Alex Ko's Library tagged hiring → View Popular

10 Dec 09

My hunch is that at most companies, the mix of job applicants is something like 80% active candidates, 10% passive, and 10% referrals. A better mix would be 30% active, 60% passive, and 10% referrals.
try to find passive candidates while they are surfing the Web

09 Dec 09

For many Americans today, a trip through college is considered as much of a birthright as a driver's license.
That piece of paper no longer means very much, and employers know that
1 more annotations...
- Everybody's got it, so it's watered down.

04 Dec 09

there is no general shortage of engineers in the U.S.
Engineering has become an "up or out" profession—you either move up the ladder or you face unemployment
4 more annotations...
- I know from my days as a tech chief executive that finding good engineering talent in the U.S. is always difficult.
- And hiring policies and skill needs vary significantly between companies. Some can only afford to hire young, inexperienced workers, while others can pick and choose.
- his strategy was to find young, impressionable workers who earned entry-level salaries and could learn on the job
- she can afford to pay what she needs, but her best hires and most productive employees have been new college graduates. She explains
  they tend to be more familiar with the latest technologies, adapt readily to change, are more creative, and try new things. Middle-aged hires have not always worked out as well for her. She says most had dated skills and expected to be paid for experience that wasn't relevant to her firm.

03 Dec 09

29 Nov 09

There are three questions you have when you’re hiring a programmer (or anyone, for that matter): Are they smart? Can they get stuff done? Can you work with them?
non-smart people get stuff done by doing it the hard way and working with them is slow and frustrating
5 more annotations...
- Is it concise? clear? elegant? usable? Is it something you’d want in your product?
- First, do they know stuff? Ask them what they’ve been thinking about and probe them about it. Do they seem to understand it in detail? Can they explain it clearly? (Clear explanations are a sign of genuine understanding.) Do they know stuff about the subject that you don’t?
- Second, are they curious? Do they reciprocate by asking questions about you? Are they genuinely interested or just being polite? Do they ask follow-up questions about what you’re saying? Do their questions that make you think?
- Third, do they learn? At some point in the conversation, you’ll probably be explaining something to them. Do they actually understand it or do they just nod and smile? There are people who know stuff about some small area but aren’t curious about others. And there are people who are curious but don’t learn, they ask lots of questions but don’t really listen. You want someone who does all three.
- I’m amazed that so many companies use such silly hiring methods instead.

09 Nov 09

The problem that I see with track records is, most people, especially when desperate for more help, never look beyond it and just take everything people with good track records say at face value, and don't dig any deeper.
A long string of successes often blinds us to luck's effect on those outcomes, and we start feeling an aura of invincibility and treating future ventures with an inevitability of success, which is very dangerous.
2 more annotations...
- People who don't take risk into account are dangerous for you to be associated with, especially if they have a history of successes. Those successes have probably made them too confident in the way they do things, and are too arrogant to admit mistakes and change.
- Which person/choice improves my probabilities the most for what I want to do?