Thread by @mipsytipsy

It's almost like a person's body of work and personal references should carry more weight than whatever bullshit we could think of to quiz them on.

https://twitter.com/lizthegrey/status/1112443781251502080

It's almost like there is an irreducible element of risk to hiring that you just have to accept and embrace. Not every candidate is going to work out, no matter how many contortions you put them through, so why not leave them some dignity?

It's almost like you should be hiring for the strengths you need, not lack of weaknesses.

(It's almost like you should all just listen to @eanakashima on this topic, )

We all interview in prod, as @monkchips put it. Lots of candidates won't work out, and there is no way to know until you hire them.

The failures which are less visible, but no less devastating, are the people you didn't hire for stupid reasons who could have *killed it*.

I always wondered at FB what it would do to a) diversity stats, b) quality of output, and c) team cohesion if all eng candidates who qualified for an on-site interview were just submitted to a hiring lottery.

Use the 3mo review to manage underperformers out gently, w/ severance.

For bonus points, you could set up a three month intensive boot camp for technical OR social skills that candidates could take in lieu of severance for a chance at a redo.

It's true that if you open the door wider and give more folks a shot, you MAY need to manage more out,

but that's not rocket science either, and entirely possible to do humanely. Just set expectations and be clear with people: no surprises.

It's not fair to call it "lowering the bar" when you already have no confidence in the bar. Maybe the bar is a bad bar.

FB ran spreadsheet test after test trying to figure out which interview questions correlated with success, or which confidence level was the magic predictor, or which other variable.

Result: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯!

This shit is ripe for a revolution.