Better advice on candidate scoring #13538
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
![greptile-apps[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/867647?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
…/posthog.com into better-candidate-scoring
andyvan-ph
requested review from
couaphang,
fraserhopper,
jamesefhawkins and
timgl
andyvan-ph
left a comment
andyvan-ph
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@charlescook-ph Left a couple of possible tweaks to address your excellent point.
|
I actually disagree with every bullet point you've made here Andy, perhaps other than: I feel like we sometimes advance too many candidates in the early stages on the basis the could be a solid hire, which leads to wasting time interview candidates who are never realistically close to raising the bar, but have a solid resume and are nice. And even then hiring processes are imperfect, the reason we do not hire people after round 1 or even round 2 is it's really hard to get the signal at those stages. If we stop progressing people that could be a solid hire we would barely have any candidates past round 1. Can we tighten this up, yes but we will always aim to do that. Solid hire != not a bar raiser - a 3 should still mean they can raise the bar of talent in the team. It just means they aren't in the top 10% of people we've hired and we should pull out all the stops for. I think your last bullet point is also pretty off as well. Scoring a 2, is about seeing signals that this candidate has reflected their profile enough that it was worth interviewing them but they weren't able to signal enough to be considered, we can given them feedback and they could work on it and be good enough. This doesn't mean we will re-hire them. 1 is a stay away, this person is clearly inappropriate. Separately, we've made too many changes to the hiring process recently and it's becoming too difficult to diagnose what is causing issues. So changing this again is not a good idea without serious reason to and I do not see this as a good reason. |
I think the phrasing 'solid hire' isn't right tbh so even if we don't make the other changes, we should change this. 'Solid' to me is 7/10. We don't hire solid people. (Well I mean, in a literal sense yes we hire solid vs. liquid or gaseous people) |
This is not how I think about it, solid to me is not 7/10 it's somebody that I want on my team who delivers, so perhaps the specific nomenclature here is off but I would just remove the reference to solid hires if it's causing confusion. |
|
Could be subjective. 'Solid' to be at least is 'decent' or 'good' rather than 'great'. Could just be a me and Andy problem, but 'strong' or similar may be better. |
Changes
This PR adds more detail to the candidate scoring and orientates it more around the "will they raise the bar?" framing. It also adds some principles that will help ensure we're all the using the same heuristics to assess candidates.
Why I'm proposing these changes
The recent tweaks were a useful clarification, but I don't think they go far enough. They aren't directionally useful a lot of of the time, especially for people newer to giving feedback and scoring candidates.
I find the term "solid hire" for anyone scoring a 3 mildly triggering. It's the opposite of what we're trying to achieve in our process, so we should never use it.
I feel like we sometimes advance too many candidates in the early stages on the basis the could be a solid hire, which leads to wasting time interview candidates who are never realistically close to raising the bar, but have a solid resume and are nice.
We should push people on "not now" (score of 2) and when we might consider someone in the future. Right now, I feel like a 2 really means "we'll never hire this person, but they're not a terrible candidate" whereas we should reserve this for people we'd genuinely consider in the future under specific circumstances. Ultimately, we should probably only use this in very specific circumstances – i.e. the majority of candidates should be a 1, 3, or a 4.