This article has some interesting tips and useful encouragement but the system it outlines has a glaring hole: there is no objective feedback loop based upon outcomes back to the interviewer. The author appears to encourage that interviewers seek feedback, but the message is not to look for data but sentiment:
“One way you can tell you’re proficient is that recruiters and hiring managers try to find ways to include you in their interview loops because they know you’ll both get the candidate excited and be able to assess their work fairly, even if they take an unusual approach.”
If recruiters and hiring managers want you on a panel, it signals that you’re unlikely to disrupt their pipelines by rejecting candidates. This is especially true for high-growth companies (e.g. Twitter where ICs would do 8 onsites a week; I did 5 per week for years). They like you not because you’re proficient but because you’re aligned.
Is it possible to be aligned and “wrong” ? Of course! Invariably, gluttonous hiring practices result in the need for “bar raisers” to restore consistency, entire teams with no real focus, and an explosion of communication channels. Hypergrowth is cancerous. And if everybody is in it together, nobody will be hold another accountable.
This article outlines very little about proficiency and a lot about how to brainwash new grads into believing alignment itself with a recruiting process is a very special skill. Seek evidence about real outcomes instead. Do your own critical thinking.
> If recruiters and hiring managers want you on a panel, it signals that you’re unlikely to disrupt their pipelines by rejecting candidates. This is especially true for high-growth companies (e.g. Twitter where ICs would do 8 onsites a week; I did 5 per week for years). They like you not because you’re proficient but because you’re aligned.
Even recruiters will cut you a lot of slack if your feedback is occasionally something like: "Well, we passed on that candidate. However, his knowledge of X, Y and Z were quite outstanding. Try and funnel him to a place that needs that--maybe company H?" This shows that you, as an interviewer, really did dedicate the time and effort to interview the candidate properly. Good recruiters consider this to be gold.
And other hiring managers have never begrudged my negative judgments. Especially because I generally try to find positive points in a candidate and give some details--"Well, I liked X, Y, and Q, however, I am deeply concerned about lack of Z. If anybody else has counter-evidence that shows he does know Z, I'm open for it." Generally, the result is a couple other managers also saying "No, that lack of Z is real, and there are some other holes we discovered."
Occasionally, you get a surprise. Someone will pipe up: "Huh? We talked about Z for almost 40 minutes and he was phenomenal. You must have had a communication misfire." It happens--then I will defer on that.
I have had managers probe my consistency by sending me "ringers" that they were obviously going to hire just to see if I was being overly harsh. One manager decided to quit doing that after I threatened to hire the candidate for my own group.
How do you push back when the manager sending the "ringer" is the VP of Engineering? And they're wrong about the candidate? I've had this happen twice with VPs at different companies. VP makes a joke panel, candidate gets hired, then fired within 3 weeks. Then at least 1-2 people want out of the fired person's team the following month.
There are definitely recruiters and other players who are thoughtful when they get thoughtful feedback. Yes, if you help a recruiter tune their funnel, you'll help their numbers, so of course they're going to listen. Those incentives are clearly aligned. But in a high growth setting, especially around new grad job fair time, the head count quota is what dominates. It's easy for that quota to be unrealistic, and for hiring efforts to become misaligned, or even at odds, with the long-term interests of the engineering team.
The core problem is that recruiters, hiring managers, executives, etc., deprive ICs of the contextual data (e.g. headcount goals / internal rankings) and outcome data (especially compensation details) that are critical for ICs drawing their own informed conclusions. We must cease accepting the norm where ICs have to dig for glimpses of this data, and share it surreptitiously (e.g. Blind), when the whole picture is readily available to those owning the final decisions.
> How do you push back when the manager sending the "ringer" is the VP of Engineering?
Work someplace better?
Seriously, anyone I have known who is senior in the engineering chain always made sure to tell people "Look, I'm recommending this person, but you are the hiring manager whom he is going to be reporting to. If you and your team don't agree, then he doesn't get hired. So be it."
And, they meant it. VP recommendations only have about a 50% success rate when I'm involved. If the VP isn't a dolt, normally it's simple misfit. The tougher discussions go along the lines of "This person is really good at Z and we really need that. The problem is that for him to be useful at this company after this project he needs background in X and Y, and he simply doesn't have that." If you have a good VP, he recognizes that the solution is "short term contract consultant".
It does seem like you are usually incentivized to reject people, as an interviewer.
Nobody ever complains if you pass on someone but say that they were good at X/Y and might be a reasonable choice for role Z.
But people will jump down your throat if you let a subpar candidate through the funnel; I've been chased away from doing phone screens for being too charitable, because people got sick of their time being wasted every now and then.
If my experience is anything to go by, it's probably smart to avoid becoming an interviewer if you're overly empathetic. It's a role where trying to help people is usually the wrong thing to do.
“One way you can tell you’re proficient is that recruiters and hiring managers try to find ways to include you in their interview loops because they know you’ll both get the candidate excited and be able to assess their work fairly, even if they take an unusual approach.”
If recruiters and hiring managers want you on a panel, it signals that you’re unlikely to disrupt their pipelines by rejecting candidates. This is especially true for high-growth companies (e.g. Twitter where ICs would do 8 onsites a week; I did 5 per week for years). They like you not because you’re proficient but because you’re aligned.
Is it possible to be aligned and “wrong” ? Of course! Invariably, gluttonous hiring practices result in the need for “bar raisers” to restore consistency, entire teams with no real focus, and an explosion of communication channels. Hypergrowth is cancerous. And if everybody is in it together, nobody will be hold another accountable.
This article outlines very little about proficiency and a lot about how to brainwash new grads into believing alignment itself with a recruiting process is a very special skill. Seek evidence about real outcomes instead. Do your own critical thinking.