Seriously who is coming up with these software developer interviews?

[zimspy]

Unrelated industry i.e not IT, my technical question was too develop a work plan for the department, this type of work depending on complexity can be invoiced from R50000 to R100000, and the company in question would need a complex solution, i.e. about 4 weeks work after hours in my spare time, (I don't know how to half ass work), so I would have done it properly.

To this day I think, they just wanted a free solution, and I did not bother to continue and cancelled my interviews.

There is a very straight forward ways to test people technical abilities. You need about 2 to 4 hours. Give the person a task that takes that long to do and evaluate the work delivered. You can quickly spot the bull shitters from those who know what they are doing.

I am confident you can spot a bullshitter in any field with just a conversation, no technical test. There's places where it really matters, like people operating specialized machinery.

I will make the case of an accountant (from the little accounts I did during college). You claim on your CV that you balanced the books for Wimpy. Okay cool, so what did that entail? You collect the invoices, match them against expenses and do balance sheets and income statements and whatever. Then you just pick one and ask what did you do when it didn't balance?
Heck even a teacher. Okay you claim you have an 80% pass-rate. Cool, how did you manage the 20% that fail?

That's less time spent on both ends. Evaluating technical interviews also consumes time on your part as well. And there will be places like Ikhokha where I somehow used a solution they did not understand and instead of asking me, I got a f**king 1 sentence rejection email. I had to probe and probe to get an actual reason why I got rejected. Turns out their engineer only knows 1 type of architecture!

 

[zimspy]

(AI) Jesus! Please take the wheel!!!

Problem is that this will have outcomes that isn't always desirable, in fact probably most of the time disastrous.

Hey Siri, what's the time?
It's 1630.
Okay, wake me up in 4 hours.
I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for that.

 

[cguy]

Without standing up for annoying recruitment agencies, their modus operandi is NOT low-balling you to take the difference. The higher your CTC, the higher their com. It works on a percentage. Recruiters get the salary range from the client. That range will often depend on the seniority of the person being hired. If it ranges from 3 years working experience to 20 years, expect the salary to vary as well. Sometimes when hiring you have to broaden the scope and consider reshuffling internal roles to meet the need. We have limited talent who want to move.

Agreed. That has always been my understanding too. External recruiters get a percentage. Internal recruiters may have a percentage deal, but also may be compensated as some multiplier of positions filled. I have never heard of anyone splitting the difference for low-balling (and I’ve been dealing with recruiters for close to 30 years now).

 

[cguy]

I work in a high performance technical team in one of the top 10 companies in the world. I do the interviews, and make the hiring decision, for the team, and sometimes related teams. An interview with me is only 30 minutes on Teams or Zoom.

Does anyone else on your team also do interviews or do you base everything on a 30 minute interview? (Edit: and the work with us day?)

In the interview I usually ask a few relevant questions about you, your history, your plans, and your interests. I also only ask 3 technical questions based on your stated skills and experience, relevant to the job we have on offer. I do not ask for homework or tests - I do not believe it works. Obviously our HR and the provider agencies have their red tape, there is nothing I can do about that, but I only accept unedited original CV to review and pick the candidates. I would estimate that my refusal rate on CVs are around 95%, and the same on the interviews - most common reasons are faking/lying, inconsistencies (stated experience and task levels does not match skills), and irrelevant CVs (not the fault of the candidate).

Our HR has always done a very good job in narrowing down the candidates. Perhaps 50% of the CVs are refused by the time they get to me. It seems like something someone else can do for me.

 

[zimspy]

I would have a hard time hiring yourself reading through this. While you are correct that time wasting is non efficient you also need to know if someone can fit within the team and therefor aptitude tests. You can befok with what you can do but a **** fit.

Aptitude tests really have no place in this world. There's people with ADHD and people who just don't test well for whatever reason. Yet those same people will sit at the desk and get the job done within spec and within the sprint.
My inability to sort squares or memorize formulae has no impact on my ability to do my actual job.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

Aptitude tests really have no place in this world. There's people with ADHD and people who just don't test well for whatever reason. Yet those same people will sit at the desk and get the job done within spec and within the sprint.
My inability to sort squares or memorize formulae has no impact on my ability to do my actual job.

Hence: befok work, **** fit - if you can't work within a tribe as a tribe if this is the requirements and it normally is within most business setups unless you are WFH and even then some of the same rules does apply, why hire someone who will pull your team down. I really had a good laugh at this, your op, when I realised this is exactly the err I made when I kakked myself about aptitudes back then when I was young and dumb. However, having been on both sides, that is the receiving end of a bad apple and the bad apple itself, rather show that person(s) the door. It saves you on time, rework, team, etc.

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

Unless you're being headhunted, expect a bit of a challenge. The main reason for a test like this is not just to get your capability with coding, but your attitude to a challenge and how you handle pressure. I've had people bail at the sight of a challenge which has made my job as a recruiter easier. The only thing I would say is to put a time frame to it, don't make candidates spend all day on an interview, that's doff. Just say like 1hr30 or something. I don't care if candidates finish, it's really just a hurdle that some dont get past. That helps me weed out the ones I dobt want to start with.

It's surprising the lengths scammers go to these days, especially in the online interviews...
Check it out

Google Podcasts is no longer available

podcasts.google.com

Hey, Mr Recuiter, when was the last time you spent 1hr30 of your time applying to a job that doesn't even list salary range? What does the typical recuiter interview process consist of?

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

Without standing up for annoying recruitment agencies, their modus operandi is NOT low-balling you to take the difference. The higher your CTC, the higher their com. It works on a percentage. Recruiters get the salary range from the client. That range will often depend on the seniority of the person being hired. If it ranges from 3 years working experience to 20 years, expect the salary to vary as well. Sometimes when hiring you have to broaden the scope and consider reshuffling internal roles to meet the need. We have limited talent who want to move.

On my own point, recruitment is part of my job as management, I'm a tech person - systems architect along with other roles, but I do my fair share of interviewing and recruiting. I work for a small firm. We don't have full time recruiters.

This is such a BS lie. Let's say the recruiter gets 30% of the CTC. Every extra R10k that candidate makes is R3k to the recuiter. Like that recuiter is gonna swing a bat to get an extra R3k vs closing the deal at R10k less CTC.

And that's assuming that recuiter gets the full R3k, and doesn't lose a slice to their company etc etc.. Nah. Recruiters are salesman, they'll take the smallest amount that closes the deal.

 

[cguy]

This is such a BS lie. Let's say the recruiter gets 30% of the CTC. Every extra R10k that candidate makes is R3k to the recuiter. Like that recuiter is gonna swing a bat to get an extra R3k vs closing the deal at R10k less CTC.

And that's assuming that recuiter gets the full R3k, and doesn't lose a slice to their company etc etc.. Nah. Recruiters are salesman, they'll take the smallest amount that closes the deal.

You’re missing his point entirely.

 

[deweyzeph]

The problem in South Africa is that it's damn near impossible to get rid of an employee if they just coast along and do the bare minimum necessary to avoid a disciplinary hearing. In IT and software development this is particularly a problem, and I've worked in many companies where there is a lot of dead weight and no good options for getting rid of them. Consequently a lot of companies, especially smaller and startup companies, can't afford to make a wrong decision when it comes to hiring people. Sure, there are probation periods, but often a problem employee doesn't become a problem until well after their probation period is up, and by then it's too late to get rid of them. Given our ridiculous labour laws it's not surprising that South African companies are very careful when it comes to hiring people.

 

[lkpat]

This is such a BS lie. Let's say the recruiter gets 30% of the CTC. Every extra R10k that candidate makes is R3k to the recuiter. Like that recuiter is gonna swing a bat to get an extra R3k vs closing the deal at R10k less CTC.

LMAO. I deal with recruiters often enough to know that's nonsense. I won't go as far as calling it a BS lie though because I believe it's just your ignorance speaking.
Tell us why the recruiter would be motivated to close the deal at a lowball offer...
Heck, tell us why any salesman would be motivated to close any deal at a lowball offer.
/waits patiently

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

LMAO. I deal with recruiters often enough to know that's nonsense. I won't go as far as calling it a BS lie though because I believe it's just your ignorance speaking.
Tell us why the recruiter would be motivated to close the deal at a lowball offer...
Heck, tell us why any salesman would be motivated to close any deal at a lowball offer.
/waits patiently

I said it already in my example, let's break it down another way then and let me ask you, who is the recruiters customer? The candidate or the business? Who's interests would they have at heart?

As to why they would close at a low ball, would you rather take make sure the deal is a sure thing at a lower closing rate vs swinging and pushing and potentially alienating your true customer?

/stop waiting.

 

[Hamster]

LMAO. I deal with recruiters often enough to know that's nonsense.

Aren't you a recruiter? Could've sworn you said you are a recruiter.

Tell us why the recruiter would be motivated to close the deal at a lowball offer...
Heck, tell us why any salesman would be motivated to close any deal at a lowball offer.

Unless they know this candidate can bring in a pay day it's more profitable to get somebody placed and/or move on.

At least that's what they do here in Europe.

 

[McRuder]

Does anyone else on your team also do interviews or do you base everything on a 30 minute interview? (Edit: and the work with us day?)


Our HR has always done a very good job in narrowing down the candidates. Perhaps 50% of the CVs are refused by the time they get to me. It seems like something someone else can do for me.

For my team I do the interviews, sometimes my boss likes to sit in, but the decision is mine. My boss deals with the contractual negotiations/details after, so I suppose they want a preview, they obviously has the right to veto me, but they have not done so yet. Candidates may do other prior interviews with HR or their agencies, I am not sure, I don't care to ask. The work with us day is not really part of my decision (it is already made), it is to give the person the opportunity to see where we are and what we do, and to be sure they want to be a part of it. And yes, the interview is 30 minutes, and it actually takes me 3 minutes to see which way it is going to go. The other 27 minutes is just getting minor details, and checking off other boxes, and some time for questions from the candidate. Our HR do have a prior meeting with the candidates that are invited to an interview, it is not an interview - they provide all the background and detail, and handle most of the questions the candidate may have about the company, team, culture, etc. My questions are very specific and relevant to the CV that was presented to me, and to the position I am trying to fill.

I do not know how many CVs has been refused before they are passed on to me. The CVs I get seem to be in the ballpark of my specifications to HR. However I do not expect them to be able to understand all the technical detail and jargon used, or be able to tell exactly what is relevant or not, therefore some irrelevant CVs still slip through. I listed it as a reason for refusal, but it is not the primary reason, I gave 3 reasons. The 2 primary reasons being faking/lying, and inconsistencies.

 

[lkpat]

Aren't you a recruiter? Could've sworn you said you are a recruiter.

I am. It's not my core duty, but I recruit for my firm yes.

Unless they know this candidate can bring in a pay day it's more profitable to get somebody placed and/or move on.

At least that's what they do here in Europe.

It's as if you guys think they're selling commodities.
There are two sides to the equasion. If you think they're lowballing you, it's your fault for accepting the offer. There are two parties interested in accepting a higher offer and the recruiter is just as likely to lose the deal by low balling or going too high.

 

[lkpat]

I said it already in my example, let's break it down another way then and let me ask you, who is the recruiters customer? The candidate or the business? Who's interests would they have at heart?

Both. Why wouldn't they? If they can't make either side happy, there's no deal.

As to why they would close at a low ball, would you rather take make sure the deal is a sure thing at a lower closing rate vs swinging and pushing and potentially alienating your true customer?
/stop waiting.

It's only a sure thing if both parties agree. If it's a low ball, why would YOU accept the offer?
/waits patiently.

 

[cguy]

For my team I do the interviews, sometimes my boss likes to sit in, but the decision is mine. My boss deals with the contractual negotiations/details after, so I suppose they want a preview, they obviously has the right to veto me, but they have not done so yet. Candidates may do other prior interviews with HR or their agencies, I am not sure, I don't care to ask. The work with us day is not really part of my decision (it is already made), it is to give the person the opportunity to see where we are and what we do, and to be sure they want to be a part of it. And yes, the interview is 30 minutes, and it actually takes me 3 minutes to see which way it is going to go. The other 27 minutes is just getting minor details, and checking off other boxes, and some time for questions from the candidate. Our HR do have a prior meeting with the candidates that are invited to an interview, it is not an interview - they provide all the background and detail, and handle most of the questions the candidate may have about the company, team, culture, etc. My questions are very specific and relevant to the CV that was presented to me, and to the position I am trying to fill.

I do not know how many CVs has been refused before they are passed on to me. The CVs I get seem to be in the ballpark of my specifications to HR. However I do not expect them to be able to understand all the technical detail and jargon used, or be able to tell exactly what is relevant or not, therefore some irrelevant CVs still slip through. I listed it as a reason for refusal, but it is not the primary reason, I gave 3 reasons. The 2 primary reasons being faking/lying, and inconsistencies.

This all seems very unusual for a role like you described (“high performance technical team in one of the top 10 companies in the world”).

We typically go through 6-12 hours of technical interviews and get the consensus of at least 5-8 people before hiring anyone.

 

[animal531]

Unless you're being headhunted, expect a bit of a challenge. The main reason for a test like this is not just to get your capability with coding, but your attitude to a challenge and how you handle pressure. I've had people bail at the sight of a challenge which has made my job as a recruiter easier. The only thing I would say is to put a time frame to it, don't make candidates spend all day on an interview, that's doff. Just say like 1hr30 or something. I don't care if candidates finish, it's really just a hurdle that some dont get past. That helps me weed out the ones I dobt want to start with.

It's surprising the lengths scammers go to these days, especially in the online interviews...
Check it out

Google Podcasts is no longer available

podcasts.google.com

Ah yes, I have to spend 1.5 hours on a test then 3 different interviews and finally when we talk money it's "Oops, we posted the wrong bracket, we can only pay you x% of that, take it or leave it".

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

Both. Why wouldn't they? If they can't make either side happy, there's no deal.

It's only a sure thing if both parties agree. If it's a low ball, why would YOU accept the offer?
/waits patiently.

You can't serve two masters.

Maybe I'm changing direction and don't know it is low. Maybe the recruiter tells me the market is stagnant cause he knows I'm really unhappy in my current role, maybe I was laid off and it's my only option? Many possible ways that recruiters can, an do screw candidates. Why? Cause they serve the company, not the candidate.

 

[lkpat]

You can't serve two masters.

Maybe I'm changing direction and don't know it is low. Maybe the recruiter tells me the market is stagnant cause he knows I'm really unhappy in my current role, maybe I was laid off and it's my only option? Many possible ways that recruiters can, an do screw candidates. Why? Cause they serve the company, not the candidate.

No.
You, the recruiter and the company serve yourselves first.
Tell me why if you disagree.