We should be hiring based on "Proof of Work." Throw a real-world problem at a pool of candidates, see who actually ships the best solution, and bring them on board. It’s a win-win for efficiency.
We should be hiring based on "Proof of Work." Throw a real-world problem at a pool of candidates, see who actually ships the best solution, and bring them on board. It’s a win-win for efficiency.
The best candidates usually don't want to do them.
And if they fix it? Pay them. Simple.
Stop fooling around with abstract puzzles that have zero relevance to a battle-tested production environment.
verdverm•1h ago
I don't disagree it has serious problems, but this doesn't seem a workable solution in my experience on the other side.
If you want the good jobs, you will have to be more flexible. Ask the deal breaker questions in the first meeting
microseyuyu•11m ago
Ultimately, hiring is a transaction: Can this candidate fix your issue?
Sure, you need to filter for red flags, but come on—the current interview meta is broken/dumb.
It really boils down to this: What value does A bring to B, and vice versa?