So true. A test will only measure its set of criteria. What is a test for drive — desire to understand and learn? What is a test for how a person will respond to challenging and overwhelming prod scenarios? What is a test for if they will burn out in a month because they want to prove how rockstar of a programmer they are?
My most successful hiring has always been based on a conversation with 3-4 practical questions. I even worked in a company that had testing down to a science with all the psychometric nonsense and in the end, it just hired many sociopath-adjacents.
There's both culture and technical elements to consider in a potential hire. I don't think anyone would contest that vetting for the culture/drive of a candidate is important. But I do think the demonstration of skills is a necessary part of technical hiring, at least for non-senior positions.
I agree with that to some degree. But I do lean more into hiring on potential though, it has worked out for me.
Skills can be learned. Tools can be provided. But the employee’s personal values are very hard to change. These are core components of performance in some perf management theories.
I think context is important. If a company can hire on potential, I would say it will be a better hire in the long-term. But if employee turnover is high and tenures short, and you need work done now and not 6 months from now, I agree with you more.
My most successful hiring has always been based on a conversation with 3-4 practical questions. I even worked in a company that had testing down to a science with all the psychometric nonsense and in the end, it just hired many sociopath-adjacents.