I liked the part about internal recruiter's incentive structure. It's basically the old standby that nobody ever gets fired for buying IBM. This implies to me that there's a huge amount of value for companies that can change their hiring metrics and find undervalued engineers.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that filtering processes can't make candidates better. A properly created process should leave both sides of the equation happy, an engineer can learn new skills and a hiring manager can have a shot at making an offer to an engineer if s/he has the requisite skills. If the candidate doesn't have the skills then give them the tools to learn the skills and see if they come back showing mastery. Work ethic and being ready/willing/able to learn new things is the number one signal that an employee is going to work out well, at least on the teams that I have run.
Author here. What I meant was that right now there isn't much of a feedback loop when it comes to interviewing. If you get rejected, you often don't know why. And that sucks.
I'm half joking, but yes, it's a serious problem. What sucks more, is that even if you clear the interview, you don't know what things you're doing well, because there is no feedback.
Perhaps the author's point about filtering wasn't so clearly made. The idea is that if the best candidate that enters the funnel is a 6.2 on a 10 point scale, no amount of filtering will produce an 8.3 out of 10 candidate. To get 8.3 candidates to the filter you have to source candidates above 6.2.
Ah, I think I was not terribly clear when making my point. I don't think that candidate scores are static and, even if they are, there's a significant amount of measurement error no matter the interview process.
Ideally I want a hiring "fun"-nel where a 6.2 can learn the skills necessary to become an 8.3 (or show that they've been an 8.3 all along) through exercises or reading assignments. Sort of an external training/hiring funnel. If nothing else it may also help as a way to build internal training processes and advertise the to the world some of the neat stuff you are working on. I think this is how Matasano recruits and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Pretty much no matter what there is a learning curve associate d with bringing on a new hire. Finding candidates that will attack those curves with gusto is key to building good teams, I think at least. Technical skills can be taught and refined, gumption is a bit harder to instill.
It's difficult to know when to invest the time in giving candidates feedback. While I would love to do it every time, giving any feedback during the hiring process is a legal minefield and not every candidate appreciates it. In my humble opinion, any engineer who has top-tier potential will be able to derive from the questions asked during the interview process what they need to learn in able to get a job (note, I did say "get a job", not "be a great engineer" - thinking that those are the same skillset seems to be the first mistake many job-hunters make).
I am speaking in terms of accurate measurements...an 8.3 is actually 8.3. Precision is a different issue, but if there are no actual 8.3's in the funnel, then while filtering may improve precision there will never be an actual 8.3 at the narrow end.
I found that interesting as well. If that's true - and I assume it is, if the author says so - it's completely bonkers. I wonder what the purpose of those in-house recruiters really is, if all they do is source candidates with pedigree? That's something linkedin can do for you.
One thing that I disagree with is the idea that filtering processes can't make candidates better. A properly created process should leave both sides of the equation happy, an engineer can learn new skills and a hiring manager can have a shot at making an offer to an engineer if s/he has the requisite skills. If the candidate doesn't have the skills then give them the tools to learn the skills and see if they come back showing mastery. Work ethic and being ready/willing/able to learn new things is the number one signal that an employee is going to work out well, at least on the teams that I have run.