In my humble opinion, and this is just an opinion (based on my recent events) I can understand that big companies like Amazon, Microsoft or Google to name a few, have a complex hiring process, for example, simply because the number of candidates they need a way to filter somehow. I'm not defending it, but I can see a few reasons behind it.
But the rest of small startups and companies that imitate the same process, it just doesn't make sense at all. People copy, without a thought about why they're copying. Just because Google does it, does that mean that it is also good for your company? I don't think so.
Data structures and algorithms are for a developer like a scalpel for a surgeon. For example, a ruby developer the least you could expect from him/her it's a good control about arrays and hashes.
I'm not against challenges, in fact, I think it's a good (missed) opportunity for both parts to check if that role is a good fit for both, the company and the candidate. The problem is the execution of the process, which in a big number of places it's indeed broken.
Yes, I totally agree. Hiring for big companies has to work differently than for smaller companies. Both have in common the risk of false positives, i. e. hiring someone who doesn't fit. So filtering these out is what the process should do.
But they do not share the same requirements profile. So having the same requirements strategy doesn't make sense.
I was only hired so far, so I can not speak how I do it. But I can speak of the processes at companies which hired me or of my personal requirements for people working with me.
What all had in common was that they were focused on personality and potential. So far I was not qualified (in a narrow sense) for my jobs:
I worked at a Microsoft shop though being a Linux guy
I worked at a Javashop though I had experience with C#
I work currently as a Python/JS developer
What I brought to the table was mostly a general ability / willingness of learning new stuff. This was valued in all jobs I had so far.
I know that I wouldn't survive a traditional (whiteboard) coding interview because of my gaps of knowledge in some areas. I can't code a BFS from the top of my head. I know what kind of problem could be solved with that. And if I ever need to solve such a problem, I could look it up or ask colleagues about it.
So jobs demanding people knowing that from the top of their heads, aren't for me and I wouldn't get hired for those. So far so good.
What advice I would give smaller companies: ask yourselves whether your hiring process gives you the people you require to do the job.
In my humble opinion, and this is just an opinion (based on my recent events) I can understand that big companies like Amazon, Microsoft or Google to name a few, have a complex hiring process, for example, simply because the number of candidates they need a way to filter somehow. I'm not defending it, but I can see a few reasons behind it.
But the rest of small startups and companies that imitate the same process, it just doesn't make sense at all. People copy, without a thought about why they're copying. Just because Google does it, does that mean that it is also good for your company? I don't think so.
Data structures and algorithms are for a developer like a scalpel for a surgeon. For example, a ruby developer the least you could expect from him/her it's a good control about arrays and hashes.
I'm not against challenges, in fact, I think it's a good (missed) opportunity for both parts to check if that role is a good fit for both, the company and the candidate. The problem is the execution of the process, which in a big number of places it's indeed broken.
Yes, I totally agree. Hiring for big companies has to work differently than for smaller companies. Both have in common the risk of false positives, i. e. hiring someone who doesn't fit. So filtering these out is what the process should do.
But they do not share the same requirements profile. So having the same requirements strategy doesn't make sense.
I was only hired so far, so I can not speak how I do it. But I can speak of the processes at companies which hired me or of my personal requirements for people working with me.
What all had in common was that they were focused on personality and potential. So far I was not qualified (in a narrow sense) for my jobs:
What I brought to the table was mostly a general ability / willingness of learning new stuff. This was valued in all jobs I had so far.
I know that I wouldn't survive a traditional (whiteboard) coding interview because of my gaps of knowledge in some areas. I can't code a BFS from the top of my head. I know what kind of problem could be solved with that. And if I ever need to solve such a problem, I could look it up or ask colleagues about it.
So jobs demanding people knowing that from the top of their heads, aren't for me and I wouldn't get hired for those. So far so good.
What advice I would give smaller companies: ask yourselves whether your hiring process gives you the people you require to do the job.
I'd give this comment 1e6 hearts if I could ;)