Skip to main content

What hiring process do you use?

What philosophy do you use when hiring new members for the team? The tendency for many teams is to create an interview hazing process.  Requiring interviewees to run a gauntlet of silly questions, riddles, etc.  Is it not obvious that this will result in a poor hiring decision?

If you ask an experienced, knowledgable HR person they can tell you how poor the hiring process really is.  Ask a researcher and they will tell you that it is one of the poorest business process for producing the desired results.  Yet almost every organization continues this tried, but not true process.

Google, being a big data company has done it's own research on the topic.  Read the results.

In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

Google’s Quest to Build a Better Boss
There are many reasons people choose to leave a company, here is one top three list:
  • Disengaged with organizational mission
  • Lack of respect for co-workers
  • A terrible boss
Google found that the boss aspect was the largest variable in attrition rates.  So to mitigate it they started doing quarterly performance reviews (not less, but the non-intuitive inverse - more).  This resulted in better review ratings for bosses.
So back to the hiring process.  Do you use a practice of real life activity to assess the candidate?  I would if I were you.  I've done pair programming interviews with candidates.  It is very enlightening.  People that pass the verbal Q&A interview process then sit down at a keyboard and solve a real coding example problem.  We use a TDD example.  Something like the classic convert a roman numeral into decimal.

It may amaze you the first several times you do this.  The people you think did well in the Q&A might not do so well in the hands on the keyboard, pairing exercise.  It may be that they just don't know how to code.  It may be that they can code but have never used a modern IDE and haven't the foggiest idea about keyboard short cuts, or built in refactoring tools.  Or it may be that you find out that they cannot pair program - they refuse to verbalize their thoughts, they don't want a pairing partner.  If these aspects of being a rock star developer are important to you - a test is a really good idea.

Menlo Innovation has described an interesting an alternative interview process.  While I'm sure it has continued to evolve they use a pair programing and skills observation technique to find candidates for their culture (A 2002 whitepaper - Extreme Interviewing).  Read about it in Joy Inc. How we build a workplace people love by Richard Sheridan or take a tour of Menlo.

ACE the Behavioral Interview
Does your hiring process end with the offer letter?  Many companies court a candidate up until they arrive to sign the I9 document.  But then the dating is over, sign the non-compete, the intellectual property, the first born documents and you are OURS (evil laugh).

A Closer Look at Behavior-Based Interviewing

How to ACE the Behavioral Interview  as an agile candidate by Shirly Ronen-Harel.  A nice set of tips and principles for the hiring group to perform their tasks, the results desired would be hiring people that show and behave in the open-mindset.

Many companies use the try-it before you buy-it technique.  They hire new employees on a probation period, or they use the contract-to-hire option.  It amazes me at how little they exercise the opt-out aspect of these techniques.  I doubt they get the value out of these techniques.

Here's a technique that apparently works.  Offer the new employee a bonus to quit, right now in the introductory training days, just leave and take the money. Yes, it seems a bit crazy, yet it works for some very high stress, high turnover support jobs at Zappos.  Wonder why?

BusinessWeek: Why Zappos Offers New Hires $2,000 to Quit

Because Zappos takes the time to explain the real job, the dirty underbelly of the job, explains their culture and the way they handle terribly rude customers and then a Zappos trainer will make you an offer you can't refuse.  That is unless you have already decide that this will be a great place to work, that you resonate with this crazy culture, that you will feel good letting your freak-flag fly in their offices.  Wow - they get to cultural match in a matter of days.  And they pay for people to opt-out.  Turns out this is great business.

Does your company do an indoctrination training course.  The military is famous for their boot-camp.  Those are awesome, few companies put that much energy into training raw recruits.  Now the typical is about 4 hours of the mandatory harassment training videos and about a VP speaking about the wow-factors of working here.

I just went through an awesome 2 day course at my new company.  It didn't happen in the first week.  They had an onboarding training but then scheduled the new employee training several weeks out.  That was a nice touch.  But the greatest part was that the executives all showed up to welcome and educate the new employees to the company.  Taking time to explain culture, mission and the complex relationships that exist.  It was a true learning experience.  All the traditional HR onboarding crap was separate.  This allow the focus to be upon the people and the relationships.

See Also:

Neil deGrasse Tyson - video clip: Knowledge as Process vs Knowledge as Fact 

Creating a Product Design Hiring Guide - by Isaak Hayes
What would happen if you did this for your team's next hire - generalize beyond the UX/UI concept in this article to any role you wish to hire.  See Show me the SKILZ of your cross-functional team.

Make Bad Hires  by  Bob Marshall - the FlowchainSensei

Joy, INC by Richard Sheridan - describes their group hiring process and practices.  I just got a job at USAA and they were using the Menlo Innovation's model of hiring.

Scrum Masters valued higher than Project Managers empirical evidence via Indeed.

Post a Comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?

Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.

In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.

Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    To Do
    Work In P…

Webinar: Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done, Ready, and NO.

I was invited to participate in a Scrum Alliance Webinar.  Maybe you would like to listen to us in a discussion of techniques to collaborate at scale (remotely and with many people).  The topic is one that I've got some experience in discussions - yet I never seem to get to done...
Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done and Ready and NO for Distributed Teams
With Joel Bancroft-Connors, Agile Organizational Coach; David A. Koontz, Agile Transition Guide; and Luke Hohmann, CEO and Founder of Conteneo, Inc.

14 February 2018 11 a.m. ET (USA).

The Scrum Guide is pretty clear on the criticality of the definition of Done: "When a Product Backlog item or an Increment is described as "Done," everyone must understand what "Done" means. However, the Scrum Guide ALSO says that the definition of Done can "vary significantly per Scrum Team." This leads us to examine when and how the definition of Done should vary, how distributed teams should cr…

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team.

I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember. 
A generalizing specialist is someone who:
Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming, Project Management, Database Administration, ...). Has at least a general knowledge of software development. Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work. Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas.  General…

A FAILURE to Communicate

I was working with a failing team some time ago.  I use "failing" to describe the outcome of the team - not the people on the team.  Are you OK with that description?

An issue arrose in the stand up - a team member that was to verify the quality of a procedure did so and reported that there were a few records that didn't match expectation in the data set.  Upon inquire the number of records not matching was over 2000.  Most people acknowledged immediately the exaggeration - I could tell by the laughter.  After about 10 minutes of discussing the details of the problem - it appeared the team had a handle on the specific situation.

I stopped the discussion and inquired if they could name the impediment.  One team member did a great job of describing the impediment as a _communication gap_.  Wonderful - I could work with that - the problem had a name and it didn't include anyones Proper Name.

"If the problem has a first name; we are going to have a problem."