Ammon Bartram和Harj Taggar-建立一个工程小组
Geoff Ralston: ...
Geoff Ralston: .。
As the slides are loading.
当幻灯片加载的时候。
There is no topic that should occupy your minds more, as you build your company, than bringing on the team that's going to make your company successful, as you move forward. Harj and Ammon from Triplebyte, YC alumnus, are gonna talk about building in today's day and age, perhaps the key portion of that team, the engineering team. So, please welcome ... Harj, you're starting, yeah? Harj.
在你建立公司的过程中,没有什么比组建团队更能占据你脑海中的话题了,当你前进的时候,这个团队将使你的公司取得成功。来自三倍字节的Harj和Ammon,YC校友,将谈论当今时代的建筑,也许是这个团队的关键部分,工程团队。所以请欢迎.。哈吉,你开始了,是吗?哈吉。
Harj Taggar: Alright, thanks for having us everyone! I'm Harj, I'm one of the co-founders of Triplebyte along with Ammon. Previously, I used to be a partner at Y-Combinator.
Harj Taggar: 好的,谢谢大家!我是Harj,我和Ammon一起是Triple字节的联合创始人之一。以前,我曾是Y-Combinator的合伙人。
Harj Taggar: Alright, thanks for having us everyone! I'm Harj, I'm one of the co-founders of Triplebyte along with Ammon. Previously, I used to be a partner at Y-Combinator.
Harj Taggar: 好的,谢谢大家!我是Harj,我和Ammon一起是Triple字节的联合创始人之一。以前,我曾是Y-Combinator的合伙人。
And part of the inspiration of starting Triplebyte was noticing how after graduating Y-Combinator and raising the first investment round, everyone's number one problem was hiring and specifically hiring engineers 'cause it's sort of the hardest hiring challenge. So, through working on Triplebyte, which is a hiring marketplace that's used by engineers to find new places to work, Ammon and I have gathered lots of data on what works well when it comes to hiring engineers.
创建Triple字节的部分灵感在于,注意到Y-Combinator毕业后,每个人的首要问题都是招聘,特别是招聘工程师,因为这是最困难的招聘挑战。因此,通过开发三字节公司,这是一个被工程师用来寻找新工作场所的招聘市场,Ammon和我收集了大量的数据,说明在招聘工程师方面什么是有效的。
I've personally focused a lot on spending time with companies, helping them think through their strategies for finding engineers and obviously getting the most out of Triplebyte.
我个人一直致力于与公司合作,帮助他们思考寻找工程师的策略,并明显地从三字节中得到最大的好处。
And Ammon spent a lot of time thinking through the details of how do you evaluate an engineer? How do you evaluate their engineering skill, and answer the question of "are they a good engineer or not?" So we're going to share that and have a divide and conquer strategy going on here.
阿蒙花了很多时间仔细考虑你如何评价一个工程师的细节?你如何评估他们的工程技能,并回答“他们是否是一名优秀的工程师?”因此,我们将分享这一点,并有一个分而治之的战略在这里进行。
The four main topics we're gonna cover are where to look for engineers, when you should start thinking about using recruiters, and that's what I'm going to start with.
我们要讨论的四个主要话题是在哪里寻找工程师,当你开始考虑使用招聘人员的时候,这就是我要开始讲的。
Then we'll talk about evaluating technical skills, which Ammon's gonna cover.
然后我们将讨论评估技术技能,阿蒙将报道。
And then I'll finish up by talking through the process of making offers and closing, which is getting people to actually join your team. But before we start on any of that, I want to just issue a warning and make sure you're well prepared for the fact that hiring really well and truly sucks.
最后,我将通过提出报价和结帐的过程来结束,这就是让人们真正加入你的团队。但在我们开始之前,我只想发出一个警告,确保你已经做好了充分的准备,因为招聘真的很糟糕。
It's an incredibly painful process for many reasons, which I'll describe in detail.
由于许多原因,这是一个令人难以置信的痛苦过程,我将详细描述。
The first is it takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of time just to convince someone good to even have a conversation with you.
首先,这需要很长时间。要说服一个好的人甚至和你交谈都需要很长的时间。
And as a founder, as you know, time is a very scarce resource.
作为一个创办者,正如你所知,时间是一种非常稀缺的资源。
There's bugs to fix, there's sales, customers to close, various things going on.
有bug需要修复,有销售,有客户需要关闭,还有各种各样的事情在进行。
And hiring will never feel like it's your top most urgent priority, and it's very easy to procrastinate and push it back. But if you do that for too long, you won't scale, and you won't grow your startup. Someone else will come along, do that, and take the market.
招聘永远不会觉得这是你最优先考虑的事情,而且很容易拖延和推迟。但是如果你这样做的时间太长,你就不会扩大规模,也不会发展你的创业公司。会有其他人来,这样做,然后占领市场。
Two, hiring involves a lot of repetitive work. So actually as Tyler was giving his presentation, I was talking to Jeff about this back there, there's a lot of similarities between sales and hiring.
第二,招聘涉及大量的重复工作。事实上,在泰勒做报告的时候,我和杰夫谈过这件事,在销售和招聘之间有很多相似之处。
Actually there's a lot of similarities between sales and hiring and fundraising and lots of things that you do as a startup founder.
事实上,在销售、招聘和筹资之间有很多相似之处,而作为初创企业的创始人,你所做的事情也很多。
A large part of it is effectively selling all the time.
其中很大一部分实际上一直在销售。
And selling, as Tyler pointed out, involves a lot of repetitive work. So hiring will involve lots of messaging, it'll involve taking lots of coffee meetings, lots of phone calls, lots of interviews, and most of those will result in a dead end and be a complete waste of your time. But you have to keep going.
正如泰勒所指出的,销售涉及到很多重复的工作。因此,招聘涉及到大量的信息传递,包括大量的咖啡会议、大量的电话、大量的面试,其中大部分都会导致死胡同,完全是在浪费你的时间。但你必须继续前进。
And finally, you will get your heart broken. You will inevitably end up getting rejected by people who you really wanted to hire, who would have been the perfect fit to help you hit your growth goals, but it turns out they were never really that serious about leaving their comfortable job at a big company to join your exciting, but risky, startup. So be prepared for all of this and as you're thinking through building your hiring process, I encourage you to think about this as a funnel that you're creating that has three parts to it.
最后,你会心碎的。你最终会不可避免地被那些你真正想聘用的人拒绝,这些人本来是帮助你实现成长目标的完美人选,但事实证明,他们从来没有那么认真地离开他们在大公司的舒适工作,加入你那令人兴奋但又有风险的创业公司。所以,要做好所有这一切的准备,当你正在考虑建立你的招聘流程时,我鼓励你把这当成一个漏斗,你正在创建的漏斗有三个部分。
The top of the funnel is sourcing, and that's finding people who could be good fits.
最重要的是寻找合适的人选。
The second is screening, that's answering the question of "do you want to hire this person or not?" And the final part of the funnel is closing, making the offer and getting the offer accepted.
第二个问题是筛选,这回答了“你是否愿意雇用这个人”的问题。漏斗的最后一部分是关闭,提出报价并被接受。
I'm gonna start by talking through some strategies for building the top of your hiring funnel.
首先,我要谈谈建立你的招聘漏斗顶端的一些策略。
These are the five places I'd recommend that you look for making engineering hiring, for making engineer hires.
这是我推荐的五个地方,让你去做工程招聘,招聘工程师。
I'll talk through the pros and cons of each of these.
我将讨论每一种方法的优点和缺点。
They are personal networks, hiring marketplaces, LinkedIn / GitHub, Job Boards, and Meetups.
它们是个人网络、招聘市场、LinkedIn/GitHub、求职板和Meetups。
I'll talk about how you can get the most out of each of these.
我来谈谈你如何最大限度地利用这些东西。
In my opinion, personal networks are the best place to hire especially when you're early and making your first few hires by far.
在我看来,个人关系网是最适合雇佣的地方,尤其是在你很早就开始招聘的时候。
And this list is ranked, or it's sorted in order of where I think you should start out focusing most of your attention and energy, down to where you should focus the least. So, we start with personal networks.
这份名单是排行的,或者是按照我认为你应该从哪里开始把注意力和精力集中到你最不应该关注的地方排序的。所以,我们从个人网络开始。
And if you hire the wrong person early on, that can literally be fatal. So when you hire someone that you've worked with previously, or you hire someone that's worked with a person you trust, you de-risk the chances that you won't be able to work well together, which is a big thing to consider early on. So that probably sounds like somewhat obvious advice.
如果你早早雇佣错了人,那简直是致命的。所以,当你雇用了以前和你一起工作过的人,或者你雇用了一个和你信任的人一起工作的人,你就会冒着你不能很好地一起工作的风险,这是一件很重要的事情。所以这听起来可能有点明显的建议。
And the reason is, anytime you're deciding if you wanna hire someone, you're essentially asking yourself two questions. One, does this person have the skills that you need for them to do the job? And two, can you personally work effectively with this person? When you're a big company, you can mostly focus on answering just the first question because you're large enough, there's enough people, there's enough teams that it's likely that one team somewhere will be able to work effectively with anyone. But when you're small, that's not true. Whether you can work effectively with someone or not is a big determiner of your success.
原因是,无论何时你决定是否要雇佣一个人,你实际上是在问自己两个问题。第一,这个人有你所需要的技能让他们做这份工作吗?第二,你能和这个人有效地合作吗?当你是一家大公司时,你可以集中精力回答第一个问题,因为你足够大,有足够的人,有足够的团队,很可能某个地方的一个团队能够有效地与任何人合作。但当你很小的时候,那不是真的。你是否能有效地与某人合作是决定你成功与否的重要因素。
And yet, I'm surprised by how often founders still don't really use their personal networks effectively when they're hiring.
然而,我感到惊讶的是,创始人在招聘时仍然没有真正有效地利用他们的个人关系网。
And I think there's two reasons for this.
我认为这有两个原因。
The first is they don't use a process to exhaustively search through everyone they could potentially hire.
第一,他们不使用程序彻底搜索他们可能雇佣的每一个人。
And the second is they don't actually make the ask.
第二,他们并没有提出要求。
That usually comes down to being afraid of being rejected by your friends.
这通常可以归结为害怕被朋友拒绝。
It's somewhat easier, actually, to be rejected by a complete stranger than to ask your best friend to come join you and they say "uh, I'm not sure the idea's that great." There's also, you can also worry about what happens to the friendship if the startup doesn't work out? There's sort of more that goes into it when you're talking to someone that you know personally than when you're talking to someone you don't. But the truth is, you just have to suck it up and do it.
实际上,被一个完全陌生的人拒绝要比请你最好的朋友来和你一起来要容易一些,他们说:“呃,我不确定这个主意有多好。”还有,如果创业不成功,你也可以担心友谊会发生什么?当你和你个人认识的人交谈时,比你与不认识的人交谈时,有更多的内容。但事实是,你只要吸取教训就行了。
If you want your startup to be successful, hiring from people you know is a tremendously valuable resource, and you just have to make that ask.
如果你想让你的创业成功,从你认识的人那里招聘是一种非常有价值的资源,你只需要问一句就行了。
I'd recommend you follow a strict process here. Start with just making a list of every good engineer you know, whether you think they're available or not.
我建议你在这里遵循严格的程序。从列出每一个你知道的好工程师的名单开始,不管你是否认为他们是可用的。
That's actually completely irrelevant. Doesn't matter if they just sold their company for a billion dollars, put them on the list.
这实际上是完全不相关的。不管他们是否以10亿美元的价格卖掉了他们的公司,把他们列在名单上吧。
Then, ping each and every one person on that list to meet up and commit to asking them if they would join you. However crazy you think it is, however unlikely, commit to making the ask.
然后,让名单上的每一个人见面,并承诺询问他们是否会加入你的行列。不管你认为这是多么的疯狂,无论多么不可能,都要承诺提出要求。
If they say no, or they're hesitant, sort of de-risk it a little bit and say, "Will you at least come by the office and see what we're working on?" If the office is your apartment, that's totally fine too. But just keep pushing until you've at least shown them something that you've done. Keep working on convincing them.
如果他们说不,或者他们犹豫不决,有点冒险,然后说:“你能至少到办公室来看看我们在做什么吗?”如果办公室是你的公寓,那也没关系。但只要继续努力,直到你至少给他们看了你做过的事情。继续努力说服他们。
If it doesn't work out, if they say no, and you get a definitive no, then ask them if they were in your position, who would they try and hire. Make a list, and go out and repeat this exact same process with them.
如果不成功,如果他们说不,你得到一个明确的不,然后问他们如果他们在你的位置,他们会尝试雇用谁。列出一个清单,然后与他们一起重复这个完全相同的过程。
This is just like a key thing you have to imbed in yourself as a startup founder.
这就像一个关键的东西,你必须嵌入自己作为一个初创企业的创始人。
This process just never ends. Like I know public company startup founders, well no longer startups, but public company founders who still do this on a daily basis.
这个过程永远不会结束。就像我认识的上市公司初创公司创始人,现在已经不再是初创公司了,但上市公司的创始人仍然每天都这样做。
And the way I'd recommend doing this is team events, where people brainstorm potential hires.
我建议这样做的方式是团队活动,在那里人们头脑风暴潜在的雇用。
As your company does scale and grow, and you start putting a team together, you want to start tapping into the personal networks of your team.
随着你的公司的规模和成长,你开始组建一个团队,你想要开始利用你的团队的个人网络。
And this is commonly referred to as a sorting party.
这通常被称为分类聚会。
The way I'd recommend going about this is get everyone together, send out a shared spreadsheet, and describe the role than you're hiring for. So if it's an engineering role, sort of describe in detail who are you looking for, who are examples candidates, what are skills and qualities you'd be excited about? And then literally have everyone spend 30-45 minutes going through their LinkedIn or their Facebook or whatever right there and then, thinking of everyone that could be a fit and putting them into the spreadsheet. Once that's done, at Triplebyte I'll actually then personally follow up with anyone on that list who seems like a good candidate or not.
我建议这样做的方法是召集每个人,发送一个共享的电子表格,并描述你正在招聘的角色。所以,如果这是一个工程角色,详细描述一下你在找谁,谁是应聘者,你会对哪些技能和素质感到兴奋?然后让每个人花30到45分钟浏览他们的LinkedIn或者Facebook或者其他的东西,然后想每一个可能合适的人,然后把他们放到电子表格中。一旦完成了,在三字节,我会亲自跟进名单上的任何人,谁似乎是一个好的候选人或不。
And we've made several really great hires doing this. It works really, really well.
我们已经雇了几个很棒的人来做这件事。效果非常好。
And you can kinda make it a fun thing too, right? So we'll do it at the end of the week, just before our Friday all-hands.
你也可以让它成为一件有趣的事,对吧?所以我们会在本周末,就在我们周五全员前做这件事。
They've become more popular over the last few years as it has become harder to hire engineers by using traditional methods like reaching out on LinkedIn or GitHub.
在过去的几年里,他们变得越来越受欢迎,因为他们越来越难用传统的方法雇佣工程师,比如接触LinkedIn或GitHub。
There's food and drink and you can also offer referral bonuses to your team to incentivize them to do this. Really make sure that you've used a [inaudible] , you're sticking to an exhaustive process, you're making the ask of the people you know, and then as you scale, tap into the personal networks of your team. Once you're sure that you've exhausted your personal network for leads, the next place I'd start looking would be hiring marketplaces. Hiring marketplaces are actually relatively new.
有食物和饮料,你也可以提供推荐奖金给你的团队,以鼓励他们这样做。确实要确保你使用了一个(听不见的),你坚持了一个详尽的过程,你在向你认识的人提出要求,然后随着你的扩展,进入你的团队的个人网络。一旦你确定你已经用尽了你的个人关系网的线索,下一个我会开始寻找的地方将是雇用市场。招聘市场实际上是相对较新的。
The way I think about hiring marketplaces, is they actually work a lot like dating sites.
我对招聘市场的想法是,它们实际上很像交友网站。
And I'm gonna talk more about that next.
接下来我会再谈这件事。
The dynamics of the marketplace is, though, such that the demand for good engineering talent far exceeds the supply. So, typically, it's the companies that are being a lot more proactive in terms of reaching out first to the candidates.
然而,市场的动态是,对优秀工程人才的需求远远超过供应。因此,通常情况下,是公司在主动地首先接触候选人。
The idea is there's engineers who create profiles, companies that create profiles, and both are advertising their best selves. You message each other and you figure out if it's worth meeting up in person and if it all works out you make a hire.
他们的想法是,有工程师创造个人资料,公司创造个人资料,而这两家公司都在宣传他们最好的自我。你们互相传递信息,你们会发现是否值得亲自见面,如果一切顺利的话,你就会雇用他们。
The candidates are getting multiple sort of inquiries and the candidates, or the engineers, are the ones that are choosing who they want to speak to and who they don't.
候选人正在接受各种各样的询问,而候选人,或者工程师,是那些选择他们想要和谁说话的人,以及他们不想和谁说话的人。
A big benefit of using a marketplace, especially in the early stages, is that they can help you hire very quickly because most candidates who are on the marketplaces are actively looking for a place to move right now.
使用市场的一个很大的好处,特别是在早期阶段,是因为他们可以帮助你快速招聘,因为大多数在市场上的候选人都在积极地寻找一个可以马上搬家的地方。
It's very quick to get on a phone call with them and start pitching.
很快就能和他们打个电话开始投球。
And if you run a good closing process, you can significantly reduce the amount of time you'll spend as a founder on hiring. Which you sort of see [inaudible] .
如果你有一个很好的收尾程序,你可以大大减少你作为创始人在招聘上的时间。你可以看到(听不到)。
The downsides, though, are that they tend to be quite competitive. So engineers are being reached out to by multiple companies at the same time. So you'll have to be very effective at convincing them to join if you want to make hires.
不过,不利的一面是,它们往往很有竞争力。因此,多家公司同时与工程师接触。因此,如果你想聘用他们,你必须非常有效地说服他们加入。
And the second is that they can be expensive. Most marketplaces will work on a fee per hire basis, which can be 15-20% of the first year salary. That's cheaper than a recruiting agency but still a significant cost if you're an early stage startup.
第二,它们可能很贵。大多数市场将以每名雇员收费的方式工作,这可能是第一年工资的15%-20%。这比一家招聘机构便宜,但如果你是一家早期创业公司的话,这仍然是一笔很大的成本。
I'm obviously biased here, because Triplebyte is a hiring marketplace, but I'd say the 3 main ones that come up in conversation, at least when we're pitching customers, would be Triplebyte, Hired, and [Vetree] . You should try ...
我在这里明显有偏见,因为三字节是一个招聘市场,但我想说的是,至少在我们推销客户的时候,三个主要的话题是三字节,雇佣,和[Vetree]。你应该试试.。
They're all free to use to get started, so you're welcome to try it.
他们都可以自由使用开始,所以欢迎你尝试。
I'd say, Triplebyte, the way we differentiate ourselves is essentially by having better candidates.
我想说,三字节,我们区分自己的方式本质上是通过拥有更好的候选人来实现的。
And we measure that by what percentage of candidates that companies interview through Triplebyte do they make an offer to? And that tends to be twice the rate that they make through other sources.
我们用公司通过三字节面试的百分比来衡量他们的报价是多少?而这往往是他们通过其他来源获得的速度的两倍。
And just as a general note, hiring is a funnel, you're automizing your funnel, so you should pay attention to what percentage of candidates are making it through each step in your funnel. When you're early, you won't have that many candidates, so you can't be that scientific about it. But start capturing that data and building that in to the habits you have when you're thinking about hiring.
作为一个一般性的注意,招聘是一个漏斗,你是自动化你的漏斗,所以你应该注意有多少百分比的候选人正在通过你的漏斗的每一步。当你很早的时候,你就不会有那么多的候选人,所以你不可能做到那么科学。但是,当你考虑招聘时,就开始收集这些数据,并将其融入到你的习惯中去。
The third source that I'd recommend you go to and look at is LinkedIn and GitHub.
我建议你去看看的第三个来源是LinkedIn和GitHub。
And most of hiring that's done at big companies is through teams of technical recruiters reaching out to engineers on LinkedIn or GitHub, finding the ones that fit certain keyword criteria, and sending them cold messages.
大公司的招聘大多是通过技术招聘团队与LinkedIn或GitHub上的工程师接触,找出符合某些关键词标准的,并向他们发送冷信息。
These are effectively the biggest online directory of engineers in the world.
这实际上是世界上最大的工程师在线目录。
The reason they ... and they go for a very high volume approach here. So a technical recruiter may well send over 100 messages a day just in the hope that they get a few replies.
他们之所以.。他们在这里采用非常大的体积法。因此,一个技术招聘人员很可能每天发送100多条信息,只是希望他们能得到一些回复。
And a dynamic that occurred, especially the last few years, is as there's more technical recruiters, there's more messages going out on these platforms, so response rates are dropping for everyone. Which means for early stage startups in particular, it's going to require a lot of your time, sending a lot of messages, in order to get a few interested candidates. So making this work for you requires, in my opinion, not playing the high volume approach like a big company recruiting team would.
尤其是最近几年发生的一个动态是,随着技术招聘人员的增多,这些平台上发布的信息越来越多,所以每个人的回复率都在下降。这意味着对于早期创业公司来说,这将需要你大量的时间,发送大量的信息,以获得一些感兴趣的候选人。因此,在我看来,要想让这件事为你服务,就不能像大公司的招聘团队那样玩大容量的方法。
And instead spending the time actually researching, reading the details of profiles through reading through someone's LinkedIn, looking through their GitHubs, looking at the details of the work that they've done.
取而代之的是花时间进行研究,通过浏览某人的LinkedIn,查看他们的GitHubs,查看他们所做工作的细节。
And sending a smaller number of personalized, targeted messages and emphasizing when you send the message, why would someone be a good fit for your company specifically, and give them clear evidence that you've read their profile, and you're interested in them as an individual, as opposed to sending a spam message. But that doesn't mean the message has to be super long. I still advise keeping it short and concise. Just the key fact is there's proof that you've read their profile. Final note here is send e-mails instead of messages.
并且发送一些个性化的、有针对性的信息,并强调当你发送信息时,为什么会有人特别适合你的公司,并给他们明确的证据证明你读过他们的个人资料,并且你对他们感兴趣,而不是发送垃圾邮件。但这并不意味着信息必须是超长的。我仍然建议保持简明扼要。关键的事实是有证据证明你读过他们的资料。这里的最后一个注意事项是发送电子邮件而不是信息。
If you sign up for LinkedIn Recruiter Lite, which is about $120 a month, that will give you access to Connectifer, it's a Chrome plug in that makes it really easy to pull out e-mail addresses from anyone's LinkedIn profile.
如果你注册LinkedIn招聘公司Lite,每月约120美元,这将让你可以访问Connectifer,这是一个Chrome插件,让你很容易从任何人的LinkedIn个人资料中提取电子邮件地址。
And you'll consistently see much higher response rates through e-mails than you will on messages. So definitely, definitely go for that. The fourth place I'd start looking for engineers would be job postings or job boards. The two main ones for startups are Stack Overflow jobs and AngelList.
通过电子邮件你会看到比你在信息上更高的回复率。所以绝对的,肯定的。我开始寻找工程师的第四个地方是工作岗位或求职板。对于初创企业来说,两个主要的问题是堆栈溢出作业和AngelList。
I haven't included Hacker News jobs on there because it's only available to YC companies, but Hacker News jobs is somewhat unique in just it has a particularly high quality of engineer, and I'd rank it second on this list, actually, if it were a stand-alone source of engineers. Job boards in general do suffer from a quantity over quality problem. So, what's good about them is you don't have to spend a huge amount of time posting to one of them.
我没有包括黑客新闻的工作,因为它只提供给YC公司,但黑客新闻的工作有点独特,因为它有一个特别高的工程师素质,我会排名第二,实际上,如果它是一个独立的工程师来源。一般来说,求职板确实存在数量过多的质量问题。所以,他们的好处是,你不必花大量的时间在其中之一。
The downside, though, is that the time suck can come in later, because most of the applicants you'll get will be vastly under qualified. You'll get a lot of applications from people who aren't even really software engineers, and it'll take a lot of your time reading through all of these resumes and applications to find the one or two good applicants. So, to maximize your return, and maximize the number of good applicants you do get, I'd recommend focusing on making your job listings unique and interesting.
不过,缺点是,时间可能会晚些时候到来,因为你会得到的大多数申请者都将远远低于资格。你会收到很多不是真正的软件工程师的人的申请,你需要花大量的时间来阅读这些简历和应用程序,才能找到一两位优秀的应聘者。因此,为了最大限度地提高你的回报,最大限度地增加你所得到的优秀申请者的数量,我建议你把重点放在使你的工作清单变得独特和有趣。
And bear in mind that the majority of job descriptions on the internet are written by someone in a recruiting or marketing department, that's using corporate, boiler plate language, that especially isn't going to appeal to an engineering audience, right? So, as a startup founder, you can experiment to try and bring through a bit of your personality in the job listing. So one thing you might try is write in the first person, about the personal story for why you started the company, why you're excited about the mission, and make it seem like ... Get that excitement and passion across. Other things you could try is there anything unique about the culture? Is there anything specific about the technical challenges or product challenges you're facing? So if you put in more details, that again will stand out, 'cause big companies tend to be very generic and vague when they're talking about what you actually get to work on there.
请记住,互联网上的大部分职位描述都是由招聘或营销部门的人编写的,他们使用的是公司的、锅炉板语言,尤其是不会吸引工程用户的,对吧?因此,作为一名初创公司的创始人,你可以尝试在工作列表中展示你的个性。所以有一件事你可以试着写第一人称,关于你为什么创办公司的个人故事,为什么你对这个任务感到兴奋,并使它看起来像.把那种兴奋和激情传递出去。其他你可以尝试的东西,这种文化有什么独特之处吗?对于您所面临的技术挑战或产品挑战,有什么具体的规定吗?所以如果你提出更多的细节,这将再次突出,因为大公司往往是非常笼统和含糊的,当他们谈论你真正要在那里工作的时候。
The final source I'll talk about is actually physical, in person meetups. So, I don't think that these are actually going to be very effective, and they're sort of a long shot. The numbers just don't really work out.
我要说的最后一个来源实际上是身体上的,面对面的会面。所以,我不认为这些实际上是非常有效的,而且他们是一个很长的机会。只是数字不算好。
In person meetups don't have that large of a number of people in attendance, and the truth is most of the time, people are there for free food and drink more than to actively find somewhere to work. So it's unlikely that you're gonna find both a really qualified candidate who's actively looking to move who's excited about your company.
面对面的会议没有那么多人出席,事实是,大多数时候,人们在那里是为了免费的食物和饮料,而不是积极地寻找工作的地方。因此,你不太可能同时找到一位非常有资格的候选人,他们都在积极寻找对你的公司感到兴奋的人。
And you also personally need to be very effective at talking to strangers and convincing them of things, in order for this to work at all. So, I've included it on there because I do know startup founders who have had success through meetups, but they are few and far between.
而且你个人也需要非常有效地和陌生人交谈,说服他们一些事情,这样才能真正发挥作用。所以,我把它也包括进去了,因为我认识一些通过会议获得成功的初创公司创始人,但他们并不多见。
If you do try this approach, I'd recommend focusing on technical meetups. By that I mean, the local Closure programming group where people get together and meet up and bring laptops and work on things, is more likely a better source of engineers than going to Dreamforce. The final thing you could try here is hosting meetups at your own office, right? So, you could also combine this with the personal network hiring and use it as an excuse to have friends come by the office or have their friends who are engineers come by the office.
如果您确实尝试过这种方法,我建议您将重点放在技术会议上。我的意思是,当地的闭幕式编程小组,人们聚在一起,带着笔记本电脑和工作,更有可能是工程师的更好的来源,而不是去梦想力量。你在这里能做的最后一件事就是在你自己的办公室举办会议,对吗?所以,你也可以把这与个人网络招聘结合起来,并以此为借口让朋友来办公室,或者让他们的工程师朋友到办公室来。
At Triplebyte, for example, one of our engineers is a fanatical [eMax] user, and he hosts the Bay Area eMax meetup at our office.
例如,在三字节公司,我们的一位工程师是一个狂热的[eMax]用户,他在我们的办公室主持湾区eMax会议。
And it's sort of a ...
这有点像.。
It hasn't worked for us for hiring, but it is a good way to just meet and build a network of good engineers that could come in valuable at some point in the future. So it's definitely worth considering. Now I'm gonna talk about when you should think about using of recruiters.
这对我们的招聘工作没有用,但这是一个很好的方法,可以满足和建立一个优秀的工程师网络,在未来的某个时候可能会有价值。所以绝对值得考虑。现在我要谈谈你什么时候应该考虑使用招聘人员。
Truth is, there's not really any hard rule on when you should hire a technical recruiter.
事实上,在你何时雇佣技术招聘人员方面并没有什么硬性规定。
I've seen companies of less than 10 people hire one, I've seen companies wait until there are 50 people plus.
我见过雇用不到10人的公司,我见过公司等着有50多人。
It's sort of ...
有点.。
These are my opinions of when you should, and I treat these as a rule of thumb. So first, I think that you absolutely should wait until you've at least hired your first engineer before you consider bringing on a recruiter in any capacity.
这是我对你什么时候该做的看法,我把这些当作一条经验法则。因此,首先,我认为你绝对应该等到你至少雇用了你的第一个工程师之后,你才考虑以任何身份聘用招聘人员。
The reason for that is, I think general start up advice applies here. So, one is just in general when you're hiring, it's good for you to do the job yourself for a bit, so you feel the pain, and you understand it.
原因是,我认为一般的启动建议适用于这里。所以,一般情况下,当你在招聘的时候,你自己做这份工作是很好的,所以你感觉到了痛苦,你也明白了。
And you understand the details of what makes someone good at that role at your startup in particular, before you get out and hire someone. You'll be better able to assess them so if you feel the pain of recruiting yourself, I think you have a better shot at hiring the right recruiter for you.
在你离开并雇佣一个人之前,你会明白是什么让你在创业中擅长这个角色。你将能够更好地评估他们,所以如果你感觉到招聘自己的痛苦,我认为你有更好的机会为你雇佣合适的招聘人员。
It's actually good for you to go out and try and pitch and convince people to join your startup, so you can just understand yourself what message works and what doesn't. Because as a startup founder, you are always selling, and you never know when you might bump into someone who could be a really great hire.
其实这对你来说是件好事,你可以出去推销,说服别人加入你的创业公司,这样你就能明白什么是有用的,什么是不管用的。因为作为一名初创公司的创始人,你总是在销售,而且你永远不知道什么时候你会遇到一个很棒的人。
And the second reason I say is, it's like sales.
我说的第二个原因是,这就像销售。
And then finally, as a rule of thumb, if you're spending more than 50% of your time sourcing, that's all the things I mentioned before, and doing initial phone calls and screens and getting people to come and meet you in person. Over 50% is probably about the time when you want to start thinking about bringing on help. Because 50% is about the amount of time you want to be spending on hiring. So recruiters themselves come in roughly three types. You have contract recruiters, who you pay by the hour, and they can do anything from cold messaging on LinkedIn all the way to doing initial phone screens.
最后,根据经验,如果你花了超过50%的时间去采购,这就是我之前提到的所有事情,打电话和屏幕,让人们亲自来见你。超过50%可能是你开始考虑提供帮助的时候。因为50%是关于你想花在招聘上的时间。因此,招聘人员本身大致有三种类型。你有合同招聘人员,你按小时付费,他们可以做任何事情,从在LinkedIn上发冷消息到做初始手机屏幕。
And if you've already sort of practiced the pitch for convincing engineers to join you, you'll have that ready to go. So I'd recommend making sure you always make your first hire before you try and delegate this to a technical recruiter. Second, I'd expect to have a good hiring cadence. Somewhere around hiring around an engineer a month for the next six months or so, before you start bringing on a recruiter. Otherwise, it's likely they'll run out of work to do quite quickly.
如果你已经练习了一些说服工程师加入你的技巧,你就可以做好准备了。因此,我建议你在尝试把这份工作委托给技术招聘人员之前,一定要确保你总是做好第一份工作。其次,我希望有一个很好的招聘节奏。在接下来的六个月里,在招聘人员之前,每月雇佣一名工程师。否则,他们很可能很快就会失去工作。
And the final would be agency.
最后将是代理。
There's in house recruiters, that's just hiring a full time technical recruiter that works as a member of your team.
有内部招聘人员,这只是雇用一个全职的技术招聘人员,作为您的团队的一员。
And agencies are essentially teams of sales people that are paying lots of engineers on LinkedIn or wherever they can and then selling their resumes out to as many companies as possible.
代理机构本质上是由销售人员组成的团队,他们在LinkedIn或任何可能的地方雇佣大量工程师,然后把简历卖给尽可能多的公司。
And they tend to charge 25-30% of first year salary if you hire and engineer's resume that they sent you.
如果你雇用他们寄给你的简历和工程师的简历,他们会收取第一年工资的25%-30%。
Then you're doing the pitching and convincing. When you get to a point where that becomes too much work for just you, then I'd consider hiring a full time in house recruiter and training them to do the pitch calls. So now they're both sourcing and doing the initial calls and setting up the on site interview process for you. So, to sum up. My startup hiring plan, if I were just getting going and building an engineering team, would be start by making sure you've exhausted your personal network, spend lots of time taking people out for lunch, coffee, making the ask.
然后你做投球和说服。当你到了一个只有你一个人做太多工作的地步时,我会考虑雇佣全职的招聘人员,并训练他们去做推销工作。所以现在他们正在寻找和做最初的电话,并为你设置现场面试过程。总之。我的创业招聘计划,如果我刚开始组建一个工程团队,首先要确保你已经用尽了你的个人关系网,花很多时间带人出去吃午饭,喝咖啡,做个问话。
They do tend to be fairly high touch, so they're quite involved in trying to give you information that will help you close an engineer, but they're also sending that information to multiple companies at the same time. My recommendations here would be, when you get to the point where you feel its time to bring on help or bring on a recruiter, start with a contract recruiter, and have them focus on just the sourcing piece of it. Have them just focus on reaching out to engineers on LinkedIn and GitHub and their main deliverable for you should be filling your calendar with calls with promising candidates.
他们往往是相当高的接触,所以他们很投入地试图给你的信息,这将帮助你关闭一个工程师,但他们也发送信息给多家公司在同一时间。我在这里的建议是,当你觉得是时候提供帮助或招揽招聘人员时,从一个合同招聘人员开始,让他们只关注其中的一部分。让他们专注于接触LinkedIn和GitHub上的工程师,他们为你提供的主要服务应该是用有希望的候选人打电话给你。
Two, experiment with the hiring marketplaces. Your mileage will vary on these depending on how effectively you can pitch your company. But even if you don't make hires from them, you'll get valuable experience pitching real engineers and real candidates and learning what resonates about your company to that audience. Third, spend some amount of time doing personalized, targeted outreach to engineers on LinkedIn and GitHub, making those messages really personalized.
第二,在招聘市场上做实验。你的里程将因这些而有所不同,这取决于你如何有效地推销你的公司。但是,即使你不雇用他们,你也会获得宝贵的经验,介绍真正的工程师和真正的候选人,并了解你的公司是如何引起听众共鸣的。第三,花一些时间对LinkedIn和GitHub上的工程师进行个性化、有针对性的推广,使这些信息真正个性化。
And then finally, treat job boards and meet ups and meeting people in person as a background process you run where you're not expecting to make any hires from them, but you're building a general pipeline that could be valuable in the future. Cool.
最后,把求职板、见面、见人作为一个背景过程-你不希望从他们那里招聘任何员工,但你正在建立一条未来可能很有价值的通用管道。凉爽的
That's the first part of this.
这是第一部分。
Ammon's now gonna talk about how to screen and evaluate technical school of engineers, then I'll jump back in and wrap up with making offers and closing.
Ammon现在将讨论如何筛选和评估技术学校的工程师,然后我将跳回来,最后提出报价和结束。
Ammon Bartram: Awesome! Thank-you Harj. So, I'm Ammon.
阿蒙·巴特伦:太棒了!谢谢你哈杰。所以我是阿蒙。
I'm Harj's co-founder at Triplebyte, and before this, I started Socialcam with Michael Seibel and I was an early employee at Twitch.
我是哈吉在三倍字节公司的联合创始人,在此之前,我和迈克尔·塞贝尔(MichaelSeibel)一起创办了SocialCAM公司,我是特维奇公司的一名早期雇员。
That data is where the advice I'm gonna give today comes from. Before I jump in, I wanna just go over the basic hiring process that most companies use.
这些数据是我今天要给你的建议的来源。在我跳槽之前,我只想回顾一下大多数公司使用的基本招聘流程。
I'm gonna talk about just the screening step. So how to identify skilled engineers at your company. The first question here is just why you should believe me about any of this. One answer is that I've done a lot of interviews. Since starting Triplebyte, I've interviewed over 1000 engineers personally. But I think a better answer is that Triplebyte has a pretty special vantage point. We're able to see how candidates do in the interviews at multiple different companies. We can see how the same candidate performs in multiple companies and that gives us a data set that I think no one else has.
我要说的只是放映的步骤。那么如何在你的公司里识别技术熟练的工程师。这里的第一个问题就是为什么你应该相信我的这些。一个答案是我做了很多采访。从三字节开始,我就亲自采访了1000多名工程师。但我认为一个更好的答案是,三字节有一个非常特殊的优势点。我们可以在多家不同公司的面试中看到应聘者的表现。我们可以看到同一个候选人在多家公司的表现,这给了我们一个数据集,我认为其他人没有。
Then a recruiter call.
然后是招聘人员的电话。
This is usually a 30 minute phone call with the recruiter, just ask about the candidate background, judge culture fit, and make sure they're interested in the company.
这通常是一个30分钟的电话与招聘人员,只需询问候选人的背景,判断文化适合,并确保他们对公司感兴趣。
This is actually pretty standardized. So probably 95% of tech companies use these basic steps to screen candidates. First is a resume screen. Someone applies to a company, they send in a resume, and a recruiter looks over the resume and decides if this looks like someone who's a basically good fit.
这实际上是相当标准化的。因此,大约95%的科技公司使用这些基本步骤来筛选候选人。首先是简历屏幕。有人向一家公司申请,他们会发送一份简历,招聘人员会查看简历,并决定这是否是一个基本合适的人。
This would be between 30 minutes and an hour with an engineer, usually solving a single programming problem. So this is sometimes something like Fizz Buzz or a little bit harder. Often at this point done over a synchronized text pad of some sort.
这将是30分钟到一个小时的工程师,通常解决一个单一的编程问题。因此,这有时有点像FizzBuzz,或者更难一些。在这一点上,通常是在同步的文本垫上完成某种类型的操作。
Then a technical phone screen.
然后是一个技术电话屏幕。
Then, this is optional, sometimes a take home project. So a substantial project which the candidate completes on their own time and then sends in to the company to be evaluated.
然后,这是可选的,有时是带回家的项目。因此,一个实质性的项目,候选人完成他们自己的时间,然后发送到公司接受评估。
Then finally the on site interview. So the candidate comes into the office and does between 3 and 6 one hour sessions with engineers at the company, covering individual problems.
最后进行现场访谈。因此,应聘者来到办公室,与公司的工程师进行3到6个小时的会谈,讨论个人问题。
And then finally a decision meeting. So usually the next day after the candidate has gone home, everyone who interviewed the candidate and the hiring manager gets together in a room and talks about their perceptions and they as a group make a hire / no hire decision. Some stats on this. Companies make offers to between 2 and 8% of all of the engineers who apply. But interestingly, exactly where in the process that drop off happens is very different between companies. So we see companies where 75% of people who apply get screened out at the first step on a culture fit call.
最后是一次决定会议。因此,通常在应聘者回家后的第二天,每一个面试候选人和招聘经理的人都会聚集在一个房间里,谈论他们的看法,他们作为一个群体会做出雇用/不雇用的决定。这上面有一些统计数据。公司向所有申请的工程师提供2%至8%的报价。但有趣的是,在这一过程中,公司之间的情况完全不同。因此,我们看到75%的求职者在文化契合的第一步就被淘汰。
Then we see companies where almost all applicants make it through to the final interview and that's where all the screening happens.
然后我们看到几乎所有的申请者都通过了最后的面试,而所有的筛选都是在那里进行的。
And about 95% of people who are hired work out.
大约95%的被雇佣的人都在工作。
That is, about 5% of technical hires result in someone being fired within a few months. From the candidate side, what we see is a distribution of success in interviews. So the top few percentage points of programmers by skill receive job offers after most of their interviews. But then the bulk of programmers are somewhere in the middle where they do interviews and they receive offers after somewhere between 15-30% of the interviews they do.
也就是说,大约5%的技术人员会在几个月内被解雇。从候选人的角度来看,我们看到的是面试成功的分布。因此,按技能计算,排名前几个百分点的程序员在大多数面试后都会收到工作邀请。但是,大部分程序员都在中间的某个地方进行面试,在他们面试的15%到30%之间,他们得到了邀请。
An interesting point is that no one passes all their interviews.
有趣的是,没有人能通过所有的面试。
There are not magical engineers who receive offers after every interview they do.
没有神奇的工程师在每次面试后都会收到邀请。
This gets at what I think is the major challenge when designing an interview process, and this is inconsistency.
在设计面试过程时,我认为这是一个主要的挑战,这是不一致的。
This is noise in the interview process.
这是面试过程中的噪音。
It's kinda the idea ...
有点像个主意.。
Is your interview fundamentally repeatable and meaningful? If you could somehow re interview your coworkers, your employees, everyone who had passed your interview in the last year ...
你的面试从根本上说是可重复和有意义的吗?如果你能以某种方式重新面试你的同事,你的员工,去年通过你面试的每一个人.
If you could re interview those people, how many of them would pass again? It's a pretty scary question, but an interesting thing is we've been able to get some data on this. So what I did was I calculated a stat called “the inter-rater reliability” between all of the interviewers at all of the companies on Triplebyte. So what that means is this is the statistical measure of the extent to which different interviewers tend to agree about which candidates are best. It's on a scale of 0 to 1, where 0 would be no agreement or the amount of agreement you would expect to see in random data from chance alone, and 1 would be perfect agreement.
如果你能再次采访这些人,他们中有多少人会再次通过?这是一个相当可怕的问题,但有趣的是,我们已经获得了一些有关这方面的数据。所以我计算了一个名为“三字节公司所有面试官之间的可靠性”的统计数据。因此,这意味着,这是对不同面试官在多大程度上同意哪些候选人是最佳人选的统计指标。这是在0到1的范围内,0是没有协议的,或者是你期望从偶然数据中看到的协议的数量,而1就是完美的协议。
And what I found was an agreement of just over 0.1. First point is that's obviously much closer to no agreement than it is to perfect agreement. But for some context on that, I calculated the same stat on a data set of online movie reviews.
我发现的是一份略高于0.1的协议。首先,这显然更接近于没有达成协议,而不是达成完美的协议。但在某些上下文中,我在线电影评论的数据集上计算了相同的统计数据。
And what I got was an agreement of very similar but it's actually slightly higher. So it ends up that interviewers agree about which engineers are the best at about the same rate that Netflix viewers agree about which movies are best. Yeah, that's scary.
我得到的是一个非常相似的协议,但实际上要稍微高一点。因此,最终面试官会同意哪些工程师是最优秀的,与Netflix的观众一致认为哪部电影是最好的。是啊,太可怕了。
Interviews are fundamentally noisy and the data shows them to be more noisy than most hiring managers want to believe. So the first question here is, why do interviews at all, then? If interviews are so noisy, why do them at all? Why can't we just use something like trial periods to screen engineers? Yeah, I think this is actually a great idea.
面试从根本上讲是嘈杂的,数据显示,面试比大多数招聘经理想要相信的要吵得多。所以这里的第一个问题是,为什么要面试呢?如果面试这么吵,为什么还要面试呢?为什么我们不能用试用期来筛选工程师呢?是啊,我觉得这是个好主意。
It is almost certainly much more ...
几乎可以肯定的是.
If you can work with someone for a week, you can almost certainly get a much better sense of if they're a good employee than you could in a three hour interview with them.
如果你能和一个人一起工作一周,你几乎可以肯定的是,与他们进行三个小时的面试相比,你可以更好地了解他们是否是一个好员工。
The problem is that most engineers don't actually want to do trial periods. We did some research at Triplebyte and it ends up that only 20% of engineers are willing to do trial periods.
问题是大多数工程师实际上不想做试用期。我们在Triple字节做了一些研究,结果只有20%的工程师愿意做试用期。
And there's actually some adverse selection there. So, most of the best programmers are in the 80% who would prefer to do a standard technical interview, because it takes less of their time and is faster. So I think that trial employment is an excellent option, and you can offer that as an option, but if you don't want to scare away most good programmers, you do have to still run a standard traditional interview process. What I'm gonna talk about today is specific pieces of advice that you can use to try to reduce the noise in a traditional interview.
实际上有一些不利的选择。所以,大多数最好的程序员都在80%的人中,他们更愿意做一个标准的技术面试,因为这样做花费的时间更少,速度也更快。因此,我认为试用期是一个很好的选择,你可以提供这样的选择,但如果你不想吓跑大多数优秀的程序员,你仍然需要运行一个标准的传统面试程序。今天我要谈的是一些具体的建议,你可以用这些建议来减少传统面试中的噪音。
And I'm gonna go over seven points. Point one, the first way to reduce noise in an interview, is to decide what skills matter for your company.
我要复习七分。第一点,在面试中减少噪音的第一个方法是决定什么技能对你的公司很重要。
There are a lot of different ways that a programmer can be skilled. So someone, for example, can be very productive, or they can be slow, careful, right great tests, and make sure they don't commit bugs. Someone can be strong in math and computer science or they could be deeply knowledgeable about the internals of the Linux kernel and scheduling in real-time operating systems or something.
有很多不同的方式可以使程序员熟练。因此,例如,某些人可以非常高效,或者他们可以是缓慢、谨慎、正确的伟大测试,并确保他们不提交错误。有些人可能在数学和计算机科学方面很强,或者他们对linux内核的内部结构和实时操作系统中的调度有很深的了解。
If you don't decide as a founder which of those skills matter for your company, then your interviewers are going to decide that for you. So they are going to come up with questions that they ask in the interview process, and they will fail people who answer poorly on those questions, whether or not those are areas that should matter for your company.
如果你没有作为创始人来决定哪些技能对你的公司很重要,那么你的面试官就会为你决定这一点。因此,他们将在面试过程中提出问题,他们会让那些在这些问题上回答得不太好的人失望,不管这些领域对你的公司来说是否重要。
This is actually a major source of noise in interviews. Every engineer has this bias where they think the things they know the best are the most important skills one could know.
这实际上是面试中一个主要的噪音来源。每个工程师都有这样的偏见,他们认为他们知道的东西-最好的东西-是人们所能知道的最重要的技能。
And absent specific direction from above about what to look for, they will fail people for areas that are not important for your company. So my first piece of advice here is that you should go through and ask yourself these questions before you start hiring.
如果上面没有明确的方向去寻找什么,他们就会让那些对你的公司不重要的领域的人失望。所以我在这里的第一条建议是,在开始招聘之前,你应该先问自己这些问题。
The first is ...
第一个是.。
To clarify, these are the axes along which we see most disagreement between interviewers.
为了澄清这一点,我们看到面试官之间最大的分歧就在这些轴上。
The first question is, do you need fast iterative programmers or someone who is careful and rigorous? Do you want to hire someone who's motivated by solving hard tech problems or someone who is motivated by building beautiful product for users? Is it important that someone comes in with skill in a particular technology, a particular language say? Or do you want to hire a smart person and let them learn your tech stack on the job? Is academic computer science, or algorithm ability, something which is important to you or is that an irrelevant skill? And then, is there any other specific expertise that you need in people you're hiring? It's actually fine to answer both to some of these questions. You don't have to specify only a single profile of person you're hiring.
第一个问题是,您需要快速迭代程序员还是需要细心和严谨的人?你想要雇佣那些以解决技术难题为动力的人,还是为用户打造漂亮产品的人?重要的是,一个人在一种特定的技术,一种特定的语言,比方说,有技能的进来吗?还是你想雇佣一个聪明的人,让他们在工作中学习你的技术?学术计算机科学或算法能力,是对你很重要的,还是一种不相关的技能?那么,在你招聘的人中,你还需要其他特定的专业知识吗?实际上,这两个问题都可以回答这些问题。你不需要只指定一个你要招聘的人的个人资料。
The important thing is to decide what matters, even if that's multiple profiles.
重要的是决定什么是重要的,即使这是多个概要文件。
That sets you up to design the rest of your process and make sure that you're not failing people for being bad in irrelevant areas. Point number two. Second way you can reduce noise in interviews is to use structured interviews. So to define this, a freeform unstructured interview is an interview where an interviewer gets in a room with a candidate and they ask questions and they follow their intuition. Based on the answer the candidate gives, they ask follow ups and they try to get a sense of what the candidate feels like, if that person can be a good fit for the company.
这样你就可以设计剩下的流程,并确保你不会因为在不相关的领域做坏事而让人失望。第二点。第二种方法是使用结构化面试来减少面试中的噪音。因此,要定义这一点,自由形式的非结构化面试是一次面试,面试官和一个应聘者一起走进房间,问题,然后他们跟随自己的直觉。根据应聘者给出的答案,他们询问后续情况,并试图了解候选人的感受,如果那个人适合公司的话。
And at the end they make a global yes/no, hire/no hire decision based on that interview.
最后,他们在面试的基础上做出了一个全球性的“是/否”、“雇用/不雇用”的决定。
And that contrasts with a structured interview where the interviewer comes into the room with a question which they're gonna ask and a defined criteria they're trying to evaluate.
这与一次有条理的面试形成了对比,面试官带着他们要问的问题和他们想要评估的明确的标准走进房间。
The very interesting point here is that everyone thinks that free form interviewers feel better.
这里最有趣的一点是,每个人都认为自由形式的面试官感觉更好。
Almost all interviewers prefer free form interviews and they think they are more accurate.
几乎所有的面试官都喜欢自由形式的面试,他们认为自己更准确。
And many candidates, if you ask them, actually say that they prefer to be interviewed in that way. But the interesting thing is that this is completely opposite to all the available data on this. Structured interviews are simply more predictive.
很多候选人,如果你问他们,实际上说他们更喜欢以这种方式接受面试。但有趣的是,这与所有可用的数据完全相反。结构化面试更有预见性。
They are better at predicting success on the job and there's no excuse not to use them. We should all be using structured interviews.
他们更善于预测工作上的成功,没有理由不使用它们。我们都应该使用结构化的面试。
I'm gonna go over some examples of what that means.
我要再举几个例子来说明这意味着什么。
The first thing is that you have to hold the process constant. So the goal of an interview is essentially to evaluate variance in candidates and if you do not hold the rest of your process constant between candidates, you are introducing noise. So there is simply no excuse for not asking every candidate for the same job the exact same set of questions.
第一件事是你必须保持这个过程不变。因此,面试的目的基本上是评估候选人之间的差异,如果你在候选人之间不保持其余的流程不变,那么你就是在引入噪音。因此,没有任何借口不问每一个候选人相同的工作,完全相同的一系列问题。
I think the reason this is not more common is that the interviewers themselves tend to find this boring and all I can say is suck it up. You have to do that. So second point on structured interview is that you want to give your interviewers defined criteria to evaluate. So rather than putting them in a room and saying, “Decide if this person would be a good fit for the company?” Say, “We care about coding productivity and knowledge of back end web systems.
我认为这种情况不常见的原因是面试官自己觉得这很无聊,而我只能说的是接受采访。你必须这么做。因此,关于结构化面试的第二点是,你想给你的面试官定义的标准进行评估。所以,不要把他们放在房间里说,“决定这个人是否适合公司?”比如说,“我们关心的是编码效率和后端Web系统的知识。
And so your goal is to ask this question in the interview and grade the candidate on coding productivity and knowledge of back end web.” There's actually some great research on this.
因此,你的目标是在面试中问这个问题,并在编码效率和后端网站知识上给应聘者打分。“实际上对此有一些很好的研究。
It ends up that a lot of the worst biases that can come up in interviews are made worse when the interviewer is trying to make a global decision. So if someone is making a global, “does this person feel like a good employee?” decision, that's where things like “do they look like someone that I knew in the past?” or their race, their gender, that's when those things come into play.
结果是,当面试官试图做出一个全球性的决定时,面试中可能出现的许多最坏的偏见会变得更糟。所以,如果有人在全球化,“这个人觉得自己是个好员工吗?”决定,就像“他们看起来像我以前认识的人吗?”或者他们的种族,他们的性别,那是这些事情起作用的时候。
Interviewers are much better at ignoring those attributes when they're given a defined criteria to evaluate.
当面试官被赋予一个可评估的标准时,他们会更好地忽略这些属性。
The final point is that you wanna unify decision making.
最后一点是你想要统一决策。
This applies mostly to larger companies, but you wanna make sure that one person or one group of people is involved with all the final decisions. So rather than viewing interviewers as people making decisions, view them as people taking notes, grading candidates on criteria, and then all those notes and criteria go to a centralized person or a centralized group who makes the final decision.
这主要适用于大公司,但你要确保一个人或一组人参与所有的最终决定。所以,与其把面试官看作是做决定的人,不如把他们看作是做笔记的人,根据标准给候选人打分,然后所有的笔记和标准都交给一个集中的人或一个中央的小组来做最后的决定。
And the idea is just that, again the goal is consistency, and it's far more easy to be consistent if one person is making all the decisions. Point three for how to reduce noise is just to use better interview questions. And so I have some tips on that.
我们的想法是,再一次,目标是一致性,如果一个人正在做所有的决定,那么保持一致性就容易多了。如何减少噪音的第三点就是使用更好的面试问题。所以我对此有一些建议。
The first is that you want to avoid questions that require a leap of insight from the candidate.
首先,你想要避免那些需要候选人洞察力的问题。
And rather you want questions where there is a gradual ramp of steps that they can follow that lead to a solution.
更重要的是,你想要的是问题,在这些问题上,他们可以采取逐步的步骤来解决问题。
As the general idea, the rule of thumb I like, is that you can ask yourself, can this question be given away? So if it's a question that has a single fact in the solution which a candidate could know in advance, and possibly be communicated to them by a friend, or by a thing they read in Glassdoor, then that means that it's probably a bad question.
一般情况下,我喜欢的经验法则是,你可以问自己,这个问题能给出吗?因此,如果这个问题在解决方案中有一个单一的事实,候选人可以事先知道,并且可能通过朋友或他们在“玻璃门”上读到的东西传达给他们,那就意味着这可能是一个糟糕的问题。
And an example of that is there's the classic question.
这方面的一个例子就是经典的问题。
The question is, “Imagine you're standing at the bottom of a flight of stairs and every step you can take a single step up one stair or a double step up two stairs. How many unique paths are there to the top of the flight of stairs?” It ends up, the solution of that is the Fibonacci sequence, kind of strangely.
问题是,“想象你站在一段楼梯的底部,每一步你都可以爬上一层楼梯,或者是两层楼梯上的两步。”到楼梯顶上有几条独特的路?“最后,它的解是斐波纳契序列,有点奇怪。
If someone knows that, obviously that's the solution. If they don't know it, they may well struggle and then think about it and go down some rabbit hole. So that's the example of a bad question where this leap of insight is the solution.
如果有人知道,很明显这就是解决办法。如果他们不知道,他们很可能会挣扎,然后想一想,然后掉进兔子洞。这就是一个糟糕问题的例子,在这个问题上,洞察力的飞跃就是解决问题的方法。
An example of a good question is “can you please implement the game Connect Four for me?” There it's a series of steps, each one relatively straightforward, but that leads to a solution and there's nothing someone's friend could tell them in ten minutes which would give them a massively unfair advantage in the game Connect Four. So another idea here, this is kind of related, but you want multi-step problems.
一个好问题的一个例子是:“你能为我实现游戏连接四吗?”这是一系列的步骤,每个步骤相对简单,但这会导致一个解决方案,没有任何一个人的朋友可以告诉他们在10分钟内,这将给他们一个巨大的不公平的优势,在游戏连接四。所以这里的另一个想法,这是相关的,但你想要多步的问题。
Those tend to lead to problems that don't have leaps of insight, but also candidates will often get stuck in the interview, even good candidates.
这些往往会导致问题,这些问题并没有突飞猛进的洞察力,而且应聘者往往会在面试中陷入困境,甚至是优秀的应聘者。
And if your problem has multiple steps to it, you can give them a hint, you can help them on one portion and still have enough left for them to go on to do well and redeem themselves and demonstrate skill. Whereas if your problem is all in one sort of nugget of difficulty, if they can't solve that and you have to help them at that point they've basically failed, or done poorly on that section. You wanna avoid specialized knowledge. So this is ...
如果你的问题有多个步骤,你可以给他们一个提示,你可以帮助他们的一部分,但仍然有足够的馀地让他们继续做的很好,救赎自己,展示自己的技能。然而,如果你的问题都是在某种程度上的困难,如果他们不能解决这一点,你必须帮助他们,他们基本上失败了,或在该部分做得很差。你想避开专业知识。所以这是.。
If your goal is to assess general programming ability, you probably want to ask questions that evolve things like lists and hash tables and strings, rather than questions that evolve tries or prefix trees. Unless you've decided that you really care about algorithm data structure knowledge and your goal is to make sure that everyone knows about tries.
如果您的目标是评估一般的编程能力,您可能想问一些问题,比如列表、哈希表和字符串,而不是进化尝试或前缀树的问题。除非您已经决定真正关心算法、数据结构知识,而且您的目标是确保每个人都知道尝试。
In that case, it's totally fine to ask about them. But if you're measuring something else, if a try is a portion of the problem, some portion of your candidates will be familiar with this, others won't, and that will introduce noise. So in general, I think it's good to stick with the classic, most basic CS concepts.
在这种情况下,询问他们是完全可以的。但是如果你在测量其他的东西,如果尝试是问题的一部分,你的一些候选人会熟悉这一点,而其他的则不会,这会带来噪音。所以总的来说,我认为最好坚持经典的,最基本的CS概念。
Another rule. You want to budget about three times the amount of time it takes you to solve a problem for the candidate. So if you come up with a question and you solve it yourself and it takes you ten minutes, that's probably a good question for a 30 minute interview session.
另一条规则。你想预算大约是你为候选人解决问题所需时间的三倍。所以,如果你想出一个问题,你自己解决它,它需要你10分钟,这可能是一个很好的问题,在30分钟的面试。
And the reason here is just that it's far easier to be the interviewer than it is to be the candidate.
这里的原因只是成为面试官比成为应聘者容易得多。
It's far easier to ask the question, and we tend to downplay how hard the questions actually are. We did some actual research on this. We went through all the questions we asked at Triplebyte and we looked which are most correlated with candidates going on to succeed.
问这个问题要容易得多,而且我们倾向于淡化这些问题的实际难度。我们对此做了一些实际的研究。我们仔细研究了我们在三字节会议上提出的所有问题,并研究了哪些问题与候选人取得成功最相关。
And it ends up that the most predictive questions tend to be much easier than what our intuition going in was predicting. So it ends up that most interviewers think that the optimal question is quite a bit harder than the optimal question actually is. You want to make sure that you ask four or more questions in an interview.
最后,最具预见性的问题往往比我们的直觉预测要容易得多。最后,大多数面试官认为最优的问题比最优的问题要难得多。你想确保你在面试中问了四个或更多的问题。
The idea here is that each individual question carries a certain amount of noise. Has the person seen this question before? Is it ... were they lucky answering it? If you ask more questions you'll get a more consistent signal out.
这里的想法是,每一个单独的问题都带有一定的噪音。这个人以前见过这个问题吗?是不是.。他们能回答这个问题吗?如果你问更多的问题,你会得到一个更加一致的信号。
And then, finally, just one tip.
最后,只有一个小提示。
A type of question we like a lot at Triplebyte is a question where we give the candidate a problem and then rather than wanting them to devise a solution, we tell them a solution to the problem and then their goal is to take that idea and implement that in the code.
一种我们非常喜欢的三字节问题是这样一个问题,我们给候选人一个问题,而不是让他们想出一个解决方案,我们告诉他们一个问题的解决方案,然后他们的目标是接受这个想法并在代码中实现。
And so we give them an algorithm and we see if they can implement that algorithm rather than requiring them to devise an algorithm. Okay, the fourth way to reduce noise is to ignore credentials during your interview. So by credential I mean things like did someone study at a well-known school or has someone worked at a well-known company? I'm not claiming that credentials are meaningless. Credentials are important, right? They're predictive in any case.
所以我们给他们一个算法,看看他们是否能实现这个算法,而不是要求他们设计一个算法。好的,第四个减少噪音的方法是在面试中忽略证书。所以,我所说的证书是指某人是在一所著名的学校学习,还是在一家著名的公司工作过?我不是说凭据是毫无意义的。证书很重要对吧?它们在任何情况下都是有预见性的。
The group of people who are ex-googlers are indeed better engineers than the group of people who have not worked at Google. So it's totally legitimate to take that fact into account when deciding whether to hire someone. However, it's not relevant to their actual programming skill. So my advice here is to make sure that you're not biased by the fact that someone comes from Google when you are narrowly evaluating their programming skill. So I recommend that you hide that credential from the interviewers.
一群前谷歌员工确实比那些没有在谷歌工作过的人更能胜任工程师的工作。因此,在决定是否雇用某人时,考虑到这一事实是完全合法的。然而,这与他们的实际编程技能无关。所以,我在这里的建议是,确保当你狭隘地评估某人的编程技能时,不要因为某人来自谷歌这一事实而偏袒他们。所以我建议你向面试官隐瞒这份证书。
And the reason is we've found that interviewers are actually significantly biased by this.
原因是我们发现面试官对此有明显的偏见。
If they know someone has what we strong credentials, they are more likely to interpret the results of the coding screen in a positive fashion. “Oh this person, you know, yeah they didn't know that answer but I'm sure it was just a temporary slip up.” And so, hide credentials from your interviewers, let them assess programming ability and then when making the final decision, in the decision meeting, consider credentials and also the performance in the interview. This will help you find the programmers who are skilled and who lack traditional credentials. And those are the undervalued people on the market.
如果他们知道某人拥有我们强大的资历,他们更有可能以积极的方式解释编码屏幕的结果。“哦,这个人,你知道,是的,他们不知道这个答案,但我相信这只是暂时的失误。”因此,对面试官隐藏凭证,让他们评估编程能力,然后在最后决定时,在决策会议上,考虑凭证和面试中的表现。这将帮助您找到那些熟练且缺乏传统凭据的程序员。这些都是市场上被低估的人。
And as a startup, if you're good at finding those people, that is a big advantage. Point five is that you wanna think about the false negative rate in your interview. So a false negative is when someone fails your interview who could have gone on to do the job well. And the opposite, a false positive, is when someone passes your interview, you hire someone, who then goes on to do poorly and probably be fired. Both false positives and false negatives are very costly. So if you hire a bad person, you have to fire them, that's terrible.
作为一家初创公司,如果你善于找到这些人,这是一个很大的优势。第五点是你想考虑面试中的假阴性率。因此,一个错误的负面是,当一个人失败了,你的面试,谁本来可以继续做好这份工作。相反,一个假阳性,是当某人通过你的面试,你雇用一个人,然后谁继续做得很差,很可能被解雇。假阳性和假阴性都是非常昂贵的。所以如果你雇了一个坏人,你必须解雇他们,这太可怕了。
It harms the morale of the team, and it's also very expensive in just actual money. Big problem. But, if you're a startup and you're really hungering ... You're held back by not having enough engineers.
它损害了团队的士气,而且在实际资金上也非常昂贵。大问题。但是,如果你是一家初创公司,你真的很饥渴.你因为没有足够的工程师而受到阻碍。
If you pass up a person that could have joined your team, that could have been productive, that's also very expensive.
如果你错过了一个可以加入你的团队的人,那可能是有效率的,这也是非常昂贵的。
I'm making a pretty subtle point here, but I think there's a bit of a cognitive bias where false positives are very ... We're very aware of them.
我在这里提出了一个非常微妙的观点,但我认为有一点认知上的偏见,其中假阳性是非常.我们非常了解他们。
If we hire a bad person, we feel that pain for a month or a month plus, best case. We've seen companies in trouble by it.
如果我们雇了一个坏人,我们会感到一个月或一个月的痛苦,再加上,最好的情况。我们看到公司因此而陷入困境。
They generally have too much faith that the folks who fail their process must have been engineers and couldn't have done the job.
他们一般都有太多的信心,认为失败的人一定是工程师,不可能完成这项工作。
And that's empirically not the case.
从经验上看,情况并非如此。
If you watch ...
如果你看着.。
As I said earlier, no engineer will pass all interviews. So a significant portion of people who fail interviews do go on to be employed very productively at other companies. So I just recommend that folks designing interview processes thinking about the false negative rate and try to give that some weight in their calculations of setting hiring bars. One of my goals for Triplebyte, actually, is to get to a point where you can actually measure this rate. 'Cause no one knows what it is. No one knows what the false rate on their interview is because to measure that you have to just hire people randomly and see how they perform.
正如我前面所说,任何工程师都不会通过所有的面试。因此,在面试失败的人中,有很大一部分人在其他公司获得了非常有成效的工作。因此,我建议那些设计面试程序的人考虑错误的负数率,并在计算雇佣标准时尽量给出一些权重。我对三字节的目标之一,实际上,是达到一个点,你可以真正测量这个速率。因为没有人知道这是什么,没有人知道他们面试中的错误率是什么,因为为了衡量你必须随机雇用一些人,看看他们的表现如何。
The problem is that someone might go through an interview and do very well on some things that might be useful for the company but look stupid on one question.
问题是,有些人可能会通过面试,在一些对公司有用的事情上做得很好,但在一个问题上看起来很愚蠢。
That's very expensive. My goal is to get to a point where we can do that. Let's see. Okay, point six is that you wanna generally calibrate on the maximum skill that each candidate brings rather than their average skill or their minimum skill. So someone comes in an interview, they're very strong in one area, they're weaker in others. What matters the most is what they were strongest in. Everyone can look stupid, right? If you ask me the right question I will definitely look very stupid, that's true for everyone out there.
太贵了。我的目标是达到我们可以做到的地步。让我们看看。好的,第六点是你通常想要校准每个候选人带来的最大技能,而不是他们的平均技能或最低技能。所以有人来面试,他们在某一方面很强,在其他方面他们比较弱。最重要的是他们最擅长的是什么。每个人看起来都很蠢,对吧?如果你问我正确的问题,我肯定会显得非常愚蠢,这对在场的每个人来说都是正确的。
And if that interviewer gives a blocking note that that person was stupid, that's introducing noise in the process, perhaps. Now again, if someone does poorly in an area that is important for the job, totally fail them. But be open to the fact that everyone does look stupid sometimes, and don't fail someone just because they look stupid on one portion of the interview. Okay, final and last point here is that you want to think about the candidate experience when designing the interview. You wanna make sure that every candidate who goes through your process likes your company.
如果面试官说那个人很愚蠢,那可能就是在这个过程中引入了噪音。现在,如果有人在一个对工作很重要的领域做得很差,那就让他们完全失败。但要坦然接受这样的事实:每个人有时看起来都很愚蠢,不要仅仅因为某人在面试的某一部分看起来很愚蠢就让他们失望。好的,最后也是最后一点,你想在设计面试时考虑一下应聘者的经历。你想确保每一个经历过你的过程的候选人都喜欢你的公司。
And this is true for a few reasons. One is just that if they enjoy the process, they have a higher probability of accepting an offer you make.
这是真的,有几个原因。其中之一就是,如果他们喜欢这个过程,他们接受你的提议的可能性就会更高。
And so this will help in the closing step. But an interesting point is that it will also actually make your screening itself more accurate, because stress has a big impact on performance.
因此,这将有助于在最后一步。但有趣的一点是,它实际上也会使你的筛选更准确,因为压力对你的表现有很大的影响。
A high percentage of candidates get very stressed in interviews and underperform their actual peak ability.
很高比例的应聘者在面试中压力很大,表现不佳。
And so some tips here to help reduce stress include just letting everyone bring in their laptop, work in their own environment, their own language, their own tools, they'll be much more productive, much less stressed.
因此,这里有一些帮助减轻压力的建议,包括让每个人都带上笔记本电脑,在自己的环境中工作,自己的语言,自己的工具,他们会更有效率,更少的压力。
And then, coaching your interviewers in some soft skills: being friendly, providing breaks for the candidates, and when they are doing poorly on a section, training them in how to intercede in a way which isn't too stressful and insulting to the candidate. Rule of thumb here that comes from the old Joel on Software blog is that you want every candidate, no matter how they do, to finish your interview, wanting to join your company. Even people who fail your interview very poorly, you want them to end your interview wanting to join and being excited about the opportunity.
然后,用一些软技能指导你的面试官:友好相处,为应聘者提供休息时间,当他们在某一部门表现不佳时,训练他们如何以一种不太有压力和侮辱应聘者的方式进行调解。这里的经验法则来自软件博客上的老Joel,你希望每一个候选人,无论他们如何做,完成你的面试,想要加入你的公司。即使你的面试不及格的人,你也希望他们结束你的面试,希望加入你的行列,并对这个机会感到兴奋。
And the final point, you want to avoid hazing. So this is rare but results in some of the worst horror stories of interviews.
最后一点,你想避免欺骗。因此,这是罕见的,但结果是一些最糟糕的恐怖故事的采访。
This is where an interviewer takes on the role of a ritual of acceptance into a group.
在这里,面试官扮演着接受群体的仪式的角色。
If this happens, it's terrible and as a hiring manager you wanna stay totally away from that.
如果发生这种情况,那就太糟糕了,作为一名招聘经理,你要完全远离这一点。
Those are my points.
这就是我的观点。
I wanna emphasize that I'm not saying you should lower the bar for who you hire.
我想强调的是,我并不是说你应该降低雇佣谁的门槛。
I think if you follow this advice, you will get a more accurate signal. You can then set your bar for who you hire wherever you want on that signal, but you will still be making, at that point, better hires. So just to summarize here, I recommend that the first step you follow is to decide what skills matter for your organization. Make sure that you're screening on things that you actually care about, and then design a structured interview around those skills. So come up with ways to assess each skill and structured criteria for the interviewers so that they are less likely to be biased by outside factors.
我认为如果你遵循这个建议,你会得到一个更准确的信号。然后,你可以在这个信号上为你想要雇佣的人设定标准,但到那时,你仍然会得到更好的聘用。因此,在这里总结一下,我建议您遵循的第一步是决定哪些技能对您的组织很重要。确保你在筛选你真正关心的事情,然后围绕这些技能设计一个结构化的面试。因此,要想出方法来评估面试官的每一项技能和结构化的标准,这样他们就不会受到外部因素的偏见。
Then you wanna use good interview questions: multiple parts, no leaps of insight. You wanna hide credentials from the technical interviewers because that introduces noise into the process. You wanna think about the false negative as well as the false positive costs in your interviews.
然后你想要使用好的面试问题:多个部分,没有跳跃的洞察力。您希望对技术面试官隐藏凭据,因为这会在过程中引入噪音。你要想一想面试中的假阴性和假阳性成本。
And you wanna generally calibrate around the maximum skill that each candidate brings. While doing all of that, you wanna try to provide a positive experience for the candidate. So those are my tips. So far I think this all applies to both big and small companies. So, I'm gonna go over a few points here that I think are specific to, let's say, series A and smaller companies. One point here is what if you're so small that you don't have the scale to standardize your process. So you're a seed stage startup, you're hiring, you're interviewing your first few people, you obviously can't run an extremely standardized process because this is the first few candidates to have seen those questions.
你通常想要围绕每个候选人带来的最大技能进行校准。在做所有这些的同时,你想为候选人提供一个积极的体验。这些都是我的建议。到目前为止,我认为这一切都适用于大公司和小公司。所以,我要在这里讲几点,我认为这是特定于A系列和小公司的。这里有一点是,如果你太小了,以至于没有足够的规模来规范你的过程,那该怎么办呢?所以你是一家初创公司,你在招聘,你在面试你的前几个人,你显然不能运行一个非常标准化的程序,因为这是第几个看到这些问题的候选人。
That's a totally real point.
这是完全真实的观点。
I think it still is worth trying to run structured interviews. You won't have ... Your plan will probably be something ... Like a google doc with some tips written down. But it still is helpful to think about what skills matter and try to design questions that assess those skills, that will still reduce the bad bias in the interview. Let's say that you're having trouble sourcing. So you're an early stage startup and your number one problem is how do you get enough qualified applicants for your company? So in that scenario, it's fairly obvious that a false negative costs more. So if you're struggling to get people to apply to your company, screening out someone who could have been good is very expensive, more expensive than for a large company. But the flip side is that if you're a small company, hiring a bad person is also way more costly, way more expensive. So, it's not [inaudible] that the ratio of those two costs changes, so I think you still have to care a lot about both.
我认为仍然值得尝试进行结构化的面试。你不会有.。你的计划可能是.。就像一个谷歌文档,上面写着一些提示。但是,考虑哪些技能是重要的,并试图设计出评估这些技能的问题,这仍然是有帮助的,这仍然会减少面试中的不良偏见。假设你在采购方面有困难。因此,你是一个早期的创业公司,你的首要问题是如何为你的公司找到足够的合格申请者?因此,在这种情况下,很明显,一个假负数的代价更高。因此,如果你很难让人们向你的公司申请,那么筛选出一个可能是优秀的人是非常昂贵的,比对一家大公司来说要贵得多。但另一方面,如果你是一家小公司,雇佣一个坏人的成本也要高得多,而且要贵得多。所以,这两种成本的比率变化并不是(听不见的),所以我认为你仍然需要对两者都有很大的关注。
I think what you can do is be less aggressive about screening folks out early. So if you're an early stage company struggling to source candidates, I recommend you are less aggressive in screening out prior to your on-site. Pass more folks through and accept a lower final interview success rate, in exchange for better screening all the applicants. Let's say that you're a small startup and you just don't know what skills matter. So you're not sure if you wanna hire someone who's very CS focused or someone who's very web focused.
我认为你能做的是不要太积极地提前甄别外来者。因此,如果你是一个早期的公司,难以找到候选人,我建议你在你的网站之前不太积极地进行筛选。让更多的人通过,接受一个较低的最终面试成功率,以换取更好的筛选所有申请人。假设你是一家小公司,你只是不知道什么技能重要。所以你不确定你是想雇佣一个非常专注于CS的人,还是一个非常专注于网络的人。
There's no crisp answer here so we have plenty of examples of billion dollar companies that have taken various routes here. My personal advice, from Triplebyte and from social cam and from Twitch when it was small, is that I believe strongly that the true most important skills for the first few hires are productivity and ownership. So being able to basically take a project, figure out what needs to be built, and just make that happen.
这里没有清晰的答案,所以我们有很多十亿美元公司的例子,他们在这里走了不同的路线。我个人的建议,从三字节,从社交摄像头和从特维奇,当它是小,我强烈认为,真正最重要的技能,最重要的第一批雇用是生产力和所有权。因此,基本上能够拿出一个项目,找出需要建造的东西,然后让它成为现实。
And I recommend optimize for that at the expense potentially of code quality. So I think the first few hires you should accept that perhaps they're writing crappy code but, by God, they're writing it quickly and they're getting stuff done. Let's just say, that was the case during the early stages of all three companies I've been involved with.
为此,我建议以牺牲代码质量为代价进行优化。所以我认为最初的几个人应该接受,也许他们在写蹩脚的代码,但是,天哪,他们写得很快,而且完成了一些工作。我只想说,在我所参与的三家公司的早期阶段,情况就是如此。
That's not always the case. Sometimes someone will come a long who's a good IOS engineer but a bad communicator and that might fail them, but this is a pretty good trick to hire outside your area of expertise. Okay.
情况并不总是如此。有时候,有些人会成为一个长时间的人,他是一个优秀的iOS工程师,但却是一个糟糕的沟通者,这可能会让他们失败,但这是一个很好的技巧,可以在你的专业领域好的。
I think that's normal and probably good. So let's say that you're hiring for an area where you yourself don't have technical expertise. So you're a web developer and you need to hire an IOS engineer. What do you do? So one answer is you can use us, you can use Triplebyte, we'll help you do that. You can call in friends to do the interview for you, if you have them. But I think a good point here is that a trick that I've used in the past is to just ask candidates to explain things. So you're a web developer, you ask the IOS engineer a question, they give an answer, you have no idea if it's a good answer or a bad answer. What you can do is just ask them to explain. You say “Oh, that's interesting! Can you explain why that's a good idea?” And, for the most part, if someone truly is a skilled IOS engineer they should be capable of explaining their answer in terms that an experienced web engineer can understand.
我觉得这很正常也可能很好。因此,假设你是在招聘一个你自己没有技术专长的领域。所以你是一个网络开发者,你需要雇佣一个iOS工程师。你的工作是什么所以一个答案是,你可以利用我们,你可以使用三字节,我们会帮助你做到这一点。如果你有朋友,你可以叫他们为你做面试。但我认为一个好的观点是,我过去用过的一个技巧就是让候选人解释事情。所以你是一个网络开发者,你问iOS工程师一个问题,他们给出一个答案,你不知道这是一个好答案还是坏答案。你能做的就是让他们解释。你说“哦,真有意思!你能解释一下为什么这是个好主意吗?“而且,在大多数情况下,如果一个人真的是一个熟练的iOS工程师,他们应该能够解释他们的答案,有经验的网络工程师可以理解。
That's basically it.
基本上就是这样。
I wanna end actually with an ask for you guys. So this is a ... We've been developing an exercise for interviewers that we use when training new interviewers for Triplebyte and I wanna see if I can get you guys to try this and e-mail me and let me know how it goes because I'm curious if this works more broadly.
我真的想以向你们问好结束。所以这是.。我们一直在为面试官开发一个练习,用来训练新的三字节面试官,我想看看我能不能让你们试一试,然后给我发电子邮件,让我知道它是如何进行的,因为我很好奇这是否能更广泛地发挥作用。
The idea is that interviewers tend to significantly underestimate how noisy interviews are, they overestimate their own ability to distinguish good engineers from bad engineers.
他们的想法是,面试官往往会大大低估面试的噪音,他们高估了自己区分优秀工程师和糟糕工程师的能力。
And part of becoming a better interviewer is to become a little more humble and more aware of your own limitations. So this exercise is designed to highlight that. What I want you to do is to do a mock interview with one of your coworkers. So have one of your coworkers interview you where they're role playing ...
成为一个更好的面试官的一部分是变得更加谦逊,更加意识到自己的局限性。所以这个练习是为了强调这一点。我要你做的是和你的一个同事做一个模拟面试。所以让你的一位同事采访你他们在扮演什么角色.
They're asking questions and you're role playing a candidate, you're giving answers.
他们在问题,你在扮演一个候选人,你在给出答案。
And I want you to tell them in advance that you're going to be giving bad answers to some of the questions, you're gonna be role playing a candidate that makes mistakes.
我要你提前告诉他们,你会给出一些问题的糟糕答案,你将扮演一个犯错误的候选人。
And then during the interview, they ask questions, I want you to half the time go ahead and give a bad answer, role play a poor answer to the question, and the other half the time, give it your best shot and give your best possible answer you know to that question.
然后在面试过程中,他们会问一些问题,我希望你有一半的时间给出一个糟糕的答案,角色扮演一个糟糕的答案,而另一半的时间,给你最好的机会,给出你所知道的最好的答案。
And then after the interview's done, do a debrief session where your coworker goes through and goes over all the mistakes you made and gives you feedback. What's great here is that they don't know what answers that you gave were intentionally bad and what were you trying your best.
然后在面试结束后,做一次简短的汇报,让你的同事回顾你所犯的所有错误,并给你反馈。最棒的是,他们不知道你故意给出了什么糟糕的答案,也不知道你在努力做些什么。
If they don't highlight a mistake you made, when you were trying to make a mistake, they're gonna look a bit bad. So they're fully incentivized to be completely honest and rigorous when pointing out the flaws they saw in the interview. The criticism they give will apply both to the points where you were intentionally making mistakes, but also to your attempts to give your best possible answers.
如果他们不强调你犯的错误,当你试图犯错误的时候,他们会看起来有点糟糕。因此,当他们指出他们在面试中看到的缺陷时,他们被充分激励要完全诚实和严谨。他们给出的批评既适用于你有意犯错误的地方,也适用于你试图给出尽可能好的答案的努力。
This ends up being really interesting. We've been doing this a lot at Triplebyte and it is great at highlighting how interviewers disagree. So if you do this with your coworker and you do it a few times, reverse roles.
结果真的很有趣。我们在三字节公司做了很多这样的工作,它很好地突出了面试官的意见分歧。所以,如果你和你的同事做了这件事,你做了几次,相反的角色。
The result is that you'll highlight your areas where you're both weak but you'll also highlight a bunch of areas where you have legitimately strong disagreements about what constitutes the best answer to a technical question.
其结果是,您将突出您的领域,您都是弱者,但您也将强调,在一些领域,您有合法强烈的分歧,什么构成了一个技术问题的最佳答案。
There will almost certainly be more disagreement than you're expecting going in.
几乎可以肯定会有更多的分歧,比你预期的要进去。
Awesome.
太棒了。
I found this super insightful. I'd love if you guys could try this and e-mail me and let me know how it goes.
我觉得这个超有洞察力。如果你们能试着给我发电子邮件让我知道进展的话我会很高兴的。
Harj Taggar: Okay, I'm gonna wrap up here by going through best practices and points to optimize your chances of people actually accepting the offers you make them.
HarjTaggar:好的,我将在这里总结一下最佳实践,并指出如何优化人们接受您提供的服务的机会。
That's everything for me. Harj is gonna talk about closing and then we'll both answer questions.
这就是我的一切。哈杰会讨论关门的事然后我们都会回答问题。
I have five main pieces of advice here.
我这里有五条主要的建议。
The first is just understand as a startup in particular, speed is a huge hiring advantage that you have over bigger companies.
首先,要理解作为一家初创公司,速度是一个巨大的雇用优势,你拥有比大公司更大的优势。
Through Triplebyte we work with startups and larger companies and we ourselves are surprised by how often a big company can take weeks just to deliver the actual final offer details.
通过三字节,我们与初创公司和更大的公司合作,我们自己也对一家大公司花上几周的时间来提供实际的最终报价细节感到惊讶。
And when someone's getting to the end of their job search process, that's where they're most keen to just make a decision, move on, and know what they're doing. So as a startup if you're quick at every step in your hiring process, from the moment you have the first contact through to when you make the offer, you increase your chances of closing a candidate. So just be fast and responsive at every step. Second, Ammon already mentioned, train your interviewers to have a good bedside manner with interviewees. We ask candidates or engineers on Triplebyte, what were some of the reasons you had bad experiences when you went and interviewed in person at companies? And all of the replies centered around their experience with their interviewers.
当某个人的求职过程接近尾声时,他们最热衷于做出决定,继续前进,并知道自己在做什么。因此,作为一家初创公司,如果你在招聘过程中的每一步都做得很快,从你第一次接触到你提出邀请的那一刻起,你就会增加你关闭求职者的机会。所以在每一步都要快速反应。第二,阿蒙已经提到,训练你的面试官与被访者有良好的床边态度。我们问三字节公司的候选人或工程师,当你去公司面试的时候,你有什么不好的经历?所有的回复都围绕着他们与面试官的经历。
And the top two complaints were interviewers not being familiar with the technical questions they were asking, and second the interviewer being determined to show how smart they were, specifically smarter than the interviewee.
最大的两种抱怨是面试官不熟悉他们提出的技术问题,第二,面试官决心展示他们有多聪明,特别是比受访者更聪明。
If someone has a bad experience interviewing with you, they are highly unlikely to accept your offer.
如果有人面试你的经验很差,他们不太可能接受你的邀请。
Two specific bits of advice here.
这里有两条具体的建议。
Three, be prepared to talk in some detail about your company culture, because almost every candidate is going to ask you that question, "What's it like to work here? What's your company culture like?" I think we've seen a particular uptick in this question over the past year. Frankly a lot of the stuff around Uber and a lot of the focus around the culture around the technology industry in Silicon Valley is making people, especially individuals, think more about the kind of culture they want to work in.
第三,准备详细谈谈你的公司文化,因为几乎每个应聘者都会问你这个问题:“在这里工作是什么感觉?你的公司文化是什么样的?”我认为在过去的一年里,我们在这个问题上看到了一个特别的上升。坦率地说,围绕优步的很多东西,以及围绕硅谷科技行业的文化,让人们,尤其是个人,更多地思考他们想要工作的文化。
I'd definitely be prepared to answer questions about how you think about diversity, if your team's already diverse or not, I think you should have some thought around how you plan on incorporating that into your hiring practices going forward. Second, when you're describing your culture, be aware that almost every company, a significant majority, essentially use three adjectives: open, transparent, and collaborative. We've seen this on Triplebyte because we've seen them creating their profiles, right? That can be an effective strategy, because all three of those things are good aspirational qualities. No one would not want to work at an open, transparent, collaborative place. But it's not very good for differentiating yourself, right? One strategy you could take when you're talking about your culture is take more risk.
如果你的团队已经多样化了,我肯定会准备回答你如何看待多样性的问题,我认为你应该考虑一下你计划如何将其纳入未来的招聘实践。第二,当你描述你的文化时,要意识到几乎每一家公司,大多数公司,基本上都使用三个形容词:公开、透明和协作。我们在三字节上看到了这个,因为我们看到他们创建了他们的配置文件,对吗?这可能是一种有效的策略,因为所有这三件事都是好的、有抱负的品质。没有人不想在一个开放、透明、协作的地方工作。但这对区分你自己不是很好,对吧?当你谈论你的文化时,你可以采取的一个策略是冒更多的风险。
An example of risk might be talk about the trade-offs in your culture. So if you believe yourself to be an open culture, talk about the trade-off there. Openness means being honest about things and being honest about things can be difficult and uncomfortable for people.
风险的一个例子可能是谈论你的文化中的权衡。所以,如果你相信自己是一个开放的文化,那就谈谈那里的权衡吧。对人来说,开放意味着对事物的诚实和对事物的诚实可能是困难和不舒服的。
If you're willing to go in that direction, you may alienate some candidates but you may also really increase your closing rate on the candidates that are most excited about you. Fourth, get your team and investors involved in the process. So once you've made an offer, make sure your team reaches out afterwards, offers to meet up with the candidate again, answer more questions and generally be involved in their decision making process.
如果你愿意朝着这个方向走,你可能会疏远一些候选人,但你也可能真的会提高对你最兴奋的候选人的收盘率。第四,让你的团队和投资者参与这个过程。因此,一旦你提出了一项建议,确保你的团队在之后接触,主动再次与候选人见面,回答更多的问题,并通常参与到他们的决策过程中。
And do the same with investors, in particular, pick any investors you have who would be particularly good at closing that candidate. So if they're on the fence about whether to leave a big company for your startup, do you have an investor that successfully left a big company and joined a successful startup? Finally, present full and transparent offers, with all the details the candidate needs to understand how much they're being compensated.
对投资者也要这样做,特别是,选择你所拥有的任何投资者,他们将特别擅长于结束这位候选人。因此,如果他们对是否离开一家大公司为你的创业而犹豫,你是否有一个投资者成功地离开了一家大公司,加入了一家成功的创业公司?最后,提供充分和透明的报价,以及候选人需要了解的所有细节,以了解他们得到了多少报酬。
It's also unfair because the truth is, no matter how powerful your mission is, compensation is a big factor in where someone is going to work. So asking them to commit before giving them details is just ... Puts them in an uncomfortable position and decreases the chances that they would accept your offer to join. When you do make the offer, provide full details.
这也是不公平的,因为事实是,无论你的任务多么强大,补偿是一个重要的因素,在哪里有人要工作。所以在给他们细节之前让他们承诺只是.。让他们处于一个不舒服的境地,减少他们接受你的邀请的机会。当你提出报价时,请提供完整的细节。
This sounds, again, probably somewhat obvious. But I've been surprised by seeing companies engage in this sort of hypothetical battle where instead of just telling a candidate, "here's how much salary and equity you get" posing questions like, "How excited are you about us? If we made you an offer do you think you'd join?" And this always creates a bad, awkward candidate experience.
这听起来,再一次,可能有点明显。但我感到惊讶的是,公司卷入了这样一场假想之战,而不是仅仅告诉一个候选人,“你得到了多少薪水和股权”,提出了这样的问题:“你对我们有多兴奋?如果我们给你一个邀请,你认为你会加入吗?”这总是会造成糟糕的,尴尬的候选人体验。
That you're also checking in to ask the candidate how comfortable are they with this.
你也是想问候选人他们对此有多满意。
This slide has, I'd say the minimum of what you should put on an offer letter. Salary is fairly self-explanatory. With equity, make sure that when you present the details of an equity offer, so the number of stock options, exercise price, etc.
这张幻灯片有,我想说是你在报盘信上应该写的最低限度。工资是相当不言自明的.有股权时,要确保当你提出股票报价的细节时,股票期权的数量、行使价格等等。
If they're a senior engineer, and they've worked at 6 or 7 different startups, they probably understand this, you don't have to go into too much detail.
如果他们是一名高级工程师,并且在6到7家不同的初创公司工作过,他们可能会理解这一点,你不需要说太多的细节。
If they've spent most of their life working at Intel, they may not be familiar with how startup equity works. So ask them how comfortable they are, don't overwhelm them when you present the offer details if they're not. Just send them follow up resources, that they can read on their own time.
如果他们一生中的大部分时间都在英特尔工作,他们可能不熟悉初创公司股权的运作方式。所以,问问他们有多舒服,如果他们不满意的话,不要在你介绍报价细节时压倒他们。只要给他们发送后续资源,他们就可以在自己的时间里阅读。
Also, this sounds sort of obvious, but make sure you yourselves as founders really understand how stock options work, because people will ask you questions about it and you actually don't end up spending much time on this because you, yourself have restricted stock and fundraising doesn't usually include options. But you should understand, even down to the level of let's say, tax implications, of different types of options. Final thing I'm gonna say in close on here is a common thing that comes up for startups is how do you compete for engineers against the tech giants like Google and Facebook, in particular. So Google and Facebook obviously can offer much larger liquid compensation packages than a startup can and frankly the public tech company stocks have been doing great over the last few years, so it's been becoming more challenging to compete against them. Still, we routinely see startups do it and win out against much larger companies offering more money.
而且,这听起来很明显,但要确保你自己作为创建者,真的明白股票期权是如何运作的,因为人们会问你关于股票期权的问题,而你实际上并没有花太多时间在这个问题上,因为你,你自己的股票受到限制,而筹资通常不包括期权。但你应该理解,即使是在税收的层面上,不同类型的选择。最后,我要说的是,对于初创企业来说,一个常见的问题就是如何与谷歌和Facebook这样的科技巨头竞争工程师。因此,谷歌和Facebook显然可以提供比初创公司更大的流动性薪酬方案。坦率地说,过去几年来,上市科技公司的股票表现一直很好,因此与它们竞争变得越来越具有挑战性。尽管如此,我们还是经常看到初创企业这样做,并与提供更多资金的大公司打赢。
I think there's four pitches they make that have been quite compelling.
我认为他们有四个投球是非常有吸引力的。
The first is emphasize learning.
第一是强调学习。
The case I make here is that you learn the most, or you learn the fastest when you're given real decision making responsibility, which means if you make a mistake, like bad shit happens.
我在这里的观点是,当你被赋予真正的决策责任时,你学得最多,或者学得最快,这意味着如果你犯了一个错误,就像糟糕的事情会发生一样。
And there's very, very little chance, practically no chance, that that's gonna happen at a big company. Big companies have checks and balances in place to make sure that no one can create too much damage, in particular for new hires. So if you tell someone that "hey, we just don't have that luxury. We're growing quickly, we've gotta get everything shipped yesterday, you're gonna get thrown straight in to making really decision making authority and if you screw up that's gonna be bad for the company and that's the way that you learn and build real experience." So, emphasize that.
在一家大公司里发生这种事的可能性很小,几乎没有机会。大公司已经建立了制衡机制,以确保没有人会造成太大的损失,特别是对新员工而言。所以,如果你告诉别人:“嘿,我们没有那种奢侈。我们发展得很快,昨天就得把所有东西都运出去,你就会被直接投入到真正的决策权威中去,如果你搞砸了,对公司不利,这就是你学习和建立真正经验的方式。”所以,强调一下。
Two, I talk about career progression. One sort of macro comment I'd make is, if you look at executives at public technology companies, they tend to be or often can be much younger than you'd see at their counterparts at a public [inaudible] or a public utilities company, right? And the reason for that is you can grow up and be Chief Product Officer at Facebook at 38, or however old the Chief Product Officer is, because you joined the startup when it was really early, and you grew along with it, right? The tech industry is really the only place that happens.
第二,我说的是职业发展。我要做的一种宏观评论是,如果你看一下公共科技公司的高管,他们往往会比你在公共(听不见的)或公用事业公司的同行看到的年轻得多,对吧?原因是你可以在38岁的时候成长为Facebook的首席产品官,或者不管首席产品长多大,因为你在创业初期就加入了它,你也跟着它成长了,对吧?科技行业确实是唯一发生这种情况的地方。
It's more of a meritocracy, you don't have to pay your 20 year dues at a company before they consider you for a senior role, you can rise up as quickly as the startup grows. So, emphasize that.
这更像是一种精英管理,你不需要在公司交20年的会费,他们才会考虑你担任高级职位,你可以随着创业公司的成长而迅速崛起。所以,强调一下。
Third, talk about opportunity cost.
第三,谈机会成本。
In particular the way I'd frame this or talk about this would be at any given moment in time, there's always going to be a basket of big, safe technology companies to go work at.
特别是,在任何特定的时刻,我对此或谈论这件事的方式,总会有一篮子大而安全的科技公司去工作。
Their names might change every five years or so, but the experience of working at one is largely fungible. Whereas, the experience of working at a startup varies wildly. So I would emphasize the fact that your startup right now, the team you have, the opportunity, is a unique one that's a uniquely good fit for that candidate that they won't get again.
他们的名字可能每五年左右改变一次,但在其中工作的经验在很大程度上是可以替代的。然而,在创业公司工作的经历却大相径庭。所以我要强调的是,你现在的创业公司,你拥有的这个团队,这个机会,是一个独一无二的,适合那些他们再也找不到的候选人。
And if it doesn't work out, they can always go back to generic big company. Final point.
如果不成功,他们总是可以回到通用大公司。最后一点。
This one's specific to hiring more junior candidates.
这是专为雇用更多的初级候选人。
Talk about mentorship. One thing that we see, especially for new grads, people straight out of college, is that they're worried they won't get the right amount of mentorship, they won't learn how the best practices work if they join a startup.
谈谈导师关系。我们看到的一件事,特别是对于刚毕业的人,大学刚毕业的人来说,他们担心自己得不到合适的指导,如果他们加入一家创业公司,他们就不会知道最佳实践是如何运作的。
And maybe they should go work at Google for a few years, get that under their belt, and then join a startup.
也许他们应该在谷歌工作几年,把这一点放在心上,然后加入一家初创公司。
I mean, first decide if that's actually true or not.
我是说,先决定这是真的还是假的。
If you yourself have only junior engineers on your team, and frankly you just don't want to mentor or get someone up to speed, then don't make that case and maybe don't hire someone like that. But if you have experienced engineers on your team, emphasize that and emphasize the fact that they will get to learn alongside experienced engineers that have worked at places and learned best practices etc. Etc. So, that's everything.
如果你自己的团队中只有初级工程师,坦白地说,你只是不想指导或让某人跟上进度,那就不要提出这个理由,也许也不要雇佣这样的人。但是,如果你的团队中有经验丰富的工程师,那么要强调这一点,并强调他们将与在当地工作和学习过最佳实践等经验丰富的工程师一起学习。等所以,这就是一切。
I think we're gonna open up for questions. We'll answer questions about the topics we covered. Do you wanna come up? yeah.
我想我们要公开提问了。我们将回答有关我们讨论的主题的问题。你想上来吗?嗯
Speaker 4: This is obviously more of engineering and tech focused discussion but can you maybe talk about things like background checks, and things that totally rule out a candidate?
演讲者4:这显然更多的是以工程和技术为重点的讨论,但你能不能谈谈背景调查之类的事情,以及完全排除候选人的事情?
Harj Taggar: Like background, things that rule out the candidate?
哈吉·塔格:比如背景,排除候选人的东西?
Speaker 4: Like, to even consider doing background checks or-
演讲者4:甚至考虑做背景调查或者-
Harj Taggar: Background checks ... Frankly most startups I know don't do them.
背景调查.。坦白地说,我知道的大多数初创公司都不会这么做。
They're especially easy to do now, though, because you can integrate Checker in with your payroll service, so sure, but that's not something that I would focus on.
但是,它们现在特别容易实现,因为您可以将Checker集成到您的薪资服务中,这是肯定的,但这不是我要关注的问题。
I'd focus more on is someone going to be a good fit or not? Yeah.
我会更多地关注某人是否会是一个合适的人选?嗯
Speaker 5: I have a computer science junior who wants to intern for me.
演讲者5:我有一个计算机专业的三年级学生,他想为我实习。
I don't have any engineers on the team [inaudible] , given that I only need to get a [inaudible] . What would you do?
我没有任何工程师在团队[听不见],因为我只需要得到一个[听不见的]。你怎么做?
Ammon Bartram: That's a hard question. So, the majority of computer science juniors are probably not going to be able to do a particularly good job of doing the work you want. That said, this sounds like a case where you could probably just evaluate past work this person has done. So you could probably ask this person to give you a portfolio, or other examples of work they've done, and if that is at a level and of a type that you're happy with, hiring them would probably work.
AmmonBartram:这是一个很难回答的问题。因此,大多数计算机科学初级学生很可能无法做好你想做的工作。尽管如此,这听起来像一个案例,你可能只需要评估一下这个人过去做过的工作。所以你可以让这个人给你一个投资组合,或者他们做过的工作的其他例子,如果这是在你满意的水平和类型的情况下,雇用他们可能会有效果。
Speaker 6: Is there any benefit that you could actually use to help make a better decision when it comes on to hiring people, like Myers-Briggs or probably [inaudible] ?
演讲者6:当涉及到雇用像迈尔斯·布里格斯(Myers-Briggs)或可能(听不见的)这样的人时,你真的可以用它来帮助做出更好的决定吗?
Ammon Bartram: Yeah probably. So, the thing we focus on is background blind hiring, so we focus very narrowly on just direct skills assessment rather than looking at other things that correlate and are predictive, so personality type is real, people vary in their personality, so that stuff matters for performing jobs, I think it's more research on the big five personality traits rather than Myers-Briggs.
阿蒙·巴特伦:可能吧。所以,我们关注的是背景盲目招聘,所以我们只专注于直接的技能评估,而不是关注其他相关的、具有预测性的东西,所以人格类型是真实的,人们的个性也各不相同,所以对于从事工作来说,事情很重要,我认为更多的是研究五大人格特征,而不是迈尔斯-布里格斯(Myers)-布里格斯(Briggs)。
All relevant, but I would try to keep it pretty separate from technical assessment. So assess technical attributes, and then separately try to assess culture, friendliness, soft skills.
所有这些都是相关的,但我会尽量把它与技术评估分开。因此,评估技术属性,然后分别尝试评估文化,友好,软技能。
And then combine that all and try to make a global decision.
然后把所有这些结合起来,尝试做出一个全球性的决定。
Harj Taggar: Yeah. Sorry, back in the sunglasses.
哈吉·塔格尔:是的。抱歉,戴上太阳镜。
Speaker 7: So after like [inaudible] .
演讲者7:所以在听不见之后。
If I wanna find the right technical, I know you guys sort through numerous tools and the ways that you guys get an engineer on board and give them like problems. But if I'm not technical, how could I gauge if the person is actually qualified if I'm not experienced with that?
如果我想找到正确的技术,我知道你们整理了无数的工具和方法,你们找一个工程师在船上,并给他们一样的问题。但是如果我不是技术人员,如果我对此没有经验,我怎么能判断这个人是否真的合格呢?
Ammon Bartram: That's the extreme version, and I'm just gonna say you probably can't. So the question is, if you're a non-technical founder, how can you assess an applicant's technical skills? And I think the answer, unfortunately, is that you probably can't. So you can fall back on the advice of trying to look at past work, but I think this is why it's very helpful to have a technical co-founder, is because you are gonna be at a fundamental disadvantage there.
阿蒙·巴特伦:这是极端的版本,我只想说你可能做不到。所以问题是,如果你是非技术的创始人,你如何评估申请人的技术技能?不幸的是,我认为答案是你可能做不到。所以你可以放弃以往的建议,但是我认为这就是为什么有一个技术上的联合创始人是非常有帮助的,因为你会在那里处于根本的劣势。
Speaker 7: I mean as far as finding a candidate goes not [inaudible] either that or [inaudible] .
演讲者7:我的意思是说,只要找到一个候选人,就不会(听不见),也不会(听不到)。
Ammon Bartram: Yeah, I ... You have a thought there?
阿蒙·巴特伦:是的,我.你有想法吗?
Harj Taggar: The question is how do you find a technical co-founder and figure out if they're good or not? I think Ammon's advice basically applies here.
HarjTaggar:问题是,你如何找到一个技术上的联合创始人,并找出他们是否优秀?我认为Ammon的建议基本上适用于这里。
The most thing is, use a friend or someone that you know who is an engineer to talk to them and figure out if they're a good engineer or not. Otherwise, there's not really any other options. Yep. Yep.
最重要的是,找一个你认识的朋友或某个你认识的工程师和他们交谈,找出他们是否是一个好工程师。否则,就没有别的选择了。是的。是的。
Apparently I'm not precise with my pointing.
显然我的指点不够精确。
I need to work on that.
我得好好研究一下。
Is there any methods around working with universities and you'd probably face challenges with them? Or some kind of mechanism for sourcing that might be a good way of building talent rather than outsourcing?
与大学合作有什么方法,你可能会面临挑战吗?或者某种机制的采购,这可能是一个很好的方式建设人才,而不是外包?
Speaker 8: Question about talent generation, so like the step before sourcing.
演讲者8:关于人才培养的问题,就像采购前的步骤。
Harj Taggar: Yes, but I think this is largely focused ... Oh, sorry. Reviewing the question.
哈吉·塔格:是的,但我认为这主要集中在.啊!对不起回顾问题。
The question is are there ways to work with the universities and colleges to generate like a pipeline of talent that you could hire from, is that accurate? I'd say yes, there certainly are and they exist like career fairs and sponsored events at colleges etc. etc. But I think those probably work better for larger companies that can fit themselves around the college graduation deadlines and that schedule. For startups its kinda tough 'cause usually you want someone that's available right now to hire as opposed to waiting for them to graduate. So I probably wouldn't recommend investing too much time in that as a startup.
问题是,是否有办法与大学和学院合作,像招聘人才那样培养人才,这是准确的吗?我会说是的,当然也有,它们就像大学里的招聘会和赞助活动一样存在。等但我认为,它们可能更适合大公司,因为它们能在大学毕业的最后期限和时间安排上符合自己的要求。对于初创企业来说,这有点困难,因为通常你需要的是现在就能找到的人,而不是等待他们毕业。所以,作为一家初创企业,我可能不会建议投入太多的时间在这上面。
Ammon Bartram: And just to clarify, big companies at this point make offers a full year in advance with large signing bonuses delivered a year in advance, so it's very hard for startups to compete with college hiring.
AmmonBartram:要澄清的是,大公司在这一点上会提前一年提供大量签约奖金,所以创业公司很难与大学招聘竞争。
Speaker 9: So you talked about role playing a bad interviewer.
演讲者9:那么你说的是角色扮演一个糟糕的面试官。
I'm just curious as to why a bad interview rather than [inaudible] and making mistakes.
我只是好奇为什么一个糟糕的面试而不是(听不见的)和犯错误。
Ammon Bartram: Yeah. So the question is to really clarify on my last point about role playing a bad interview. So the key point here is that you're gonna role play the interview and the coworker who's playing the candidate, who's giving the answers, they're going to intentionally make some mistakes.
阿蒙·巴特伦:是的。所以问题是要真正澄清我关于角色扮演的最后一点-一次糟糕的面试。所以这里的关键是,你要扮演的角色扮演面试和同事谁扮演的候选人,谁给出答案,他们会故意犯一些错误。
They're not gonna honestly give their opinion of the performance that their coworker gave.
他们不会诚实地说出他们对同事的表现的看法。
And what that does is, it frees up their coworker to be critical. So normally, if you do a mock interview between two coworkers, the problem is that in the end, everyone is gonna pull their punches.
这样做的原因是,这让他们的同事有了批评的自由。所以通常情况下,如果你对两位同事进行模拟面试,问题是最终每个人都会抽筋。
It just doesn't quite work due to all kinds of social pressure.
只是由于各种社会压力,它不太起作用。
If you tell them, I'm gonna be intentionally making some mistakes, that frees them up where they're then free to point out the flaws in your interview. Not only free to, they have to. Because if you say, “I'm making mistakes,” and you ask them “what's your opinion of my results?” If they don't point at a mistake you made, that means you got something past them, right? So it flips the social pressure and creates pressure where they're then incentivized to be critical, which is extremely useful because as experienced engineers, it's been a while ... You're a senior engineer on a team at a successful company, it's been a while since you've had someone really brutally critique how good you are at answering your own questions. What will happen is that they will point out legitimate flaws. You'll be trying to give your best answer and they will point out things you said that are wrong or things that could be better and that, it's very humbling.
如果你告诉他们,我会故意犯一些错误,这样他们就可以自由地指出你面试中的缺陷了。不仅是自由的,他们也必须这样做。因为如果你说,“我在犯错误,”你问他们“你对我的结果有什么看法?”如果他们没有指出你犯的错误,那就意味着你已经超越了他们,对吗?所以它改变了社会压力,产生了压力,在那里他们被激励成为关键人物,这是非常有用的,因为作为经验丰富的工程师,已经有一段时间了.在一家成功的公司里,你是一个团队的高级工程师,已经有一段时间了,你已经有一段时间没有被人无情地批评你在回答自己的问题上有多好了。会发生的是,他们会指出合法的缺陷。你会尽力给出你最好的答案,他们会指出你说的是错误的,或者更好的事情,这是非常谦卑的。
It's very humbling and I recommend ...
很谦卑我建议.。
I think this is an exercise where you can give yourself that experience of being humbled and having flaws in your own performance pointed out.
我认为这是一个练习,你可以给自己一次谦卑的经历,并指出你自己的表现有缺陷。
Geoff Ralston: Okay guys. Sorry, due to the timing, just one more question please.
Geoff Ralston: 好的,伙计们。对不起,由于时间关系,请再问一个问题。
Harj Taggar: In the middle, yes. Got it.
哈吉·塔格:在中间,是的。明白了。
Speaker 10: You talked about a 95% loss success rate on one of the slides and given the fact that the interviewers tend not to have a very high inter-rater reliability, it seems hard to believe that there's a 95% ...
演讲者10:你在其中一张幻灯片上提到了95%的失败成功率,考虑到面试官往往没有很高的评分可靠性,似乎很难相信有95%.
I mean it also doesn't match my experience, that 95% of the hires were successful. So, what do you think is the real success rate where a year after hire somebody's still there and they're a top performer?
我的意思是,这也不符合我的经验,95%的雇员是成功的。那么,你认为在雇佣了一年之后,仍然有人在那里,而且他们是最优秀的人的情况下,真正的成功率是多少?
Ammon Bartram: Yeah.
阿蒙·巴特伦:是的。
That's gonna be ... So that number 95 comes from some surveys we did of companies. Okay, sorry. So the question was, in one of my slides, I said that hires are successful 95% of the time. But that doesn't mesh with the experience of being a hiring manager and hiring people. Many of the people you hire are not great. So the question is, what's the actual rate at which candidates end up being top performers? Question is totally right. So that number comes from some surveys we did where we asked companies of all their hires, what percentage got fired? And we actually asked what percentage are top performers and that 5% is the fire rate. So 5% actually get fired, an additional 30% are people who stick on but are not truly great employees.
那会是.。因此,这个数字95来自于我们对公司所做的一些调查。好吧,对不起。所以问题是,在我的一张幻灯片中,我说过95%的招聘都是成功的。但这不符合招聘经理和招聘人员的经验。你雇佣的很多人都不是很好。所以问题是,候选人最终表现最好的实际比率是多少?问题完全正确。因此,这个数字来自于我们所做的一些调查,我们询问了所有员工的公司,被解雇的百分比是多少?我们问的是表现最好的人占多大比例,而这5%是火灾率。因此,5%的人实际上被解雇了,另外30%是那些坚持但并不是真正优秀的员工的人。
And then about 10% are in the bucket that companies said were their best hires and top performers.
然后,大约10%的员工被公司认为是他们最优秀的员工和表现最好的员工。
Geoff Ralston: Okay, thank-you guys so much.
Geoff Ralston: 好的,非常感谢你们。