Ask HN: Why is tech recruiting broken?
The developer's perspective is easy to figure out, we've all heard that one: company's mission is not exciting, the goal isn't clear, I'm being promised .1% equity of something that will likely be worth $0 anyway, tools are boring, doesn't let me telecommute, the pay isn't high enough, the location is unfavorable and much much more..
What about the company's perspective though? If you've ever recruited for a company, then please share your opinion from the trenches.
What's the key problem here? It's my understanding that most startups receive hundreds, if not more, applications weekly. You have access to wonderful resources such as angel.co/talent, GitHub jobs and StackOverflow jobs with hundreds of verified quality developers on there. Recruiters, if you can afford them, will try to poach quality developers from other gigs for you. These days even VCs will talent scout for you! Once again, what's the issue?
Thank you!
17 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 41.0 ms ] thread1. Programming
2. Programmers
3. What makes a programmer 'good'
4. How to identify a 'good' programmer
5. How to appeal to a good programmer
If you really want me to get concrete, here's the dirt on startups hiring troubles: they usually flub 4 and/or 5.
Programmers are wising up. Only a small subset of startups are worth their time, unless it's a lifestyle choice, so they're choosy. Even among the small subset of startups that are worthwhile, they're not necessarily adept at communicating what actually appeals to programmers.
Just out of curiosity, how would you identify a 'good' programmer? What makes a programmer 'good'?
Cheers for your answers in advance.
You also may be interested in Joel Spolsky's views on what employers should be looking for in a programmer. It's at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...
The challenge that we are facing is with the employers. Many of them that use a HR department rely on a "tick the boxes" approach that cuts out many many good coders. Others rely on "rockstar <insert brandname>" company to choose who gets in. maybe 70%+ of good coders dont make it through because of the above 2 hurdles.
Most of our clients spend 6+months trying to get people, until finally they work out that its the internal process that stops them employing, not the perceived ( and IMHO non existent ) skills shortage.
Also, do you consider culture fit at all? I read somewhere that because recruiters make their money on volume, their interest in small companies is rather limited. Basically, it doesn't make business sense for them to spend hours to get to know a small company's culture inside-out and then send them one-two candidates. You could be funneling dozens of developers to very large clients with very generic culture requirements in that time frame.
Is your opinion that startups these days are on the excessively cautious end? Would hiring more openly for a trial position and firing fast be a better approach?
Their bugs slow down the whole project... and good programmers resent working with someone who doesn't pull their weight.
In many cases, it's better to let a position go unfilled than to fill it with the wrong person.
Most people say they want a rockstar engineer (or insert other rockstar positions here). What they really want (or should) is to find someone who fits and can reasonably do their job well. Some times this means learning something fast, but other times, its a bunch of other nuances in between and traits a person may have about their personality or who they are. The smaller the startup, the more critical and true this is.
Supposedly, it often happens that a few months down the line you realize that a lot of expectations and quirks weren't properly discussed and you get into sticky situations.