Introduction

• Fit for a role goes beyond certifications or degrees; diversity in backgrounds is valuable.
• Companies often underestimate the impact of the candidate’s experience (asymmetry of power).

Foundations

• Values shape culture; careful definition is crucial.
• A company without explicitly defined values will still have a culture – just one that stems from the personalities and behaviors of its leaders and early employees, rather than one having any careful thought, design, or purpose.
• Avoid competition for a homogenous candidate pool; rethink hiring criteria.
• Consider interactions as mutual evaluations; combat cognitive biases.
• Recruiting is a product; balance effort and investment.
• You can iterate on your criteria and assessment methods over time but don’t bend them inconsistently on a candidate-by-candidate basis.
• When teams try to put together a flowchart of their established (and, they believe, clearly understood) process, they are often surprised to discover that not everyone expects the same things and at how complex things have become over time.

Internal Alignment

• Levels support growth but may undermine intrinsic motivation.
• Separate management and IC tracks for career progression.
• Balance titles’ significance with actual job responsibilities.
• Transparency in compensation is crucial; avoid exceptions.

Connecting with Candidates

• Resumes are poor predictors; focus on real-world abilities.
• GitHub stars and code projects are powerful signals.
• Behavioral questions communicate company values.
• The main question isn’t “Does this candidate seem likely to fail my interview process based on their qualifications?” but rather “Would this candidate be excited to work on the stuff we’re working on?”
• A candidate’s ability to write about their work with clarity is highly valuable and is likely to translate to good communication skills in their work.
• Strong narratives connect the mission to the candidate’s role.

Interviewing

• Design interviews mirroring actual work; include behavioral assessments.
• Trial employment requests may hinder diverse candidates.
• Avoid literal grading; consider diverse perspectives.
• A nervous candidate who feels unwelcome or out of place won’t give an accurate signal of their abilities.
• Provide data and feedback to interviewers.
• A common pitfall for junior interviewers is to grade candidates’ answers based on how they would solve the problem; they may be very literal in interpreting right and wrong responses based on a rubric.
• If you take too long to give a candidate any feedback at all, they may read the silence as impolite disinterest on the part of the company or convince themselves they don’t want the job anymore.
• Structured interviews predict performance better than casual ones.
• A good interviewer understands where their intuition is coming from at least well enough to explain it to others or to highlight ways to evaluate whether the intuition is accurate.
• Be wary of adding too much to the interview process.
• Avoid unnecessary constraints on language or environment – may provide a poor signal.
• Mastering live work requires its own set of skills, distinct from coding abilities, as it involves managing anxiety and maintaining focus.
• Among different interview methods, take-home assignments likely have the lowest chance of providing incorrect assessments for companies. Follow-up discussions are crucial after a take-home task, marking the initial stage of a broader conversation. Take-home assignments may disadvantage individuals with families, financial challenges, or multiple jobs. Timing take-home assessments is challenging and can lead to unfair evaluations, as candidates may spend varying amounts of time on the task.
• Clearly communicating the evaluation criteria, such as code quality, creativity, or speed, is important when assigning tasks to candidates.
• A strong candidate should showcase problem-solving skills, the ability to learn from mistakes, and the capacity to refine solutions.
• Anything that feels like it could even possibly be considered a mind game is bad territory to be in.
• While interviewers aim to highlight candidates’ strengths, it ultimately falls on the candidates to demonstrate their abilities effectively.
• Despite having a rubric, defining a precise standard for good or bad performance can be challenging, allowing room for human judgment.
• Justifying decisions in a write-up involves providing concrete evidence based on the rubric, and identifying which criteria were met or unmet.

After the Interviews

• Foster healthy debate; diverse perspectives in hiring committees enhance decisions.
• Bar raisers ensure objective assessments.
• Balance local team decisions with consistency in hiring.
• Consistent red (or green) flags across interviews indicate significant behaviors.
• Frequent struggles in deciding on candidates may signal a poorly designed process.
• Provide transparent feedback to candidates; ensure rigorous decision-making.
• Industry trends toward pay transparency; be fair to build trust.