saddling them with a peer who they will have to entirely carry. I owe it to my existing staff to verify essentials. Period.
Furthermore...
As a simple analogy, if you were to tell me that it's unreasonable to ask food service workers to wash their hands before returning to work, it'd be a safe assumption you'd never worked in any public health field. Your statements, as originally written, implied a lack of understand of what a hiring manager's workload is like. Again, your original post...
I'm willing to believe you didn't put that in the way you intended.
I'm glad you don't. Just understand that your opening "digression" summarily contradicted that, and that is what I took on. I cannot apologize for misunderstanding, because I only took your words at face value.
Because the hiring manager needs to allocate enough time to state his/her case on dev.to? But joke aside: Again, I think you base that on particular assumptions that translate to either what kind of candidate(s) you personally seek(ed) for or how you think that candidate spends the days. Because let's face it: if the candidate is at home looking for a job than it is more than logical that this person would do anything (including spending all of the available time) to seek employment. And if such a candidate is not willing to invest a large enough time then scepticism is appropriate. But if the candidate reaches out to seek better opportunities, things can look very differently. Do you know how often it happens that highly skilled people are contacted by head-hunters and if they show interest are presented with these procedures? So I guess I simply account for a different hypothetical candidate.
So I let that slip the last time as I thought it's more of a generalisation, but let's address it: Why does this hiring manager spend hundreds of hours? Your example was based on 300 applications and I assume that the scenario has an HR department responsible for actual job postings on various platforms etc. So we basically have:
as topics our hiring manager is potentially involved in prior to screening resumes? And then your mentioned 300 resumes on the table. So, if you don't mind me asking, what do I forget that would take hundreds of hours I am not accounting for? So far, it sounds like 40-60h. Not that that wouldn't be a time investment, but I'd look at this from a different angle: If the total amount of hours a company spends on recruiting really is in the hundreds (across multiple employees, of course), it's even more reason to look into the process.
About how I formulated what I find a reasonable demand:
Forgive me if I will not join a discussion of how I meant something after being presented with a text you pasted together from my post. The article as a whole is written with sarcasm and humour and taking things out of context is a rhetorical strategy one can use in debates to convince an audience, if you must, but not convincing for the actual author. I do take your word for it that the way you portray it is the way you perceived it. And there is no apology needed or expected for that. But there is really nothing beyond "That's not what I meant" I can add to that either.
Agreed. Fully! But pretending that the candidate has any kind of loyalty towards a team he/she doesn't know yet would be unrealistic (maybe even delusional). The candidate that doesn't attend an interview with the primary objective to find out "what's in it for him/her" probably doesn't even exists - and if such an exception comes along, I'd be highly interested in the primary motives. I just assume that we can openly talk about this here rather than playing this societal game where we have to pretend that there is any kind of personal attachment towards a (for the candidate at that point) soulless corporation. The human factor first has to grow.
As for most of what you say regarding the risk of hiring a person in the first place as well as the interview process itself I have nothing to disagree with. Again, it's not that I don't know this process (hint: maybe read the very first sentence of the post again). I really don't know how to formulate it any differently: I do not propose not vetting the candidate carefully and appropriately. I simply question how that t(r)ends to be done.
And yes, for the purpose of this post I do explore the topic from the perspective of the candidate. But there might be a future "Why you won't find your unicorn" version from a perspective you will more likely identify with.
Again, this is not about a class war employer vs. employee. I think in the end there is probably more that we agree upon than not (referring to the ideals of a mutually beneficial, invested and loyal team throughout the hierarchy).
Yes, 40-60 hours is reasonable, and what I would expect. That's a full work-week, and then some, assuming they have absolutely nothing further to do. God help the hiring manager (like me) who does things OTHER than hiring and HR.
The 300 hours I mentioned was, if you casually skim through again, what it WOULD take if a hiring manager was to take your (reportedly sarcastic) advice at face value and interview all 300 candidates who looked good on paper. Which is absurd.
I can appreciate if that wasn't what you meant, but it is what you said. I didn't need to "paste together" something, as you so strangely accused me of. I copy-pasted your paragraph so I couldn't be accused of misquoting.
I appreciate satire and sarcasm, having written plenty of it over the years. But the truth is, an author is entirely responsible for how that sarcasm is taken. If a reader indeed reads all of what you said, can quote it back to you, and misses your meaning, that responsibility falls entirely on you, the author, for being unclear.
I'm glad you were not serious when you spent several paragraphs roasting hiring managers for expecting coding challenges before a final interview. Unfortunately, that message wasn't quite clear as originally put, as I think you already know given the abruptness of your defensive reaction. In the future, just go "Ah, I think I was unclear, what I meant was X" and move on.
It's not an attack on you. There are just too many entitled people who really believe that the whole hiring system is unfair because they're not being pandered to, and would take the opening of your article at face value as justification for their 'tudes. You and I both have a responsibility to be mindful of that in writing sarcasm, satire, and irony.
Not only skimmed through it, but read the complete thread to make sure. You repeatedly make it sound like these hundreds of hours are a given, using it as an argument to make your point. I mean, apparently we are experts in misjudging each others words, but you made arguments like "If I pay for the meal you can at least pay the tip" and similar that all underlined that impression.
Yes, by now I have fully internalized that your position is that you are stretched thin and have a lot on your table (which I honestly don't doubt for a second, just to make that clear), while the candidate could be so kind to pause Netflix for a while to fill out some tests (and here is where I beg to differ). And again, if that's your hypothetical candidate, then that's probably a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I didn't meant to accuse you of misquoting, but of taking things out of context.
Ah, so we find ourselves in a value-difference. Uff, I don't think I want to get into that discussion. But no, I disagree and have a different opinion.
So, about that: Yes, why did you feel so triggered in the first place? I didn't even use the word "hiring manager" once in my original post. My post is structured like this:
The concept
Here I say that vetting is necessary
The investment
Here I say that the effort seems to have a trend of growing.
(And all the two of us talk about is within two short paragraphs in this section)
The conditions
Here I talk about unrealistic conditions of hakerrank & co
The time
Here I open up the discussion to the necessity of time-based assessment vs. the negative effects it has on quality
The challenges
This part is in regards to the use(full/less)ness of common coding challenges.
The tragedy
Here I claim that training for such challenges distorts what those tests are intended to evaluate.
So, I basically inserted a question regarding how much we can ask a candidate to invest in a post that is about coding challenges and that set you off? Let's see:
So here we get to the point, don't we? This is not a class-war as I misinterpreted. This is about your ego. And silly me said "No apology needed" when you actually expected me to apologize.
And you know what, I probably would if I shared your believe that
"author is entirely responsible for how that sarcasm is taken". But I don't. I think that the majority here "got it right" and you came in from an angle that didn't allow you to understand where I'm coming from. But tell you what - pinky promise: Should we ever meet in real life, let's have a beer (I pay for the beer, you the tip ;-) ). I think that we might have more in common than this thread would indicate.
Well, you can mischaracterize this as an ego issue if that makes you feel better. I was content at it being about your point stated mismatching your point intended, once that became evident, but I suppose that's not comfortable for everyone.
Everyone comes into an article with a unique perspective. The field of communication (my academic background) is all about learning to account for that. No one can read your mind, only you can do that, so if someone misses your point, it's your job to non-defensively clarify, and possibly to tweak your original post to remove the ambiguity if it seems appropriate to do so. Getting angry at someone for not being able to read what you meant instead of what you said is unreasonable.
As to...
One can grow tired of hearing the same fallacies repeated over and over again, and can confront them, without being 'triggered'. As a career mentor, I have to deal with misconceptions among young developers about hiring on a regular basis. It's a topic I am passionate about, because I see the results so often, my own company notwithstanding.
But as I said, if you'd rather trade a discussion about ideas and how they're expressed for one about how terrible and sensitive a person you imagine I am, I cannot stop you.
I do hope someday you learn to take responsibility for your role in communication. I will grant that it isn't always an easy one to learn — I myself learned how over years of mistakes as a professional writer — but as such a lesson presently runs contrary to your beliefs, I see no point in continuing this conversation. You have a right to learn things the hard way, so I'll let you get back to it, without me interfering any further in that.
To that aim, if I miscommunicated what I meant about 300-600 hours being abnormal, I apologize for not being clearer.
In the meantime, we're at an impasse, so we'll just leave this here.
I am sorry, really expected you to have the last word and wanted to leave it at that as well, but I am baffled.
Really? My intend, even from the way you took it, is obviously to start a discussion about how we as a developer community can improve the hiring process. Even if I fully emerge into your perspective, one might still wonder why we are talking about hiring managers and attitudes below a post that isn't about that.
As for the personal level: I really don't know you and have nothing against you as a person. I match my tone to the level of arrogance I experience, but that does not mean that any personal grudges derive from it. I have no intend to "express how terrible and sensitive of a person I imagine you to be". You might think I am naive (actually pretty sure you do based on how you address me), but I am not disliking people based on having a different opinion and the willingness to express them strongly. After all, I am not blind towards the fact that there is some irony in this being about my ego as well.
And a quick note about your passion and mentorship: I haven't seen this topic addressed in your posts (but only skimmed your profile, so forgive me). I think it would be of interest to many what you can share about misconceptions regarding hiring and job-searching
That said, you may have the last word now. Promised. I will resist.
I really believe you did, right from the start! I was addressing a single section in which you were expressing a message that mismatched the rest of your point. I tried hard to keep on the idea, and I apologize if I made it about anything else.
I re-read my posts, and I'm fairly sure I avoided saying anything about your ego, mate. That said...
Um, right here:
...and here...
That's when it left ideas and went into characterizing me as being sensitive and egotistical, rather than me just addressing a topic I'm passionate about based on my actual experience.
And perhaps I do owe you a citation of my credentials: I've been doing hiring successfully for a small, diverse team for nearly a decade. My processes have been vetted by university career services departments, and proven by the actual results of hiring. Like I'd said, I don't know your experience, but your statement seemed to suggest that you didn't understand what a hiring manager's workload tended to be like. Armchair experts on this topic are a dime a dozen, and you'd made no mention in your post of doing this before (unless I missed it? Correct me here!). One of the core principles of public speaking is to cite your credibility up front; that applies here.
But again, I believe that one section did not adequately express your opinion on the topic, and I'm well aware it mismatched the rest of your post.
I've been on the flip side of this before, by the way. I once got schooled in how Java actually compiled by one of the engineers responsible. I wanted to be able to dismiss him as "arrogant", but the fact was, he had knowledge I didn't. Between the two of us, we were able to figure out how to disambiguate some build vocabulary, which I later put into a post.
By the way,
I can appreciate that you don't altogether dismiss it, especially as you haven't yet crossed the Code of Conduct line (even if that was a close shave one post ago, see above.) Things get heated. I wouldn't be surprised if I used less-than-ideal phrasing a few times myself, as much as I tried not to.
I haven't written a lot about hiring in my DEV posts. Most of my work in this area is on a more individual basis as a mentor, although I've been involved in many conversations on DEV about good and bad hiring practice. I plan to someday write an article about it, but at this time, I've got bigger fish to fry.
My last point on the topic of responsibility of meaning: imagine a reader who is feeling put out because he was vetted for coding skills he claimed he had, and was found wanting because he couldn't code at all. He's oscillating between the idea that not being selected was on him, for not having the essential minimum skills before applying, and the idea that the hiring manager was just cruel and unreasonable. He happens across your post and reads that one section. How do you think he'd react? Would he thoughtfully consider how he can prepare for job applications, or would he just conclude that "any coding interview that expects me to verify my skills before the final interview is unreasonable!" Read your own post with a jaded eye, and you may see what I mean.
In any case, I digress.
I don't need to have the last word; in fact, your last post has only made me want to discuss different vetting methods with you! But I don't believe it's worth doing that under all that noise. I'll respond a second time, and we can focus on that instead. After all, it IS the bulk of your article's point.
Glad you're having fun as well.
I will use the new thread you started for that (probably a little later as I have things to attend to). Just quickly some remarks/questions on language to end this thread:
Yes, sorry. I probably should have said "our egos" right there. The actual epiphany here was to realize we manoeuvred ourselves in something I would formulate differently in a bar (hence the beer reference). It was regarding a male trait where two can realize that all the evolution and intelligence we gained doesn't spare us from sometimes finding ourselves in what is often referenced as a comparison of certain extremities.
I am aware of the connotation the word "triggered" recently gained in society. And I think we loose a physically accurate word describing "cause and effect" if we just use it in that "new, negative" way. "A caused B" is simply not the same as "A triggered B". So yes, I meant that something I wrote is directly responsible for you reacting in a certain way. But beyond that, there is no (neither negative nor positive) connotation I wanted to convey. I will always "trigger" webhooks, won't I?
Connotation is weird, innit? It's the one thing that kills me every time. I'm extremely literal in verbal communication, a residual side-effect of a traumatic brain injury in 2008, so I will often completely miss the connotation of a word or phrase, since I'm selecting it purely for its denotative meaning.
For whatever reason, this doesn't happen quite the same way for me in written communication. But that struggle with connotation in verbal communication has given me empathy for differences in interpretation. I think "triggered" as you intended it certainly ties into this; I've been exposed to so many complainers unduly whining about the hiring process that hearing those same phrases in a different context is associated with the same ideas, ergo my (incorrect) assumption you were merely a disgruntled candidate who wound up on the wrong side of a coding challenge (paired with the lack of anything to indicate the opposite, ergo that whole "cite your credibility" thing.
I'm not sure our conversation was really all that "males in a bar" flavored, however. I've had similar conversations with people of all genders and backgrounds. The essential point is that we were, as you said, on opposite extreme positions. Unfortunately, in a public forum, backing down from a position you feel passionate about invites observers to conclude you have nothing valid to say; if we'd had this conversation in private, I'd have honestly just quit after your initial rebuttal. In the end, I think we both made our points, so even if we can't entirely agree, our cases are established well enough for the intelligent observer to draw a sensible conclusion for themselves.
But, yeah, "triggered" is an unfortunate victim of language evolution, and that means we cannot effectively use it in its original context in random conversation. So what do we use instead? Maybe "Yes, why did you feel so strongly to that point in the first place?" (I'm sure there are other alternatives, besides.)
At the risk of sounding overly P.C. (which I'm seldom accused of...if anything, diplomacy is often lost to me!), connotation is inescapable, and we have to factor it in. If you ever get the chance, I definitely recommend picking up any courses or books you can on intercultural communication! It's been incredibly helpful in my career, especially in writing and public speaking. I'm certain you would find a lot of enjoyment and practical insight from it; but then, every person breathing could benefit from communication studies.
Of course, on the note of knowing connotation and taking full responsibility for "misunderstandings" (I hate that term) of one's own writing, I wouldn't advise anything I wouldn't do. I will often go back and clarify my own articles, sometimes well after the fact, even when I have reason to believe my point was deliberately misinterpreted by an angry commentor. The fantastic upshot of that is that it reduces the mental load involved in reading my work. I sincerely believe that aspect of my writing is a major reason I got a book contract.
That might be a generational issue as well. I noticed that the use of smilies and emojis help putting the right tone into written communication. But I seem to be too old to get the hang of it yet too young to not being expected to "read" it.
As for triggered: I feel like the final word on that isn't out yet. There is always a "point of no return" when certain words or expressions tip over and cannot be used anymore without being understood in a certain way. I am not declaring the fight for the term "triggered" as over, yet. I started to be used in a psychological realm to prevent exactly that: to carry blame. "I am triggered by..." does not mean "It is your fault that I feel...". It simply declared the emotional effect something had on a particular individual. And it was a suitable use. Then one side added the connotation if blame and the other side made fun of the use in general. And all of a sudden that makes it derogatory in all contexts? Let's hope that's a fluke.
As for communication in general: I actually do invest some time in the topic and agree everyone should. But as you noticed, not only is language a living, constantly changing beast, we also live in a world where most of the people we communicate with use English, but didn't grow up with it (me included). This causes many local differences in forms of expression, between-the-lines interpretations and tone. It's something I always try to take into account, and therefore cannot go with you regarding your standard of "writing so everyone understands what you mean". At the end of the day, you have to aim for a percentage. If 60% get what you mean, there is room for improvement. But even if 99% of the readers put things together how you intended them to be understood, you will still "fail" to get your point across towards some.
And the feedback always feels distorted. If your book (congrats, BTW) gets sold 1 00 000 times and only 1% feel misrepresented/misunderstood, you will hear from that 1%. You won't get feedback from the ones nodding it off, and you probably won't get much feedback from the ones who loved it. But that 1%. These 1000 individuals will way more likely get vocal.
Well, and that's just it. Communication emphasizes paralinguistics — aspects of communication beyond written/spoken language — so heavily, it really helps deobfuscate some of the weirder things about language, such as connotation. Intercultural communication, in particular, focuses heavily on differences in cultural and societal norms and expectations, where those come from, and how those influence communication.
Yes, you'll always lose someone, no doubt. The trouble comes in recognizing when we wrote something that's at a notable risk of being misunderstood. Wit, humor, and sarcasm are especially high risk in this regard, such that many authors will call out sections of satire outright. In other cases, you can "cushion the blow" to reduce the risk, especially if the context is missed.
(Thanks for the edit, by the way!)
If I were to take a shot at writing those two paragraphs we've been debating about, it would probably look something like the following. (You do NOT have to rewrite it; your edit is just peachy! This is just my demonstrating what I mean.)
See what I mean? Most of it is untouched, but a few words add clarity: your issue is the usefulness and return on those practices, not the practices in and of themselves. You're not dismissing phone interviews and coding challenges, but rather, you're challenging how they're done!
Anyhow, moving on...
Definitely true. Usually you only get 2% of your audience giving feedback: the people who either love it so much they'd keep a copy under their pillow, or hate it and wish you'd go jump in a lake. ;) I'm exaggerating, obviously, but yes, there's a bias.
To that aim, however, one has to remember that for every person who WILL speak up about their dislike, there are probably a dozen or more who didn't say anything and just moved on. That's why I try to take feedback seriously (although not necessarily to heart): the one superfan speaks for a horde of moderate fans, the one harsh critic speaks for the horde of moderate critics.
There is a point where you have to ignore any particular critic, but only once you've seriously evaluated whether there's anything of merit in their criticism. Being a professional author really helps you develop a tough skin.