Does anyone else find the prospect of video résumé a bit frightening? Some people (myself included) are simply not that comfortable in front of a camera.
We did something similar with FacesForce.com and tried a few markets. Video is very tricky. It appears it is best to let users submit a video without being asked, but the issue with this is users do not want to pay. So the HH model will definitely bring in revenue faster.
A few people are worried they may be discriminated against if they send a video, but if someone is going to disqualify you based on what they see, they will do it when you show up for interview. So at least you save time.
The way someone looks on video is always so different from a face to face contact, discrimination most of the time has to do with perception more than anything. By talking to someone you get a better sense and generally throw off initial perception.
I think it's a lot easier for one interviewer in a team of a few, going over a big pool of applicants, to reject people for personal/stupid/illegal reasons if he can do so anonymously. Say there are 20 women applying out of 100; if only 5 people are brought in for in-person interviews, and 0 are women, it's a lot easier and less open to potential liability than if 5 candidates include one perfect female candidate and 4 objectively-lesser male candidates, and the female still doesn't get the job.
It's so weird and perhaps a sign that the US hiring market has some deep flaws that the discussion here has focused so much on discrimination. That really shouldn't be at the top of a business person's mind when they hire - hiring an employee is supposed to help make the company perform as best as it can in the future, full stop.
I see hire hives approach as great for everyone if they can execute well - it gives a much better idea of what a candidate is actually like than paper, without the expense or huge time sink (for both parties) of an in-person interview.
I think it all comes down to the lingering issue of how much of ourselves are we willing to record for all to see. Another issue that video resume may raise is what I will call, remote discrimination; how good your video is may decide whether you get a call for in-house interview or not.
One of our goals is to help people feel more comfortable recording short videos. We don't see HireHive has a "video resume" (i.e. something you agonize over carefully crafting long answers to) so much as a lightweight way to answer questions off-the-cuff.
One of the challenges we face is to figure out how to set the tone so people can relax and be themselves. Is there anything that you think would help you feel more comfortable?
I think you're right to want people to be off the cuff, and also relaxed. I would personally try to emulate the traditional phone interview, optionally with video -- start off with some chitchat and background on the company to get candidates comfortable, and then ask questions which demand immediate and realtime, unrehearsed responses.
You have the chance of making the process more efficient, especially when there are hundreds or thousands of applicants. Maybe use a video pitch by the interviewer, clip about the company, etc. to set the setting and make the candidate comfortable, and then do instant-response questions with video response.
I might also start the interview with some super-softball questions, to get the user familiar with the system. "What's your name?" isn't really good, but some really easy tech questions or even general knowledge questions might be good.
The main benefits to me in having a bunch of recorded interviews is that I can instantly drop one if the candidate is obviously a reject. It took me a few years of hiring responsibility before I got to the point of "I'm sorry, I have to end this now" if someone is obviously unacceptable 5-10 minutes in. A problem with doing that in real life is that you need to block out the whole interview on your schedule, and it's harder to fit other things back in once that is freed.
Being able to outsource reviewing answers to other people in your organization would also be great -- e.g. sending the database question to your database guys. If you are really interviewing 1k people, you can have your database guy look at 10, grade those, and then have a junior person, based on those, grade any which pattern-match well, and refer the others back to the expert.
I'd still prefer a written or executable test for most technical jobs, at least as my initial screen, and an IM or phone chat, but I could see the value of this for some roles.
Thanks, these are all excellent suggestions! I particularly like the idea of having companies post intro videos to help set the tone and make people feel a little more comfortable.
I would provide some pointers and a variety of example videos. Offer a few great videos, with some explanation of why each is good, and do the same with some less-than-spectacular specimens.
Also, things like lighting and sound can make a pretty big difference, so providing basic info on optimizing your setup might help.
I also like the idea of having each company do an intro video that sets the mood.
Thanks for the suggestions, shelly! I think the both an intro video from the company and example videos with some advice for recording would be great additions.
i agree the prospect of filming yourself is somewhat uncomfortable but i've been stunned during the YC application review process by just how much a video adds to the application. it's actually, for me, the most important part of the application while reviewing it.
i believe employers will realize this too and once they do, they'll insist on having video as standard in applications. once that happens, uploading videos of yourself will become more commonplace and eventually feel less alien.
It is for me too, and the reason is that's it's so high bandwidth compared to text. At our stage, we care mostly about the people, and you can tell much more about people from watching them talk than from reading what they write, just as (though not to the same extent) you can tell more about someone from meeting them in person than reading a resume.
Seems like kind of a strange filter to me. What is the connection between how well someone comes across on camera and how good they are at coding and developing a product? You say it's high bandwidth, but is the data useful? 50 terabytes per second of noise is still noise.
Also, I don't think this test fares very well in retrospect. Steve Jobs probably would've given a good video resume, but what about Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Williams, and the like? These guys usually come across as duds on video.
It sounds like what you mean by coming across well on video = being charismatic. You seem to assume that's what we're looking for, but it's not. What we're looking for is people who will make good startup founders. We have a lot of data about what good startup founders are like, so we're able to recognize them well enough to make the video useful.
Study after study shows that people consider good looking, charismatic people smarter and more trustworthy. How can you make sure you're not falling into the same trap? This seems like it will just degrade into the prettier, charismatic people getting yet another leg up on everyone else.
I could be falling into this trap to some extent, but if you think about my background, I'd probably be less likely to fall into it than just about anyone else in the world. If anything I'd worry that I'd be inclined to discriminate against attractive people, not in their favor.
I feel that it takes something away from applicants, and gives most of the value to the employer.
YC reviews are different; you're being reviewed by hackers who don't care if you hair is combed or if you wearing a hoodie with some nintendo character on it. I think employers would LOVE having this kind of rich information in their applications, but at what price to the applicants?
The rest of the world isn't as laid back as YC. If I'm going to have to start applying for jobs with video, I'm going to have to study the questions and write up scripts. Practice those scripts on video probably a dozen times, choose the best one. I have to dress up and gel my hair, clean up my background, clear my desk of cans and bottles. Worry about how my teeth look, if they can see that pimple on my cheek, etc. All for what will result in only a few mins of video. It sounds very trivial and superficial, but with video, a job application is now a pseudo-interview, if you mess that up, you don't get another chance. It takes much longer to cut a video reply you're happy with than it does to write a paragraph you're happy with.
I disagree that this will become standard on applications. The problem the majority of companies have with recruiting is sifting through large numbers of unqualified resumes that are total junk and a waste of time. Once past this phase video can add value, but just ask any recruiter if they would ever want to use this for screening. The answer will be 100% no. Many of these people have developed the ability to skim resumes in seconds, if you ask them to watch a 5 minute video instead they just won't.
Hopefully, adding the need to record a five-minute video will weed out some of the resume-spamming applicants, so the total stack of your resume size will become smaller. But I assume you'd only get around to watching videos once you'd narrowed down your stack of resumes to a manageable number, maybe twice as many as you plan to interview.
Maybe I'm just paranoid and have low expectations for humanity, but I think the main demand for video interviews would be to do racial/ethnic/attractiveness discrimination on candidates. Early in the process, it would be a lot easier to discard all people of [unfavored group] without any allegations of unfairness.
Discrimination is a serious problem with all hiring -- people discriminate when they read names on resumes, speak with people on the phone, and when people come in for interviews. Like most tools, HireHive could be misused. We hope though that it will overall help people shine through who don't look super impressive on paper but are in fact awesome.
I'm perplexed by your statement about there being "Good" and "Bad" discrimination. In this context, discrimination means judging someone based on their looks or other visible features from their video. If nobody believes they should be judged by whether they're male/female, minorities, religious, attractive/ugly, etc., why would there ever be "Good" discrimination?
I can think of some (admittedly contrived) scenarios where being allowed to discriminate on illegal-in-the-US traits would be beneficial to the company. For instance, I think women would be much more willing to buy undergarments from women than (especially, unattractive) men. There are definitely people with a preference about the sex of their doctor. There are lots of documented studies about attractive people being more successful in management and sales, so especially if the hire is viewed as a long-term career move, hiring an unattractive person might be objectively inferior.
There are specific, legal, questions you could ask which would be ok ("how many years of experience do you have with bras?", various technical questions, etc.) which might correlate highly with certain physical characteristics.
I think there is a moral argument against discrimination on these grounds, but there's also an argument for letting companies make their own decisions.
Even without legal prohibitions on discrimination, I wouldn't want to create a workplace where this kind of discrimination happened -- even if it were good for a specific job, it would also drive away other candidates for other jobs, and I think the net loss would be greater.
"In this context, discrimination means judging someone based on their looks or other visible features from their video." -- I think that is the point where ou disagree. You are also discriminating when you separate the wheat from the chaff.
imho we are past the point where that's the main way people will use this tool, but we're not past the point where it's not happening anymore. And we are clearly not past the point where people assume it will happen.
Job boards are broken, and this is a good step in the right direction, and I wish them the best.
I would caution though against not looking at the discrimination piece head on, and addressing it clearly.
The reality is, video interviews do make it much easier, and less costly to discriminate, and easier to hide it. People who have been targets of discrimination might be less hesitant to use them. This might skew the candidate base...etc.
I don't have any good ideas about how to address this, and I'm excited about these guys making a dent in how we hire, but I do not think you can take more than a few steps in this direction without directly addressing its possible (and probable) misuse.
Well, if someone wants to discriminate, they can do so regardless. I think it's much more insidious how people unconsciously can disregard people based on first impression. It's sort of the case of "anchoring" -- if you form an initial impression, maybe just based on someone's clothes or mannerisms, it's likely to bias your final impression. (See lesswrong.com for many discussions about this.) Without the video, the first impression is more likely to be based on actual facts as opposed to personal judgment.
My initial response is definitely skeptical. If I'm asked to record a video for an interview question, I'm going to write down my answer first, and then read it in a casual way.
You're going to be judging my skill at speaking into a little square at the top of a computer. I hope this isn't treated as a tool to judge interpersonal skills.
What value is added, beyond making it easier to dismiss people based on appearance and personal preferences? I guess judging based on a perceived personality is kosher, but let's be realistic about the purpose here.
I think a live video-call is totally fair-game, but something about this definitely rubs me the wrong way.
I appreciate your skepticism :) We think there's actually a lot you can learn about someone by watching and listening to them speak, particularly when they're talking about what they're passionate about or why they want to work at your company.
Another advantage is that, for some people at least, it's a lot easier to just record yourself speaking for 60 seconds than to write a cover letter (which have become engineered to point of being pretty bland, IMHO).
There's also the exact opposite issue for some people. I don't really have a problem opening up or making a personal connection in person. I cringe hearing or seeing myself on video. I can't stand it, even if I'm seeing a video of my son and I playing which I love. A company requiring a video recording as part of the application process would be an instant pass for me since you wouldn't be getting me, you'd be getting the extremely uncomfortable self conscious version of me.
By nature I'm somewhat of an introvert, so I have to apply a conscious effort to speak out at parties and other social events. I see this as a great excuse for myself and others like me to keep practicing and improving. The fact that your personality type is "introverted" doesn't mean you actually have to remain an introvert.
Agreed. I'm pretty good in interviews because I can interact with the interviewer, making a personal connection that calms me down and then I'm just myself.
This sounds of little value beyond evaluation of acting skills. Might be of some use for a sales position.
I think realtime interaction is the key element missing from most early-stage screenings, not video. I'd rather have an IM/irc/voice chat with someone, propose problems, and observe how he tries to solve the problem, than canned and rehearsed video clips. The only job for which I'd consider a canned video clip to be really useful is a job which requires producing canned video clips.
I don't think anything is stopping you from using IM/irc/chat. The problem that video screenings solve isn't one that you face.
For example, Thunderbird School of Global Management, a top international MBA program, is planning on using Active Interview as part of their admissions process. They're letting applicants answer a video questionnaire to replace 1 of 3 essays. It's purely optional. They have a full admission team of 10+ people, working full time traveling around the world screening applicants. Using a tool like AI saves tons of time and money in the early screening stages. Unless you are a organization like that, you won't truly feel the pain that Active Interview or Hirehive solves.
Great job on charging for service right out of the gate.
My assumption would be that someone with a flair for showmanship can excel at this even if they are a mediocre performer. However, I could see this being useful for real time.
I wonder how many of these comments are based on experience hiring. The challenge isn't from the applicant's standpoint but from the other end. Certainly video can be used for discrimination. But that is absolutely not the only use case.
I've never used video, and I have hired people based solely on phone conversations, or IRC conversations -- but usually phone/irc followed by an in-person interview.
I can't think of any value of recorded video over realtime chat for anything except "create a video clip for me!" For a sales job involving in-person meetings with clients, a realtime video chat might be a bit better than realtime audio, but the difference is much less than the value of an in-person meeting.
For a developer job, I would consider this totally without value. "IM presence" and "how well can he explain something in words" (voice or text) would be worth vastly more, and "sit next to me and do this task and explain it to me" would be the ultimate test.
The response we've heard so far is that companies have found the videos to be quite helpful. We don't see them as a replacement for the entire hiring process, and certainly for hiring developers it's still important to do in-person interviews, have them write code (which they can also do using HireHive, since we support multiple types of responses, not just videos), etc.
If you could be a framework for any kind of question/response (and I think timed and interactive would be a plus), that would be great. If you could then make the "grading and evaluation" workflow on the employer side support routing through subject matter experts, a prospective team, manager, etc., based on either employer-specified rules, or some kind of policies which you suggest and which can be tweaked, I would probably use this, even without ever using the video portion.
We support questions with a few different types of answers (video, short, medium and long text responses, file uploads).
We're working on the grading/evaluation features on the employer-side right now. This is something we're excited about, because it allows for more people to give input in the hiring process and opens up the possibility for coordination among companies as we're doing with the YCommonApp.
Always happy to hear what real people find useful :) Feel free to email me (nick [at] hirehive.com) if have you any other suggestions or questions if you try out the service.
Time limits per question or per questionnaire would be useful. There are really two reasons:
1) Intelligence (and often job performance) is measured by how fast a problem can be solved. Within limits, it doesn't matter, and often a better solution that takes slightly longer to come up with is better overall. However, for a problem which is bounded in difficulty (such that a normal job applicant willing to put 2 hours into the interview could answer everything), being able to solve the problem in 24h vs. 2h is not really a good thing.
2) It's a lot harder to "cheat" on a realtime exam, especially on video. The purpose of the interview is to evaluate a candidate, and it's unlikely that candidate's much smarter (or paid) friend would be part of the long-term package, but it's entirely possible someone could be getting assistance during the interview. (it's basically like when a law or consulting firm sends a partner to win the business, and then has summer associates doing the actual work once they're engaged...)
Assuming remote-interview-only, this would be a problem. Also, I view in-person interviews as fundamentally somewhat random. If you really like a candidate on paper (or on video), and he shows up and is close but not necessarily 100%, a lot of interviewers are willing to explain away problems as "he was nervous" or "having a bad day". Once an interviewer emotionally bonds with a candidate, it's a lot harder to be objective -- this is why I like to do early-stage objective/automatic screenings to determine basic competence.
Also, we currently let you set a time limit for a questionnaire overall (e.g., expire 30 minutes after page load). Is this useful to you, or did you mean timed on a per-question basis?
The idea is actually a good one, but there is much talk of "killing" Monster.com - what's to stop Monster.com from developing a similar scheme and piloting it to its massive user base as soon as this idea catches on?
This is the problem every startup faces when going against established competitors. We have to compete by focusing, working fast, and always doing right by our users and customers :)
We're still figuring out the full range of positions HireHive works best for. We agree that receptionists, sales/marketing people, customer service, etc are good fits for the service and have had positive feedback from them so far.
I am skeptical. Personally I am still in college, and want to get something going before I graduate so that I never have to work for another company, but if a company asked me to record a video clip as a response to their interview questions, I wouldn't do it. (Its a personal decision). I think it is really impersonal, and though I wish you guys good luck, and it seems it like the idea might catch on with big corps/YC-start-ups to screen candidates, it really reminds me of "Up in the Air" (a movie released earlier this year), wherein the company that the protagonist works for replaces live people with videos, and they just take the personal element out of the equation.
I don't know either this is good for employers/customers but one thing for sure: this makes me feel even more terrified of failure, of becoming a "candidate" again. This company is making the world even more hostile for people who need jobs for reasons stated here by others.
Let me explain: my wife is looking for a job now. She's not an engineer so the progress has been slow: hundreds of resumes emailed, no response, constant thoughts like "something's wrong with my resume??". Now you're telling me that she needs to sit down and film herself hundreds of times and then stare at the empty inbox and think "something's wrong with the way I look/talk?" That's just disgusting.
Interesting way of looking at it. Although this problem is more of a self-concious/insecurity issue. Rejection is simply a numbers game; there's tons of applicants applying for single job openings.
On the other hand, if your wife has a sparking personality and an average resume, video response might actually help her stand out of the crowd.
Not necessarily hundreds of times. My understanding of HireHive's model is that you could film yourself answering a set of questions once and include it in multiple similar job applications (at least some day).
I look at video as a substitute for phone screenings rather than a substitute for a resume. I hate phone screenings.
It is not: a phone screening involves a mutual time investment - there's a live person taking time to talk to you on the phone, so the "time complexity" for both parties is O(n). Posting a list of questions and requiring candidates to film themselves is free, so it is O(1) for the employer but still O(n) for a candidate. Don't be naive, if this service becomes popular, employers will recognize this advantage and exploit it in full.
I already try to get transcripts/notes from interrogations^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinterviews for this very reason. 90% of the information in 1% of the time (for a live interview, with hassle) or 10% of the time (for watching a recorded video/audio).
It's actually sort of good for marginal candidates, though -- if it costs me much less to interview 100 vs. 10 people, I might look over a lot of people who would get rejected at an even earlier stage otherwise.
Our goal is exactly the opposite: We want to make the hiring process more human.
The current job market is definitely a slog for non-engineers (somehow the market for engineers has remained strong). We'd like HireHive to be a way for people like your wife to be able to stand out from the crowd.
I'm in contact with a good number of companies that are hiring. I'd be happy to pass her info along if there's a good fit. Email me at nick [at] hirehive.com.
But will this really help the good people stand out more? Or will there just be techniques for looking good in an interview video, like there are many techniques for looking "good on paper"?
In-person interviews have an even worse problem: if your wife is rejected after one of those, she has to worry not merely that she looks lame in a video, but seems lame in person. But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty.
Personally, I just don't like the way I look on videos. I think it is harder to make a good impression on video. I acknowledge that I might look as weird in RL as on video, but in RL I can decide not to think about it.
Anyway, I can imagine this video thing taking off, unless there are legal problems. Don't know why, but I think in the uk you are not supposed to include photograps with applications. Perhaps to prevent racism?
Photos are probably frowned on to discourage racism, ageism and the good old fashioned "we'll only invite the pretty ones in for interview". It's also common practice to remove date of birth from CVs.
It's more a case of being considered inappropriate than legal barriers...a friend of mine recruiting abroad found the idea of attached photos nearly as amusing as the adjacent salary demands.
I think that the video thing will suffer more from being considered a bit odd or time consuming compared with skimming through text, especially for large non-creative employers looking to fill a quota. On the other hand, webcam interviews could start to replace the first-stage phone interview.
But you don't find the concept of interviews disgusting, presumably because it is already a familiar one. Which suggests that your real problem with this technology is its novelty.
No, I'm not one of "those people" :-) My initial reaction was negative because filming yourself a hundred times is a torture. I failed to see what's in it for folks who are looking for jobs and are pretty miserable already.
Your argument is also flawed because you are comparing video clips to interviews like they're going to replace them which they won't.
One can make an argument that this approach will eliminate the need to apply to hundreds of jobs. That would be great, but how? The ratio of resumes/replies is determined not by technology but by applicants/position ratio.
I've exchanged a few emails with Nicolas and he feels confident that the product will make life easier for candidates as well, I really want him to be right/succeed. At least YC companies are using it right: they actually save time for an applicant.
Not sure I agree. Its not about technology or familiarity. Video is not (yet) a comfortable medium of communication for most people. They won't be confident on video, and most likely will come off less perfect than they really are. I think it could potentially be bad for employees as well as employers. Comfort is critical if an employer wants to truly evaluate someone's skill set. Maybe video becomes a comfortable medium in the future, but that would perhaps be another generation.
I was considering a startup along exactly these lines within the last couple of weeks, but for college applicants. I ended up not going forward as I wasn't personally super interested, and the friend who had the original idea said there appeared to be a patent covering it.
The skeptical comments are interesting. But it doesn't seem like they are the primary market.
At Active Interview, we've been doing video interviews for a while now. We've gotten good traction among organizations who have continuous hiring needs and/or those who need to process candidates who are geographically dispersed.
For example, One Laptop per Child used Active Interview to screen a couple hundred applicants from around the world. They used us to test:
1. interpersonal skills & communication
2. language proficiency
How much time/money would it cost to coordinate and phone screen everyone?
We've also gotten a lot of interest from academic organizations, who need to process applicants every semester. We've especially been working with graduate departments, like MBA programs, who have a high number of international applicants. They use us because:
1. Time shifting - it's difficult to set up a mutual time with candidates around the world.
2. Language - many international applicants have through the roof English scores and can write like Steinbeck, but can't speak a lick.
3. Normalize interviews - different recruiters assess candidates with varying degrees of leniency. Active Interview lets the entire recruiting team view, score and comment on every candidate response. The scores are tallied and averaged.
4. Most candidates like taking a video interview over writing yet another essay.
I understand why some may be skeptical, but there's definitely a need for video interviewing for some types of organizations and I'm glad Hirehive is getting some publicity for all of us in this area.
This is almost a thing you have to see to believe. Video just gives you so much more resolution and insight. Social science studies have told us many times that 90% of communication is non-verbal - audio only captures that 10%.
Of course, nothing beats face to face, but it also comes at a cost (time, money). We built Active Interview to help those who need to quickly process a large number of applicants at as high of a resolution as possible.
Out of curiosity as much as anything else since you've quite possibly done the research, how much of that 90% of communication is reciprocal (body language towards interviewer, instinctive reaction to questions)?
I'm not arguing against the value of seeing someone in person (although depending on the context I would be happy to give up the extra data to get the whole thing done faster and more conveniently). I'm arguing against badly-lit, amateur video postage stamps.
I agree. Videos are particularly good for time-shifting and getting a sense for interpersonal skills. We too think many people will prefer recording a short video to wordsmithing an essay.
The idea is scary at first. But really makes sense once you think about it. I agree, it makes the screening process more human.
I know the job market is not good right now for job seekers to be chosers, but if I have to apply with a video, I would feel more up to it if I see the hiring team's or manager's video too.
"the higher bandwidth of video provides more information than text, which results in better informed hiring decisions"
Not sure about this. Generally, I'm uncomfortable with all the room for discrimination that something like video brings into play -- even if it isn't intentional.
See the case of orchestra auditions where female players did tremendously better when judged from behind a screen, gender being removed from the equation. Even if people feel unbiased about a lot of roles, they might still have them play out... ???
That, and I just think so many video things like this end up gimmicky. I can see it well applied, and also easily misused.
So it's not enough that I spend hours working and tailoring my CV and cover letter for every job application and hours more writing answers to selection critera.
Now you want me to record and produce a video selling myself?
Hah! Good luck with that.
I think most candidates who are good will find this to be way too much work to prove their point. They won't do it. Secondly, depending on the job a lot of people may get disqualified just because they seem lame on video, though they are stellar at what they do.
But as an idea, I like it for its novelty. The jobs space is broken in many ways and this is worth a shot. Just don't think it will work for every job type. For hiring at Crate & Barrel or Starbucks perhaps.
So it's a nock off of chatroulette with a business spin? How long will it take until The Gap sees that 90% of their video applicants are actually dudes wanking off?
99 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] threadA few people are worried they may be discriminated against if they send a video, but if someone is going to disqualify you based on what they see, they will do it when you show up for interview. So at least you save time.
I see hire hives approach as great for everyone if they can execute well - it gives a much better idea of what a candidate is actually like than paper, without the expense or huge time sink (for both parties) of an in-person interview.
One of the challenges we face is to figure out how to set the tone so people can relax and be themselves. Is there anything that you think would help you feel more comfortable?
Thanks for the feedback :)
You have the chance of making the process more efficient, especially when there are hundreds or thousands of applicants. Maybe use a video pitch by the interviewer, clip about the company, etc. to set the setting and make the candidate comfortable, and then do instant-response questions with video response.
I might also start the interview with some super-softball questions, to get the user familiar with the system. "What's your name?" isn't really good, but some really easy tech questions or even general knowledge questions might be good.
The main benefits to me in having a bunch of recorded interviews is that I can instantly drop one if the candidate is obviously a reject. It took me a few years of hiring responsibility before I got to the point of "I'm sorry, I have to end this now" if someone is obviously unacceptable 5-10 minutes in. A problem with doing that in real life is that you need to block out the whole interview on your schedule, and it's harder to fit other things back in once that is freed.
Being able to outsource reviewing answers to other people in your organization would also be great -- e.g. sending the database question to your database guys. If you are really interviewing 1k people, you can have your database guy look at 10, grade those, and then have a junior person, based on those, grade any which pattern-match well, and refer the others back to the expert.
I'd still prefer a written or executable test for most technical jobs, at least as my initial screen, and an IM or phone chat, but I could see the value of this for some roles.
Also, things like lighting and sound can make a pretty big difference, so providing basic info on optimizing your setup might help.
I also like the idea of having each company do an intro video that sets the mood.
Good luck!
i believe employers will realize this too and once they do, they'll insist on having video as standard in applications. once that happens, uploading videos of yourself will become more commonplace and eventually feel less alien.
why?
Also, I don't think this test fares very well in retrospect. Steve Jobs probably would've given a good video resume, but what about Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Williams, and the like? These guys usually come across as duds on video.
YC reviews are different; you're being reviewed by hackers who don't care if you hair is combed or if you wearing a hoodie with some nintendo character on it. I think employers would LOVE having this kind of rich information in their applications, but at what price to the applicants?
The rest of the world isn't as laid back as YC. If I'm going to have to start applying for jobs with video, I'm going to have to study the questions and write up scripts. Practice those scripts on video probably a dozen times, choose the best one. I have to dress up and gel my hair, clean up my background, clear my desk of cans and bottles. Worry about how my teeth look, if they can see that pimple on my cheek, etc. All for what will result in only a few mins of video. It sounds very trivial and superficial, but with video, a job application is now a pseudo-interview, if you mess that up, you don't get another chance. It takes much longer to cut a video reply you're happy with than it does to write a paragraph you're happy with.
If a company discriminate based on race, they will get the kind of performance they deserve.
There are specific, legal, questions you could ask which would be ok ("how many years of experience do you have with bras?", various technical questions, etc.) which might correlate highly with certain physical characteristics.
I think there is a moral argument against discrimination on these grounds, but there's also an argument for letting companies make their own decisions.
Even without legal prohibitions on discrimination, I wouldn't want to create a workplace where this kind of discrimination happened -- even if it were good for a specific job, it would also drive away other candidates for other jobs, and I think the net loss would be greater.
Job boards are broken, and this is a good step in the right direction, and I wish them the best.
I would caution though against not looking at the discrimination piece head on, and addressing it clearly.
The reality is, video interviews do make it much easier, and less costly to discriminate, and easier to hide it. People who have been targets of discrimination might be less hesitant to use them. This might skew the candidate base...etc.
I don't have any good ideas about how to address this, and I'm excited about these guys making a dent in how we hire, but I do not think you can take more than a few steps in this direction without directly addressing its possible (and probable) misuse.
But as Bruce Schneier often says, technology makes it easier for the bad guys to be bad; that doesn't mean the technology itself is bad.
You're going to be judging my skill at speaking into a little square at the top of a computer. I hope this isn't treated as a tool to judge interpersonal skills.
What value is added, beyond making it easier to dismiss people based on appearance and personal preferences? I guess judging based on a perceived personality is kosher, but let's be realistic about the purpose here.
I think a live video-call is totally fair-game, but something about this definitely rubs me the wrong way.
Another advantage is that, for some people at least, it's a lot easier to just record yourself speaking for 60 seconds than to write a cover letter (which have become engineered to point of being pretty bland, IMHO).
This sounds of little value beyond evaluation of acting skills. Might be of some use for a sales position.
For example, Thunderbird School of Global Management, a top international MBA program, is planning on using Active Interview as part of their admissions process. They're letting applicants answer a video questionnaire to replace 1 of 3 essays. It's purely optional. They have a full admission team of 10+ people, working full time traveling around the world screening applicants. Using a tool like AI saves tons of time and money in the early screening stages. Unless you are a organization like that, you won't truly feel the pain that Active Interview or Hirehive solves.
My assumption would be that someone with a flair for showmanship can excel at this even if they are a mediocre performer. However, I could see this being useful for real time.
I've never used video, and I have hired people based solely on phone conversations, or IRC conversations -- but usually phone/irc followed by an in-person interview.
I can't think of any value of recorded video over realtime chat for anything except "create a video clip for me!" For a sales job involving in-person meetings with clients, a realtime video chat might be a bit better than realtime audio, but the difference is much less than the value of an in-person meeting.
For a developer job, I would consider this totally without value. "IM presence" and "how well can he explain something in words" (voice or text) would be worth vastly more, and "sit next to me and do this task and explain it to me" would be the ultimate test.
We're working on the grading/evaluation features on the employer-side right now. This is something we're excited about, because it allows for more people to give input in the hiring process and opens up the possibility for coordination among companies as we're doing with the YCommonApp.
Always happy to hear what real people find useful :) Feel free to email me (nick [at] hirehive.com) if have you any other suggestions or questions if you try out the service.
2) It's a lot harder to "cheat" on a realtime exam, especially on video. The purpose of the interview is to evaluate a candidate, and it's unlikely that candidate's much smarter (or paid) friend would be part of the long-term package, but it's entirely possible someone could be getting assistance during the interview. (it's basically like when a law or consulting firm sends a partner to win the business, and then has summer associates doing the actual work once they're engaged...)
Assuming remote-interview-only, this would be a problem. Also, I view in-person interviews as fundamentally somewhat random. If you really like a candidate on paper (or on video), and he shows up and is close but not necessarily 100%, a lot of interviewers are willing to explain away problems as "he was nervous" or "having a bad day". Once an interviewer emotionally bonds with a candidate, it's a lot harder to be objective -- this is why I like to do early-stage objective/automatic screenings to determine basic competence.
Only if the technology is trivial
I'm not entirely sold yet that this is good for hiring developers since some of us are probably not comfortable talking on video.
Maybe the niche for this service is for hiring receptionists or sales/marketing people.
Thanks for the pointer to SayHired!
Let me explain: my wife is looking for a job now. She's not an engineer so the progress has been slow: hundreds of resumes emailed, no response, constant thoughts like "something's wrong with my resume??". Now you're telling me that she needs to sit down and film herself hundreds of times and then stare at the empty inbox and think "something's wrong with the way I look/talk?" That's just disgusting.
On the other hand, if your wife has a sparking personality and an average resume, video response might actually help her stand out of the crowd.
I look at video as a substitute for phone screenings rather than a substitute for a resume. I hate phone screenings.
It's actually sort of good for marginal candidates, though -- if it costs me much less to interview 100 vs. 10 people, I might look over a lot of people who would get rejected at an even earlier stage otherwise.
The current job market is definitely a slog for non-engineers (somehow the market for engineers has remained strong). We'd like HireHive to be a way for people like your wife to be able to stand out from the crowd.
I'm in contact with a good number of companies that are hiring. I'd be happy to pass her info along if there's a good fit. Email me at nick [at] hirehive.com.
I appreciate your blunt feedback.
Anyway, I can imagine this video thing taking off, unless there are legal problems. Don't know why, but I think in the uk you are not supposed to include photograps with applications. Perhaps to prevent racism?
It's more a case of being considered inappropriate than legal barriers...a friend of mine recruiting abroad found the idea of attached photos nearly as amusing as the adjacent salary demands.
I think that the video thing will suffer more from being considered a bit odd or time consuming compared with skimming through text, especially for large non-creative employers looking to fill a quota. On the other hand, webcam interviews could start to replace the first-stage phone interview.
No, I'm not one of "those people" :-) My initial reaction was negative because filming yourself a hundred times is a torture. I failed to see what's in it for folks who are looking for jobs and are pretty miserable already.
Your argument is also flawed because you are comparing video clips to interviews like they're going to replace them which they won't.
One can make an argument that this approach will eliminate the need to apply to hundreds of jobs. That would be great, but how? The ratio of resumes/replies is determined not by technology but by applicants/position ratio.
I've exchanged a few emails with Nicolas and he feels confident that the product will make life easier for candidates as well, I really want him to be right/succeed. At least YC companies are using it right: they actually save time for an applicant.
At Active Interview, we've been doing video interviews for a while now. We've gotten good traction among organizations who have continuous hiring needs and/or those who need to process candidates who are geographically dispersed.
For example, One Laptop per Child used Active Interview to screen a couple hundred applicants from around the world. They used us to test:
1. interpersonal skills & communication
2. language proficiency
How much time/money would it cost to coordinate and phone screen everyone?
We've also gotten a lot of interest from academic organizations, who need to process applicants every semester. We've especially been working with graduate departments, like MBA programs, who have a high number of international applicants. They use us because:
1. Time shifting - it's difficult to set up a mutual time with candidates around the world.
2. Language - many international applicants have through the roof English scores and can write like Steinbeck, but can't speak a lick.
3. Normalize interviews - different recruiters assess candidates with varying degrees of leniency. Active Interview lets the entire recruiting team view, score and comment on every candidate response. The scores are tallied and averaged.
4. Most candidates like taking a video interview over writing yet another essay.
I understand why some may be skeptical, but there's definitely a need for video interviewing for some types of organizations and I'm glad Hirehive is getting some publicity for all of us in this area.
Of course, nothing beats face to face, but it also comes at a cost (time, money). We built Active Interview to help those who need to quickly process a large number of applicants at as high of a resolution as possible.
I'm not arguing against the value of seeing someone in person (although depending on the context I would be happy to give up the extra data to get the whole thing done faster and more conveniently). I'm arguing against badly-lit, amateur video postage stamps.
AI's work with OLPC was awesome!
I instantly get deer-in-headlightsy and stiff when the camera starts rolling, so a potential employer wouldn't get an accurate read on me.
I know the job market is not good right now for job seekers to be chosers, but if I have to apply with a video, I would feel more up to it if I see the hiring team's or manager's video too.
Not sure about this. Generally, I'm uncomfortable with all the room for discrimination that something like video brings into play -- even if it isn't intentional.
See the case of orchestra auditions where female players did tremendously better when judged from behind a screen, gender being removed from the equation. Even if people feel unbiased about a lot of roles, they might still have them play out... ???
That, and I just think so many video things like this end up gimmicky. I can see it well applied, and also easily misused.
Now you want me to record and produce a video selling myself? Hah! Good luck with that.
But as an idea, I like it for its novelty. The jobs space is broken in many ways and this is worth a shot. Just don't think it will work for every job type. For hiring at Crate & Barrel or Starbucks perhaps.