The wrong way first: interview someone for an hour. If you like them, have them interview three or four other people in your organization for an hour each.Hmmm, that sounds strangely familiar -- oh yeah, it's pretty close to how I've done it. And frankly my results haven't been that great; I've made a few stinkers along the way.
In my defense, it would be bureaucratically impossible where I work to use freelancing and trial periods, which is what Seth recommends. On the other hand, I have a feeling that doing 3 or 4 people for an hour is the default, I-didn't-give-this-any-thought method. Which makes me suspicious.
Hiring is too hugely important to do without a well-considered strategy, even more than compensation.
Investment banks commonly go the other route: an hour interview with 10 - 12 people. This sounds ludicrous compared to Seth's ideas, but then Goldman, Sachs does that, and their staff regularly beats up the other Wall Street firms.
Toward the end of the last hiring phase (which was a very long time ago now), I changed to 5- to 10-minute phone interviews as an initial screen, and then 20- to 30-minute in-person interviews. I don't know that the results were any better, but I don't think they were worse, so the time saved made it a net plus.
Hiring is tough because it's a little like picking someone to marry after a round of speed dating. You only know if it's going to work once you're in the relationship, which is Seth's point exactly.
In lieu of that, companies try to do group activities, written tests, psychological exams, etc. -- all attempts to get beyond the words.
One great idea was Jeff Atwood's suggestion to have the developer give a 10-minute presentation about their last project to 4 or 5 people. Not only are you looking for clear thinking and communication, but what someone talks about says a lot about how they learn and what they do well.
Once things turn around, I'm looking forward to trying some new hiring techniques.
No comments:
Post a Comment