What to look for in a new hire?
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
I would ask them to demo the personal project.
That's a good idea. But, I guess I'd have to assume that they made the project recently, and I'm not looking at an app they built years ago as a CS final project. :) :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Well, if their last project was years ago that's a sure sign they are not much into improving their skills!! ;P Actually you don't need big piece code, small will do! Every self learner has tidbit of code write every now and then to explore this or that feature. While he could copy the code (why not after all, don't we all take code from CP too?) (s)he should be able to speak about it and tells what he likes/learn in these experiments. And what improvment he made!
-
From what I can tell, there is no trait or accomplishment that you can look for in someone to determine if they are actually good at developing software, without hiring the person and evaluating their work. Am I correct about this? Graduating college with a degree in CS is as good an indicator as whether the person can whistle. I've known people, one of them a good friend, who graduated with a CS degree and can't program their way out of a paper bag. So, schooling is not an indicator. Industry experience does not necessarily prove anything, either. There are certainly people in the dev world who plain old suck. They might have been programming since I was riding a tricycle, but they're really not any better now than they were then (perhaps worse). Certifications...too easy to cheat. So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first? :confused: :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
So far I have hired people whom I have known either personally or through friends or through their blogs or articles. I know that if I take a technical interview I will not be able to hire anyone. It is not wise to reject anyone based on what they know technically at a given point of time; what matters is how good their learning skills are, how well they can get along with other people in the team, and (no I am not joking) how well they can use Google:).
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I resisted the temptation to add that above
I too...It's a proven theory by some indian HRs.They would never take a smart guy because....
jith - iii wrote:
I too...It's a proven theory by some indian HRs.They would never take a smart guy because....
Not really true. They always pick the smart ones (guys or ladies). But with the dumb ones they pick out the ones that are good looking (female). Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
Josh Smith wrote:
So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first?
Their website, their blog, their articles on CP. In other hitech professions, people are often required to publish if they are expected to advance in their careers. At least those interested in advancing. It's funny, I had this discussion just recently with my neighbor. Even a pharmacist is expected to publish if they want to get a job with the FDA, apparently. If I want someone "good", then frankly, to me, that means they are working at being good, and that means they are out there publishing, writing, discussing technology, etc. So, nowadays, that's my criteria. I'm sure it would eliminate a lot of people that are also good, but it also helps weed out the people that are really bad. Marc XPressTier
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
I like your approach, and attitude, however, I do have a few questions. In my opinion, blogs, websites, articles, etc. are relatively 'recent' additions to the mix, and, whether we like to admit it or not, there is still a great deal of 'old' technology out there that is still being used and still useful. What then, should be looked for in regards to these technologies: mainframe, COBOL, Fortran, etc? And, yes, many people will reject these because they "don't want to learn old stuff", but that doesn't negate the need or use of it. Tim
-
jith - iii wrote:
I too...It's a proven theory by some indian HRs.They would never take a smart guy because....
Not really true. They always pick the smart ones (guys or ladies). But with the dumb ones they pick out the ones that are good looking (female). Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Infact..lots of guys used to comment like that.If they took the smart guys they may become heroes among girls. But there are some other people especially in some call centers who will never take good looking girls since they feel that selection of good looking girls would slow down the productivity.This is also a complaint by some really smart guys .
-
I like your approach, and attitude, however, I do have a few questions. In my opinion, blogs, websites, articles, etc. are relatively 'recent' additions to the mix, and, whether we like to admit it or not, there is still a great deal of 'old' technology out there that is still being used and still useful. What then, should be looked for in regards to these technologies: mainframe, COBOL, Fortran, etc? And, yes, many people will reject these because they "don't want to learn old stuff", but that doesn't negate the need or use of it. Tim
Tim Carmichael wrote:
What then, should be looked for in regards to these technologies: mainframe, COBOL, Fortran, etc?
That's certainly valid, but I'm not sure. My criteria is definitely aimed at new technology. I wouldn't even know how to interview someone to fathom their COBOL experience. I could possibly handle a Fortran interview with a brush up. As someone else mentioned, there's Joel's guerrilla interview techniques. That might be a good start. Probably though, I'd focus less on technology than on team and communication skills. Marc XPressTier
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
-
The Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing[^] Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
That was pretty interesting, thanks for the link. :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
From what I can tell, there is no trait or accomplishment that you can look for in someone to determine if they are actually good at developing software, without hiring the person and evaluating their work. Am I correct about this? Graduating college with a degree in CS is as good an indicator as whether the person can whistle. I've known people, one of them a good friend, who graduated with a CS degree and can't program their way out of a paper bag. So, schooling is not an indicator. Industry experience does not necessarily prove anything, either. There are certainly people in the dev world who plain old suck. They might have been programming since I was riding a tricycle, but they're really not any better now than they were then (perhaps worse). Certifications...too easy to cheat. So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first? :confused: :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Josh Smith wrote:
From what I can tell, there is no trait or accomplishment that you can look for in someone to determine if they are actually good at developing software, without hiring the person and evaluating their work. Am I correct about this?
Yep, I would agree. You can filter out some bad ones in the interview process. Ideally, I would try to hire either someone I know from past work (or personal projects) or based on the recommendation of someone I know and trust.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
So far I have hired people whom I have known either personally or through friends or through their blogs or articles. I know that if I take a technical interview I will not be able to hire anyone. It is not wise to reject anyone based on what they know technically at a given point of time; what matters is how good their learning skills are, how well they can get along with other people in the team, and (no I am not joking) how well they can use Google:).
Google is our best friend. There is inforamtion out there that the standard documentation doesn't provide. There has also been times where my colleagues whom are far more advanced skills and knowledge wise that have failed to find information, samples etc on code. Yet I search and within seconds I have found an article, or download that contains exactly what was required. If you don't know how to use google properly, you better start learning.
-
Google is our best friend. There is inforamtion out there that the standard documentation doesn't provide. There has also been times where my colleagues whom are far more advanced skills and knowledge wise that have failed to find information, samples etc on code. Yet I search and within seconds I have found an article, or download that contains exactly what was required. If you don't know how to use google properly, you better start learning.
Gavin Roberts wrote:
If you don't know how to use google properly, you better start learning.
Exactly! It is very likely that something you want to develop exists somewhere in Internet.
-
The Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing[^] Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
An infinite number of gorillas at an infinite number of keyboards? The tigress is here :-D
-
From what I can tell, there is no trait or accomplishment that you can look for in someone to determine if they are actually good at developing software, without hiring the person and evaluating their work. Am I correct about this? Graduating college with a degree in CS is as good an indicator as whether the person can whistle. I've known people, one of them a good friend, who graduated with a CS degree and can't program their way out of a paper bag. So, schooling is not an indicator. Industry experience does not necessarily prove anything, either. There are certainly people in the dev world who plain old suck. They might have been programming since I was riding a tricycle, but they're really not any better now than they were then (perhaps worse). Certifications...too easy to cheat. So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first? :confused: :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Josh Smith wrote:
can't program their way out of a paper bag
... or a
forloop :)"Nothing ever changes by staying the same." - David Brent (BBC's The Office)
~ ScrollingGrid: A cross-browser freeze-header control for the ASP.NET DataGrid
-
If it's a good looking girl, hire her any way, since she'll help improve the overall morale of the work environment :rolleyes: More seriously though, the Microsoft interview process of multiple interview, 1-2 HR rounds, 1-2 puzzle rounds, 1-2 technical rounds, 1 personal interview etc. might usually work out. It's hard for someone to hide his weaknesses through such an intense process - and you'd also be able to dig out his not-so-obvious talents. You should also consider hiring people on a probation period (say 1 month) after which you decide whether you want to keep them or lose them. In the past, I've once had to tell a probation candidate that we weren't planning on keeping her, and it was pretty awkward for me - so make sure you have someone else to do that job in case it's required. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New) -
Josh Smith wrote:
So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first?
Their website, their blog, their articles on CP. In other hitech professions, people are often required to publish if they are expected to advance in their careers. At least those interested in advancing. It's funny, I had this discussion just recently with my neighbor. Even a pharmacist is expected to publish if they want to get a job with the FDA, apparently. If I want someone "good", then frankly, to me, that means they are working at being good, and that means they are out there publishing, writing, discussing technology, etc. So, nowadays, that's my criteria. I'm sure it would eliminate a lot of people that are also good, but it also helps weed out the people that are really bad. Marc XPressTier
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
Damn, tough crowd. Guess I better schedule some time and publish. Heh... funny, Wrox sent me an email back in 2001 to work on the C++.NET book when .NET was just coming out, but I turned it down due to time constraints. I was already averaging 60 hours a week. That plus actually having a life, [lots of hobbies, like music and cooking] has put me in a place where I have to decide what I spend that extra time on. I've told myself time and again I'd write that CP article, but just haven't gotten there, one crunch time after another, coupled with my innate sense of laziness has stalled it. Guess I better get to cracking in me spare time and publish those bits that have collected over the years. I have a delegate like class that's part of my C++ framework that I could publish I guess... it maps to member functions without requiring a static method. And you can toss it about to respond to events, and it doens't require boost. Ok, I'll do that this weekend. There, its in print I'm now committed. ;) This statement is false.
-
From what I can tell, there is no trait or accomplishment that you can look for in someone to determine if they are actually good at developing software, without hiring the person and evaluating their work. Am I correct about this? Graduating college with a degree in CS is as good an indicator as whether the person can whistle. I've known people, one of them a good friend, who graduated with a CS degree and can't program their way out of a paper bag. So, schooling is not an indicator. Industry experience does not necessarily prove anything, either. There are certainly people in the dev world who plain old suck. They might have been programming since I was riding a tricycle, but they're really not any better now than they were then (perhaps worse). Certifications...too easy to cheat. So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first? :confused: :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Well, when you open up a new-hire, they should have a complete set of major organs, like a heart, both lungs, a liver, kidneys, those kind of things. While you're in there digging around, you may as well check for a brain...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
From what I can tell, there is no trait or accomplishment that you can look for in someone to determine if they are actually good at developing software, without hiring the person and evaluating their work. Am I correct about this? Graduating college with a degree in CS is as good an indicator as whether the person can whistle. I've known people, one of them a good friend, who graduated with a CS degree and can't program their way out of a paper bag. So, schooling is not an indicator. Industry experience does not necessarily prove anything, either. There are certainly people in the dev world who plain old suck. They might have been programming since I was riding a tricycle, but they're really not any better now than they were then (perhaps worse). Certifications...too easy to cheat. So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first? :confused: :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
Commitment. The tigress is here :-D
-
From what I can tell, there is no trait or accomplishment that you can look for in someone to determine if they are actually good at developing software, without hiring the person and evaluating their work. Am I correct about this? Graduating college with a degree in CS is as good an indicator as whether the person can whistle. I've known people, one of them a good friend, who graduated with a CS degree and can't program their way out of a paper bag. So, schooling is not an indicator. Industry experience does not necessarily prove anything, either. There are certainly people in the dev world who plain old suck. They might have been programming since I was riding a tricycle, but they're really not any better now than they were then (perhaps worse). Certifications...too easy to cheat. So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first? :confused: :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
Josh Smith wrote:
So, what can you look for in someone to determine if they are any good, without hiring them first?
Their website, their blog, their articles on CP. In other hitech professions, people are often required to publish if they are expected to advance in their careers. At least those interested in advancing. It's funny, I had this discussion just recently with my neighbor. Even a pharmacist is expected to publish if they want to get a job with the FDA, apparently. If I want someone "good", then frankly, to me, that means they are working at being good, and that means they are out there publishing, writing, discussing technology, etc. So, nowadays, that's my criteria. I'm sure it would eliminate a lot of people that are also good, but it also helps weed out the people that are really bad. Marc XPressTier
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
Marc Clifton wrote:
If I want someone "good", then frankly, to me, that means they are working at being good, and that means they are out there publishing, writing, discussing technology, etc.
I have to agree with you Marc. The willingness to publish (in any of its forms: papers, jounals, magazine, book, web) shows a degree of enthusiasm that separates the chaff from the wheat.
"The key, the whole key, and nothing but the key, so help me Codd"
-
I'd check for fleas and ticks. Same kinda stuff you'd look for when you're buying a puppy.
kryzchek wrote:
Same kinda stuff you'd look for when you're buying a puppy.
I wouldn't want to work with a bunch of neutered guys....although we could have a kick-ass castrati choir. ;) :josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
Damn, tough crowd. Guess I better schedule some time and publish. Heh... funny, Wrox sent me an email back in 2001 to work on the C++.NET book when .NET was just coming out, but I turned it down due to time constraints. I was already averaging 60 hours a week. That plus actually having a life, [lots of hobbies, like music and cooking] has put me in a place where I have to decide what I spend that extra time on. I've told myself time and again I'd write that CP article, but just haven't gotten there, one crunch time after another, coupled with my innate sense of laziness has stalled it. Guess I better get to cracking in me spare time and publish those bits that have collected over the years. I have a delegate like class that's part of my C++ framework that I could publish I guess... it maps to member functions without requiring a static method. And you can toss it about to respond to events, and it doens't require boost. Ok, I'll do that this weekend. There, its in print I'm now committed. ;) This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Ok, I'll do that this weekend.
Excellent! Though I don't hardly do any C++ work anymore, I'll be looking for it come Monday. :) Marc XPressTier
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
