I've seen very few people obviously incompetent. As such it takes a while to prove they are incompetent. They do write working code and get it through review. Often the only clear sign is nobody likes working with them - only after you get rid of them do you have concrete evidence that they weren't contributing (that is the team got as much done now since they no longer were stopping their own work to help the incompetent person on things that it is never clear if should have been figured out alone)
How does your comment relate to the topic here, job interviews?
squeaky said that companies are risk averse in their hiring process because it's hard to fire people. I said that companies are not risk averse if they can't fire incompetent people.
You responded that it takes time to determine whether someone is incompetent. Ok, but that just shows job interviews are ineffective at weeding out incompetent candidates, so there's still no justification for the so-called "risk aversion" of the interviews.
I guess I'm not sure why you responded to me rather than to squeaky.
I think the relationship between hiring and firing and interviewing is a little more subtle than a strict if/then statement.
It can be impossible to know up front if it will be easy to fire someone. Some people can hide incompetence of certain kinds for months or even years. Maybe the person that needs to be fired is competent but just toxic. Maybe the person rides right up to the line of the rules and makes an otherwise functional organization seem dysfunctional. Interviews might not be able to tell you if someone is excellent but some terrible people will absolutely reveal their cards. Most of the time there is an unlimited pool of applicants so even if an excellent one is passed up there will be another decent one somewhere. Not every job needs excellence some just need a baseline competence and an ability to be a team player.
These and other factors add subtle weight to risk aversion.
Also, difficulty in firing people doesn't automatically mean organizational dysfunction, sometimes it's an attempt at preventing abusive management. With how swiftly you are advocating for firing I would love to be at such an organization that made firing difficult if you were my supervisor.
> Interviews might not be able to tell you if someone is excellent but some terrible people will absolutely reveal their cards.
You appear to be equivocating on the definition of "terrible". The type of programming interviews that people dread, and are the subject of the linked article, are technical coding quizzes. These audition-style interviews do little or nothing to identify people who are "toxic". And grinding leetcode doesn't make you a team player.
> Also, difficulty in firing people doesn't automatically mean organizational dysfunction, sometimes it's an attempt at preventing abusive management.
Organizational dysfunction and abuse management are one and the same.
> With how swiftly you are advocating for firing I would love to be at such an organization that made firing difficult if you were my supervisor.
I advocated firing "someone obviously incompetent". Why would you fear that?
> You appear to be equivocating on the definition of "terrible"
Such a thing defies singular definition. Every company, person, and project will use different metrics. We might agree that someone truly awful is terrible, but more people exist on the margins. So how could I cleanly define it when clearly there isn't a single definition that matters?
I agree they don't find some kinds of toxic people, but I would argue that a system that does is magic.
> I advocated firing "someone obviously incompetent". Why would you fear that?
Because I don't know you and do not YET trust that "obviously incompetent" isn't a synonym for "politely disagreed one time", "didn't suck up enough", or "black". That last one is super important, somehow the places I have worked that fired very quickly, fired people that looked different very fast. And having a longer harder vetting process during might let a company see a red flag and avoid someone who might make such decisions and allow some time and process to review firing because the rate of terrible hires is likely lessened so firing rapidly is perceived to be less important.
> Such a thing defies singular definition. Every company, person, and project will use different metrics.
The submitted article is about bug squash interviews vs. leetcode interviews, in other words, technical audition-style coding tests. That's what I've been discussing all along too, and the relevant definition of "competence" is technical programming ability. You appear to be want to go off on a tangent about "toxicity", but it's unclear what bearing that has on the topic of the overarching conversation. Certainly no technical coding test is going to weed out toxicity.
> I would argue that a system that does is magic.
I agree.
Also, magic does not exist.
> Because I don't know you and do not YET trust that "obviously incompetent" isn't a synonym for "politely disagreed one time", "didn't suck up enough", or "black".
Well, you don't have to worry, because I've never hired anyone and won't be hiring anyone in the foreseeable future.
> And having a longer harder vetting process during might let a company see a red flag and avoid someone who might make such decisions and allow some time and process to review firing because the rate of terrible hires is likely lessened so firing rapidly is perceived to be less important.
It's weird that you've seemingly shifted suddenly from the topic of hiring engineers to hiring managers. Again, this is completely irrelevant to the topic of the submitted article, which is bug squash interviews. You want to argue that more "vetting" will help, but you haven't actually explained your method of vetting, other than "magic". In any case, if you're worried about racial discrimination in the firing process, which of course is a legitimate worry, then why wouldn't you worry about racial discimination in the hiring process too? After all, you don't have to fire someone who you never hire in the first place, right? Why do you think that black people wouldn't simply be "vetted" out before they get hired (especially since you yourself appear to want to increase the amount of vetting, and thus the opportunities to weed out whomever the hiring manager doesn't like)? It's truly bizarre to believe that you could institute a magical hiring process that could somehow nullify a racist hiring manager. On the other hand, if your magical hiring process could weed out racist managers before they get hired, then you wouldn't have to worry about the firing process.
> Because many people who hire think more vetting reduces the chance of bad hiring.
I don't know why you are answering for bluGill, and bluGill is answering for you. This is frustrating to me, because you don't appear to be of one mind. Unless you are secretly of one mind, one person behind two HN accounts.
In any case, bluGill's previous comment suggests that job interview vetting is rarely enough: "I've seen very few people obviously incompetent. As such it takes a while to prove they are incompetent. They do write working code and get it through review. Often the only clear sign is nobody likes working with them - only after you get rid of them do you have concrete evidence that they weren't contributing (that is the team got as much done now since they no longer were stopping their own work to help the incompetent person on things that it is never clear if should have been figured out alone)"
I think you meant to say organizational dysfunction.
The inability to fire someone obviously incompetent is not risk aversion, it's risk accumulation.