| mapledyalog 2004-07-24, 1:16 pm |
| Should others repeat a hiring process described
by the New York Times.
The New York Times ran an article (that I consider
quite misleading) about how we went about training
and hiring some people for a job.
The job was to do APL programming, but please
don't let's have a discussion about APL here. But
I do want to have a discussion about how it can
be that a minimal ad in the Times generated 300
resumes, none with the skills we needed, and now
employers seem to be doing so little to make use
of such a vast pool of talent. We found that by
paying some attention, and offering 3 w s of
training, we could identify the people with the
talent and inclination, if not the prior
education, to meet our needs.
Here is a link to the story. I offer it to you if
you promise (on your word) that you'll read the
rest of what I write here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/jobs/04jmar.html?8dpc
This link will get you a copy of a letter they published
subsequently:
http://www.baristanet.com/barista/f...>
_no_prize.htm
----
Here is some of my reply to someone who posted a comment
in the APL group that his impression (from the article
alone) of what we did. He indicated that he thought it
was a disasterous recruiting strategy:
----
This is Brooke Allen, and I wish to write about our
experience for two reasons. The first is that this kind
of story just drives me bannas because David Koeppel
misrepresented virtually everything that we did. Also,
I'd like to make the case that our approach was not
at all a disastrous recruiting strategy, though if it
were, I'd believe we're the most likely to suffer the
consequences.
Firstly I'd like to present my side of the story since
David Koeppel thinks I was running a contest with a
prize of a job, and I disagree.
We ran an advertisement (in the NY Times) looking for
someone who might exhibit talent for APL (A Programming
Language) that we might hire and train.
Over 300 people responded, and none of them mentioned
familiarity with APL in their resumes. (I actually
read all the resumes, and each person got a reply.)
So we asked them to look at a long manual and respond
to a short quiz.
To my amazement, 38 people did that. Only then did it
occur to me that I'd propose offering all those who
were interested 3 ws of training, and we'd defer
a hiring decision at the end. Twenty-seven people asked
for the training. It was explained that if nobody took to
the language, we might not even hire anyone. It was also
made clear that their chance of findinga job through this
was only a few percent, so they should be motivated by a
desire for the free education.
In a brief 3 w introduction to APL, markets, our firm
and our kinds of business problems, we didn't expect the
students to become competent, or capable of excellence.
Rather, we wanted us and them to judge aptitude and desire
to pursue APL. At the end of the process, we didn't test
the students, but based our hiring decision on a question
we asked all of them, namely:
"If you were me, and you could only hire one person, and
it wasn't you, who would it be?"
Pretty much everyone except Orlando said Orlando. So
we hired Orlando. He is proving to be excellent!
Additonally, we identified and hired another person from
the class at about twice Orlando's base pay. Two other
people from the class got hired at other firms very quickly
to do APL. I would guess that of the 13 students who made
it to the end, only an additional 1 or 2 had an active
interest in pursuing APL as a full-time career, though I
would recommend all of them for their intellectual
characteristics, and work ethic. I don't think it is bad
that people who spent 4 years or more paying for school
that didn't seem to help them get employment, could find
work after 3 ws training in a "dead" language!
Now with regard to the $40K base salary -- this is the
same base as me. Orlando's total compensation will be
more than that based upon how well he does, and how
well our business does. Orlando's guaranteed bonus in
the first 6 months probationary period, if he passes
probation, will be $10K, and if he meets our expectations,
not only should he expect his base to increase, he should
expect bonuses to be a significant fraction of his base
if not a multiple.
APL does not seem to be taught in the schools any longer,
though as a commercially productive language we've found
that APL vendors (and there are a few to choose from) have
kept their products very current. But we weren't finding
that we could not hire junior people. A few years ago,
it was impossible to find anyone willing to learn anything
inexpensively, and talent was rare. Today, unfortunately,
that situation has reversed. The silver lining is that
if we put enough effort into it, and pay enough attention,
we can find people willing to learn what we need them to know.
Anyway, rather than the process being disasterous, I'd
say the reporting of it was disasterous. I believe that
there is no harm in offering free training to willing
unemployed people. Not only did this have direct positive
results for us, and the people we hired, it also proved
that we could find people capable and willing to be
junior APLers. SecurityAPL, a division of Checkfree,
and a big user of APL, has found it hard to find new
talent. In addition to hiring one of our students, they
may also look to run their own training course.
Anyway, the single biggest thing I'd like to say to those
of in the APL/J/K community is that we should put some
effort into training a new generation of people in those
technologies that we love, and not worry so much about
protecting our own job prospects.
This time last year I was the only one here dong APL,
now there are five of us in my group alone (the rest
are all new to it) and people in other groups are looking
over our shoulders asking: "How do we do that?" When I
offered the class to our job candidates, many of the other
systems people around here virtually demanded to be
included as well.
Regards,
Brooke Allen
------
P. S. I followed up with Tony Bozanich, who was the only
student quoted, and who dropped out during the first
few days. He has made it clear to me that:
- He would have stayed in the course had he not had a
prior commitment in Seattle for 2 ws.
- He viewed me as exploitive in the sense of exploiting
the opportunity presented by a bad job market. He said
that a few years ago it was the job applicants exploting
employers. I guess in this "exploiting an opportunity"
sense I'm not as offended as in the way David made it
sound.
- It wasn't the class that was like a train wreck
(besides he wasn't there long enough to have an
informed opinion) but it was the lousy job market with so
many people who are out of work for so long.
- David talked to him for an hour, and he had many good
things to say (as did everyone else David interviewd
from the class). It is David who chose what to print.
- The job wasn't lousy (how could he know, he wasn't
there long enough to learn about the job) but it was
lousy that there was only one job (well later there
we created another one, but he wasn't there to know
that either).
------
You might enjoy this e-mail from Bob Sutton of Stanford
(http://www.stanford.edu/dep...faculty/bobsut/),
who was also quoted in the article:
Brooke,
I just read the Times article, and I think you got a raw
deal, but the press always has an angle. I am sure he
quoted me accurately, but as I meant to convey to him,
and what my quote says in a backhanded way, is that I
thought that what you did was just fine, you were clear
with them from the outset, and the idea of using job
sample tests and some kind of trial period is consistent
with the best HR practices. Alas, I can't volunteer to write
anything up, as I am quite far behind in writing. If
I have a student group that needs to write a case, I'll
ask them to contact you next year. But the only two things
I can see that you did differently than other companies were:
1. You were completely transparent and honest and 2. You
had people involved in thehiring process participate in
the decision.
You can't help it if the economy is so bad. Also, if you
look at what great companies like Toyota, Southwest, and
so on do, it is quite similar to what you did, except
you had the group involved in the final decision. Indeed,
if you read "Weird Ideas that Work", which I wrote when
the economy was booming and there was a so-called war
for talent, one of my weird ideas is much as you suggest,
BUT you implemented it in a much more thoughtful way than
I suggested.
You are clearly an imaginative and caring person, and it
was clearto me when I talked to the reporter that this
was the case. He just wanted to write astory that made
you sound like Trump.
Be well, and ignore what you read about yourself in the
press!
Bob Sutton |