Hiring: You are doing it all wrong.
Apologize for the stash in Russian... Let's see if Google translate will work...
It's really good post on what is wrong with hiring and how to make it better.
Google Translate works pretty well:
I am deeply convinced that the evaluation of the qualities of other people - a judgment about people, if you want - this is a special skill. A good engineer is not necessarily a good sobesedovat. This work is also creative, so it will not be able to formalize the points and just give all engineers learn them. If you ask someone who knows how to hire good, as it is obtained, you can often hear something like: "I was just talking with someone and I see it is good or not." That's all.
So instead of making every engineer on your team to interview at a time, as a kind of service (this I mean you, Google), try to notice the people who hired them more likely to be good workers, and they only let it and engaged.
I think the point is not to make everyone interview, right?
Yes, he is making the point that:
" Not every good engineer is also good at interviewing and hiring.
Instead of letting everybody interview, it's better to find people, who actually good at spotting talent. His advise is to find these people based on the quality of people hired previously. Only the people, who hired good people should be chosen to interview."
I think there is a number of practical problems with this.
1. Lining up people to interview the candidate is fairly painful problem. Now if you pool in interviewers is limited, this step becomes even harder.
2. Good interviewers might not be happy with extra load related to interviews, while their colleagues can just focus on the main line of work.
3. People, who hired good people, should be able to repeat the succes, but it is not known how many good people did they passed on.
4. The rest of the team might not appreciate being left off the hiring process.
I think, instead, the team needs to develop a good interviewing process and collectively agree on what is important and what is not.
Thanks Sergey. Great point.