hiring good employees. iq tests, what else?
8 comments
You could test them on their knowledge of Python.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo
the problem is that i know a lot of really smart people who don't have the self-motivation to produce anything.
Very true. I've always found productive people to be much more useful than smart people.
That's not what he's saying. He said self motivation. So if left to their own devices they'd rather learn more than stick to one task and produce something.
Smart, productive people are what you want when they are being motivated, possibly by others, e.g. boss or peer pressure. I don't care how productive they are if they're not smart and not working in a smart manner.
Smart, productive people are what you want when they are being motivated, possibly by others, e.g. boss or peer pressure. I don't care how productive they are if they're not smart and not working in a smart manner.
Asking a few nearly trivial programming or other puzzles in the initial job listing or in a first phone screen really helps for two reasons:
1) it discourages lazy people and resume spammers. Most people want to cut and paste their resume and cover letter and be done. Someone solving your (even simple) puzzle means they might actually be interested in what you are doing.
2) You make sure they aren't completely incompetent jokers. They pass the trivial reject.
1) it discourages lazy people and resume spammers. Most people want to cut and paste their resume and cover letter and be done. Someone solving your (even simple) puzzle means they might actually be interested in what you are doing.
2) You make sure they aren't completely incompetent jokers. They pass the trivial reject.
As a banker, I asked each entry-level candidate to tell me about something that they did that was hard. Basically, I want to know how they will perform when it's gut-check time. The real world will provide occasions where their character will be tested.
One positive about this method is that I got to hear some interesting stories, whether it was the kid that started his own commercial hookah bar in college or the one that expelled a friend as a member of his college honor council. It was easy to tell which candidates had the right stuff and which did not.
Intelligence is important, but the kid that was voted most likely to succeed in my high school was not near the most intelligent. And for what it's worth, I think the voting was accurate.
One positive about this method is that I got to hear some interesting stories, whether it was the kid that started his own commercial hookah bar in college or the one that expelled a friend as a member of his college honor council. It was easy to tell which candidates had the right stuff and which did not.
Intelligence is important, but the kid that was voted most likely to succeed in my high school was not near the most intelligent. And for what it's worth, I think the voting was accurate.
Employees? You want people who do as they're told and accept bureaucracy.
Essentially the opposite of a founder.
Essentially the opposite of a founder.
references are the key to hiring. not the "official" ones. Backdoor or referrals are the best.
http://genotropic-orgs.blogspot.com/
planning to hire some people soon.
any recommendations on how to gauge if they are any good? I need some statistically significant tests that can weed out those loafers. Know of any?
any recommendations on how to gauge if they are any good? I need some statistically significant tests that can weed out those loafers. Know of any?
If you can define objectively what makes a person good, you can probably, after a decade or so of research, put together a statistically significant test that will allow you to objectively determine whether a candidate is good or not. That's probably longer than your schedule allows, so you'll have to fudge it.
First, you want people who are analytical and can figure things out. I went to an interview once where the interviewer had a binary clock on the table. It wasn't immediately obvious to me what it was, never having seen one. He left me in the room for a minute while he went to fetch something, and while he was out I figured out what the clock was and that it was off by about a quarter of an hour. Later on in the interview he asked if I had any idea what it was, and I told him that it was off. Apparently I passed the test.
Second, you want people who know their stuff, and who, if they don't know some bit of their stuff, can take a reasonable guess or know where to find the answer. If the candidate submitted a portfolio, you can ask leading questions about the candidate's work: why did you do it this way? What were the tradeoffs if you had done it this other way? You also want to make sure the candidate does something small right there in your office: write code for a merge sort, for instance.
Third, you want someone who fits with your company culture. If you're dominant and want people to follow your instructions, you don't want to hire someone who's always questioning authority. No matter who's right and who's wrong, you'll both have an unpleasant time of it. If you expect people to wear business casual clothes and be punctual, you don't want to hire someone who's the most brilliant programmer in the world but who never gets in before 10:30 am and only owns one shirt with a collar. If the candidate is a poor fit for the culture, the candidate won't perform anywhere near his capacity.
In particular, the difference between a supremely productive programmer and a loafer is often the environment the person is in. Put someone who isn't punctual or a sharp dresser in a culture where he is expected to be at his desk every morning by 8:30 in a jacket and tie, and he'll turn into a loafer out of frustration within a year. No test will identify that.
First, you want people who are analytical and can figure things out. I went to an interview once where the interviewer had a binary clock on the table. It wasn't immediately obvious to me what it was, never having seen one. He left me in the room for a minute while he went to fetch something, and while he was out I figured out what the clock was and that it was off by about a quarter of an hour. Later on in the interview he asked if I had any idea what it was, and I told him that it was off. Apparently I passed the test.
Second, you want people who know their stuff, and who, if they don't know some bit of their stuff, can take a reasonable guess or know where to find the answer. If the candidate submitted a portfolio, you can ask leading questions about the candidate's work: why did you do it this way? What were the tradeoffs if you had done it this other way? You also want to make sure the candidate does something small right there in your office: write code for a merge sort, for instance.
Third, you want someone who fits with your company culture. If you're dominant and want people to follow your instructions, you don't want to hire someone who's always questioning authority. No matter who's right and who's wrong, you'll both have an unpleasant time of it. If you expect people to wear business casual clothes and be punctual, you don't want to hire someone who's the most brilliant programmer in the world but who never gets in before 10:30 am and only owns one shirt with a collar. If the candidate is a poor fit for the culture, the candidate won't perform anywhere near his capacity.
In particular, the difference between a supremely productive programmer and a loafer is often the environment the person is in. Put someone who isn't punctual or a sharp dresser in a culture where he is expected to be at his desk every morning by 8:30 in a jacket and tie, and he'll turn into a loafer out of frustration within a year. No test will identify that.
No, they don't exist. First of all, your question has no objective test function. Let's put aside that totally fundamental issue. In that case, you would need a test that distinguishes out of a small group of people, and would not have any statistical robustness.
Another way to look at this problem is, if such a test exists, why doesn't everyone use it? The SAT, for example, is very well correlated with intelligence. Most companies don't care about it.
The overarching question, "how do you weed out good people?" is a fundamental challenge of running business. Generally, the advice is to hire people that you personally know are good. If that doesn't work, hire the good people that other good people know, if that doesn't work, maybe you or your pitch is not that good.
Another way to look at this problem is, if such a test exists, why doesn't everyone use it? The SAT, for example, is very well correlated with intelligence. Most companies don't care about it.
The overarching question, "how do you weed out good people?" is a fundamental challenge of running business. Generally, the advice is to hire people that you personally know are good. If that doesn't work, hire the good people that other good people know, if that doesn't work, maybe you or your pitch is not that good.
You couldn't be more wrong. Such tests do exist, (in fact, as you say, the SAT test has a strong correlation with intelligence) but US corporations have been forbidden to use such tests since the 'Griggs vs. Duke Power' case of 1971. So instead, people doing hiring let college admissions departments do their intelligence testing. If you got into Harvard, that probably says something about your IQ. Of course, this is a much worse situation, and has a lot to do with our current overemphasis on educational credentials, and skyrocketing tuition costs.
It's not that companies don't care about IQ, it's that they are disallowed from using it explicitly.
It's not that companies don't care about IQ, it's that they are disallowed from using it explicitly.
Actually, hiring assessments do exist and are legal to use. Creating hiring assessments is part of the field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (I believe it's called "Work Psychology" in the UK).
For example, one I/O Psychologist I know has a consulting business, among other things, administering an assessment called the Totalview 2000 to potential hirees for many organizations. It basically works by first testing the personality and several aptitudes of existing top performers for a specific job at an organization to create a benchmark for top-performers, and then comparing the scores of applicants against the benchmark. Unfortunately, as such it is very specific (e.g.: the benchmarks for the same position at two different offices of the same engineering firm differ slightly because said offices take different clients), and only works well if you already have several identified top performers.
For example, one I/O Psychologist I know has a consulting business, among other things, administering an assessment called the Totalview 2000 to potential hirees for many organizations. It basically works by first testing the personality and several aptitudes of existing top performers for a specific job at an organization to create a benchmark for top-performers, and then comparing the scores of applicants against the benchmark. Unfortunately, as such it is very specific (e.g.: the benchmarks for the same position at two different offices of the same engineering firm differ slightly because said offices take different clients), and only works well if you already have several identified top performers.
You couldn't be more wrong. Such tests do exist, (in fact, as you say, the SAT test has a strong correlation with intelligence) but US corporations have been forbidden to use such tests since the 'Griggs vs. Duke Power' case of 1971. So instead, people doing hiring let college admissions departments do their intelligence testing. If you got into Harvard, that probably says something about your IQ. Of course, this is a much worse situation, and has a lot to do with our current overemphasis on educational credentials, and skyrocketing tuition costs.
It's not that companies don't care about IQ, it's that they are disallowed from using it explicitly.
It's not that companies don't care about IQ, it's that they are disallowed from using it explicitly.
actually, i would look at SAT. Not as a major decision point, but just one small factor in the entire hiring process.
IQ test would take another small factor. Personality another factor, Familiarity with the domain you are hiring for another factor. Experience another factor. and so on. This way, even if you don't score well for your SAT, your other factors may make up for it.
isn't this how Google now automate their hiring process (at least in the initial stage to filter out the crap)?
Categorize their current best and worst employees based on these factors. Then get the factors of the interviewees and run them on their bayesian classifier and it will indicate whether the interviewee is likely to be a good or bad employee.
isn't this how Google now automate their hiring process (at least in the initial stage to filter out the crap)?
Categorize their current best and worst employees based on these factors. Then get the factors of the interviewees and run them on their bayesian classifier and it will indicate whether the interviewee is likely to be a good or bad employee.
I would think twice about working for anyone who gave me an IQ test. Not because I think I'd do badly on it, but because of what it says about that employer.
what does it say about the employer?
That they can't hire the right people.
Seriously, employers that are able to "feel" out the right people don't need tests, they'll go with their gut instincts, just like smart business people.
Employers that give IQ tests usually lack this skill and have been burned because of it. I wouldn't want to work at a place that I couldn't trust to find high quality colleagues for me to build with.
(This from a person that naturally scores in the 130's in IQ tests)
Seriously, employers that are able to "feel" out the right people don't need tests, they'll go with their gut instincts, just like smart business people.
Employers that give IQ tests usually lack this skill and have been burned because of it. I wouldn't want to work at a place that I couldn't trust to find high quality colleagues for me to build with.
(This from a person that naturally scores in the 130's in IQ tests)
hiring based on "feel" is like trading based on "feel". My back hurts. Damn, short this stock. Oh god. I feel alive whenever i see this stock. Buy!
it's always good to base your hiring on something that is testable. Call me crazy but hiring is a long-term continuous process. It's best to have a program that's testable and verifiable, rather than simply be based on gut feel.
it's always good to base your hiring on something that is testable. Call me crazy but hiring is a long-term continuous process. It's best to have a program that's testable and verifiable, rather than simply be based on gut feel.
You aren't hiring robots. You're hiring people. If you want to be analytical about it, you'll end up hiring the person that tells you what you want to hear the best.
That's not usually the person you want.
That's not usually the person you want.
That they don't really understand statistics.
so you are inferring that there is enough statistical evidence to prove the hypothesis that a high iq person does not make for a good employee.
You're falling into a trap. Using the vocabulary of statistics does not mean you are thinking statistically. The classic refute, "correlation does not imply causation," applies here. I bet that the top people at top companies have high IQs, this does not mean that a high IQ person makes a top employee.
I'm assuming you're hiring someone at a high level for a small company. Performing an IQ test is too much effort for not enough gain. As a result, you are performing a reverse IQ test. Intelligent people, asked to take an IQ test to join a one person startup, will view it as a waste of their time, and walk away.
Go ahead, ask for SAT score. The most useful aspect of SAT score is in establishing company culture. It seems to me that you want to form a company where employess are the top grads from top universities. This is a classic, and successful model for hiring people. Asking potentital employess to take an IQ test will harm you in the end.
I'm assuming you're hiring someone at a high level for a small company. Performing an IQ test is too much effort for not enough gain. As a result, you are performing a reverse IQ test. Intelligent people, asked to take an IQ test to join a one person startup, will view it as a waste of their time, and walk away.
Go ahead, ask for SAT score. The most useful aspect of SAT score is in establishing company culture. It seems to me that you want to form a company where employess are the top grads from top universities. This is a classic, and successful model for hiring people. Asking potentital employess to take an IQ test will harm you in the end.
It is you who does not understand statistics. If the 'top people' is a population with a higher than average IQ, then that is probably a useful thing to measure when trying to predict if someone is going to be a top person, even if not all high IQ people are top people and not all top people have high IQ. See Bayes.
Also, if you were coming to this situation with no prior knowledge that IQ means intelligence (that is, imagine that you didn't know what the term IQ means) then you could suspect that its correlation with 'top people' might not be causative. The trouble is, you live and work in the real world, and so have seen smart and not-so-smart people at work. So you have strong reason to suspect that the arrow of causality points from IQ, not towards it.
Intelligence is not the only thing, but it's important and it can be measured.
Also, if you were coming to this situation with no prior knowledge that IQ means intelligence (that is, imagine that you didn't know what the term IQ means) then you could suspect that its correlation with 'top people' might not be causative. The trouble is, you live and work in the real world, and so have seen smart and not-so-smart people at work. So you have strong reason to suspect that the arrow of causality points from IQ, not towards it.
Intelligence is not the only thing, but it's important and it can be measured.
see my comment below. I'm not planning to ask them to take a full blown iq tests. Just those "iq games" that i find are empirically good in classifying the smart from the non-smart
Good luck to you. Seriously, it already appears that you have made up your mind and don't need any more of our advice. 3 separate people have pointed out why IQ test are a bad idea, yet you are still not convinced. There is not much else to say except good luck.
ok fine. if iq tests are such a bad idea, what verifiable tests are there that can be used to classify a good employee and a bad employee? I'm sorry but gut feel just doesn't cut it.
"I'm sorry but gut feel just doesn't cut it."
Actually, it does. Read Blink: http://www.gladwell.com/blink/ by Malcolm Gladwell for a better idea of this.
I can understand that you're looking for something more cut and dry, but it just doesn't exist. If you've got a problem trusting your instincts, you are probably going to have issues with business decisions in the future as well.
If you want my advice, your first hire should be someone with a track record of making good gut calls, to balance out yourself. That's all I'd look for really - well, besides the need to work well with you. Let him/her hire the people you need, and stick with the analytical stuff that he'll probably hate to do. :-)
Actually, it does. Read Blink: http://www.gladwell.com/blink/ by Malcolm Gladwell for a better idea of this.
I can understand that you're looking for something more cut and dry, but it just doesn't exist. If you've got a problem trusting your instincts, you are probably going to have issues with business decisions in the future as well.
If you want my advice, your first hire should be someone with a track record of making good gut calls, to balance out yourself. That's all I'd look for really - well, besides the need to work well with you. Let him/her hire the people you need, and stick with the analytical stuff that he'll probably hate to do. :-)
One of my favorites:
"If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"
Unbeknownst to me, there are even answers, on the internet:
http://www.paradiseawaits.com/Tree.html
"If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"
Unbeknownst to me, there are even answers, on the internet:
http://www.paradiseawaits.com/Tree.html
The belief that there could be a universal test that maps a person onto some scalar value ranging from "good employee" to "bad employee" says a lot about the belief's holder.
Sorry if that sounds snarky - it's just the way I feel.
Sorry if that sounds snarky - it's just the way I feel.
1) References
2) Experience
3) Accomplishments you can see
2) Experience
3) Accomplishments you can see
There's no evidence one way or another, because there's no clear objective definition of "a good employee."
For some of the jobs I've had, a willingness to think independently and critically -- far more important in a lot of cases than a high IQ -- was an active detriment.
For some of the jobs I've had, a willingness to think independently and critically -- far more important in a lot of cases than a high IQ -- was an active detriment.
Dear $DEITY, don't rely on an IQ test! You need to talk to them, give them problems, see how they respond.
yes. i will talk to them, give them problems and see how they respond. but iq test is still useful. by the way, i'm not asking them to do those full blown iq test. Just those fun-and-games "test" like http://www.lumosity.com. This site really does work. I've test it out on my friends. The smart ones get high score. The dumb... err... less bright ones get average scores.
It looks like you already knew your smart friends from your dumb friends, so that test wasn't exactly necessary was it?
Don't make them take IQ tests. Honestly, it doesn't reflect well on an employer, especially a small startup. You can usually tell of someone's value and experience by the work they've done, their personality just by talking to them, and their pertinent knowledge just by asking them relevant questions.
Don't make them take IQ tests. Honestly, it doesn't reflect well on an employer, especially a small startup. You can usually tell of someone's value and experience by the work they've done, their personality just by talking to them, and their pertinent knowledge just by asking them relevant questions.
the gist is to check if the site is accurate
1) Do you, personally, write code? If yes, that's a good thing.
2) You probably know that each employee is like a mini-founder. (If the number of total employees is small, then they could really be a founder.) It doesn't take a smart person to found a successful business, but rather hard work and dedication. People can do really, really well on an IQ test and have no dedication, or they can bomb the IQ test and have so much dedication that they make up for it. Therefore, if the IQ test doesn't have any correlation to how good an employee is, you shouldn't use it to gauge anything.
3) At the company I work at, we've put together a programming test. It's difficult and it grills you hard. If you get a 60/160 we'll still consider you (I got around 60% two years ago). The test is followed by every developer in the company spending time with the interviewee, asking them questions. Then the interviewee is asked to go to the white board and do a programming problem that we give him verbally, with no use of an editor or compiler. How he can react to a the stressful situation of being asked to solve a hard problem in front of total strangers says loads about him. But possibly the most important part is that at the end of the day, the decision for hire or no hire is made from a gut instinct by all developers. That's just how humans work, and it does work.
The programming test weeds out all non-hackers. We call each semi-promising person in, sit them in a room for an hour and leave them with the test. At the end of the hour we score them and if they do horribly, we send them on their way with no hard feelings. It doesn't use up too much of our time, and finding a great person is worth the effort.
You should read http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html also.
Shawn