This is an insightful post about how a software security firm, an industry for which is very difficult to find really good candidates, revamped their hiring process and achieved great results.
“Because here is the thing about interviews: they are incredibly hostile experiences for candidates.
For many people, I wonder if they might be among the most hostile experiences in all of life. In what other normal life experience is a group of people impaneled to assess —– adversarially! —– one’s worthiness with respect to their life’s work? By a jury by design must say “no” far more often than “yes”.
I’m sorry, Alex, but I’m briefly dragging you back into my narrative.
By the time we interviewed Alex in person, we had already implemented a number of countermeasures to unreliable interviews. Alex had been told up front that an in-person interview meant we liked him a lot and there was a very good chance we’d hire him. I walked into the conference room to meet him. He appeared to be physically shaking. You didn’t need to be a psychologist to detect the nervous energy; it radiated from him, visibly, like in an R. Crumb cartoon.
Engineering teams are not infantry squads. They aren’t selected for their ability to perform under unnatural stress. But that’s what most interview processes demand, often —– as is the case with every interview that assesses “confidence” —– explicitly so.”
The author tells readers at the beginning of his post that it is long and even offers a table of contents in case people want to skip a section.
Pay no heed to this warning. The post takes less than 5 minutes to read and is chock full of insight.
Via the always excellent, RC3.org