以考代评职称需要聘任嘛_如何以正确的方式聘用：工程师对技术招聘的看法

以考代评职称需要聘任嘛

by Rina Artstain

通过丽娜·阿斯特斯坦

如何以正确的方式聘用：工程师对技术招聘的看法 (How to hire the right way: An engineer’s perspective on tech recruiting)

I’m an engineer, but I also have an MBA and for this post I’ll be wearing that hat. I was seriously considering buying an actual hat with “MBA” printed on it, but some good people talked me out of it, so unfortunately it’s a metaphorical hat instead of a real one.

我是工程师，但我也有MBA，在这篇文章中，我会戴上那顶帽子。 我当时正在认真考虑购买一顶印有“ MBA”字样的帽子，但有些好人拒绝了我，所以不幸的是，这只是一个隐喻性的帽子，而不是真正的帽子。

I often see engineers complain about recruitment processes: They are long, they seem totally irrelevant to the job, everything is stupid. We just don’t get it. Unfortunately, we’re probably right — some employers don’t have any idea what they’re doing, but does it really have to be that way?

我经常看到工程师抱怨招聘过程：他们很长，与工作完全无关，一切都是愚蠢的。 我们只是不明白。 不幸的是，我们可能是对的-有些雇主不知道自己在做什么，但是真的必须那样吗？

One of the very best courses I took during my MBA was a course about recruitment processes and the research behind them. It left a lasting impression on me and affected my perspective on recruitment processes when I was hiring and as a candidate. When I hear these rants, I often try to explain the rational behind a good hiring process, and I think this is insight which can be useful for engineers and recruiters, which is why I’m writing this post.

我在MBA期间修读的最好的课程之一是有关招聘过程及其背后研究的课程。 它给我留下了持久的印象，并影响了我在招聘和应聘时对招聘流程的看法。 当我听到这些咆哮时，我经常尝试解释良好招聘流程背后的原因，并且我认为这是对工程师和招聘人员有用的见解，这就是为什么我写这篇文章。

招聘很难。 错误是昂贵的。 我们不知道我们在做什么。 (Hiring is hard. Mistakes are expensive. We have no idea what we’re doing.)

Of course we are excellent at it. It’s always someone else who has no idea what they’re doing.

当然， 我们很擅长。 总是别人不知道自己在做什么。

所以，我们能做些什么？ (So, What Can We Do?)

First, let’s look at some common tools you have at your disposal, describe them and check how good they actually are, based on the latest academic research in the field:

首先，基于该领域的最新学术研究，让我们看看您可以使用的一些常用工具，对其进行描述并检查它们的实际效果如何：

The validity numbers given here are “predictive validity”. This means that the validity of the result on a specific test is the correlation with success on the job. A 0 validity score means there is no correlation and the test is worthless (you might as well toss a coin), 1 would mean the test perfectly predicts success on the job.

此处给出的有效性数字是“预测有效性”。 这意味着特定测试结果的有效性与工作成功与否相关。 有效性得分为0意味着没有关联，并且测试是毫无价值的(您不妨掷硬币)，1意味着测试可以完美地预测工作的成功。

Intelligence Tests: IQ tests, SATs etc. Validity: 0.51Even if you don’t ask for the scores on these tests directly, you usually try to get them by proxy by checking the school they went to and their GPA. I know this seems unfair to many candidates who are excellent engineers even though they didn’t do very well at higher education (or didn’t go at all, i.e. bootcamps etc.) but it is a quick and cheap way of getting through a lot of CVs.

智力测验：智商测验，SAT测验等。 有效性： 0.51即使您不直接要求这些测验的分数，您通常也会通过检查他们去的学校和他们的GPA尝试通过代理获得它们。 我知道这对许多优秀工程师来说似乎是不公平的，尽管他们在高等教育方面表现不佳(或根本没有参加过，例如训练营等)，但这是一种快速而廉价的方式很多简历。

Work Sample Tests: Requires you complete a task related directly to the job. Validity: 0.54When done well and at home, this saves time for everyone . It also allows the candidate to display their best work with a minimal amount of pressure. However, the time it takes is often underestimated, and if it’s done at home candidates may “miss” something and get stuck without answers, while potential employers are missing valuable signals.

工作样本测试 ：要求您完成与工作直接相关的任务。 有效性： 0.54如果在家中做得好，这可以为每个人节省时间。 它还可以使候选人以最小的压力展示自己的最佳作品。 但是，所花费的时间通常被低估了，如果在家完成，候选人可能会“遗漏”某些东西而陷入困境，而没有答案，而潜在的雇主却错过了有价值的信号。

I’ve seen many engineers who seem to think that work samples are THE BEST AND ONLY way to really show their worth. For the life of me, I don’t get it. Many work sample tests are just a way for the employer to get you to put in time with close to no cost for them. As a candidate I really don’t see how they’re better than a coding interview — the task is either just as synthetic and unrepresentative of the actual work, or too complicated and time consuming.

我见过许多工程师，他们似乎认为工作样本是真正显示其价值的最好且唯一的方法。 对于我的一生，我一无所知。 许多工作样本测试只是雇主让您及时投入工作的一种方式，几乎不需要花任何费用。 作为候选人，我真的没有看到他们比编码面试更好的地方—任务要么是对实际工作的综合性和代表性不足，要么过于复杂且耗时。

Employment Interview: I’m sure I don’t have to explain what an interview is.Validity (Structured): 0.51Validity (Unstructured): 0.36Ah, we’re finally getting to something here. What’s the difference between a “structured” interview and an “unstructured” interview?Well, a structured interview has repeatable questions and clear and objective criteria for answers. An unstructured interview, ummm, doesn’t. Ultimately, an unstructured interview comes down to a “gut feeling” about the candidate. I’ve often felt thankful for having clear and objective criteria specified in advance, because it’s so easy to skew the interview result according to your first (entirely biased) impression of someone.

就业面试：我确定我不必解释什么是面试。 有效性(结构化)： 0.51 有效性(非结构化)： 0.36Ah，我们终于可以在这里找到了。 “结构化”访谈与“非结构化”访谈有何区别？那么，结构化访谈具有可重复的问题和明确而客观的答案标准。 嗯，非结构化的采访不是。 最终，无组织的面试归结为对候选人的“胆量”。 我经常为事先指定明确和客观的标准而感到感谢，因为根据您对某人的第一印象(完全有偏见)很容易歪曲面试结果。

Job Knowledge Tests: Direct questions on the subject matter. Validity: 0.48Usually this is carried out by giving the candidate a questionnaire asking them domain knowledge specific questions. Things like “How does web routing work in technology stack A”, “What would happen if you tried to assign this value to a string in technology stack B” etc.

工作知识测验：对主题的直接提问。 有效性： 0.48通常，这是通过向候选人提供问卷调查表来向他们询问领域知识特定问题来进行的。 诸如“ Web路由如何在技术堆栈A中工作”，“如果尝试将此值分配给技术堆栈B中的字符串会发生什么”之类的事情。

Not bad so far. Now I’m getting to the “good stuff”:

到目前为止还不错。 现在，我要介绍“好东西”：

Assessment Center: When you pay a whole lot of money to send candidates to spend their day doing group dynamics with a bunch of strangers.Validity: 0.37Can you tell I think these are stupid? And not only me, their validity is relatively low and their repeatability (i.e. getting the same score on repeat tests) is also extremely low. If you’re recruiting — don’t do this, please. If you’re a candidate and you have the privilege of refusing — just say no.

评估中心：当您花很多钱让候选人花一天的时间与一群陌生人一起做小组动态时。V失明率： 0.37您能告诉我我认为这些都是愚蠢的吗？ 不仅是我，它们的有效性相对较低，可重复性(即在重复测试中获得相同的分数)也非常低。 如果您正在招募-请不要这样做。 如果您是候选人，并且有拒绝的特权，请拒绝。

Reference Checks: Asking past employers about the candidate.Validity: 0.26I know many employers insist on reference checks. But their validity is not so great and they should be used with caution.

参考检查：向过去的雇主询问候选人。 有效性： 0.26我知道许多雇主坚持进行参考检查。 但是它们的有效性不是很高，应谨慎使用。

Graphology: Sending a writing sample to a hand writing ״specialist״ who can tell if you’re a good match for the job. Usually used for integrity testing.Validity: 0.02Graphology is NOT a good recruitment tool. DO NOT use it. Have I stressed that enough?

笔迹学：将写作样本发送给手写“专家”，他可以告诉您您是否胜任这份工作。 通常用于完整性测试。 有效性： 0.02图形学不是一个好的招聘工具。 不要使用它。 我有足够的压力吗？

编码面试 (The coding interview)

Even though I already know these statistics, it still hit me hard while writing this post: even the best tests have only 0.51–0.54 validity, and that is far from amazing. Is this best we can do? What can we do with the tools we have to get better results?

即使我已经知道了这些统计数据，但在撰写本文时仍然让我感到震惊：即使最好的测试也只有0.51-0.54的有效性，这远非令人惊讶。 这是我们能做到的最好的吗？ 我们需要什么工具才能取得更好的结果？

Enter the dreaded “coding interview”. Whether done on a whiteboard or an online editor, it allows employers to pack a work sample, structured interview, and job knowledge test into a single session. By giving many such coding interviews, conducted by several different people, you can achieve better results, improve reliability and reduce bias (“gut feeling”). That’s why recruitment processes are so long and exhausting (for everyone involved).

输入可怕的“编码采访”。 无论是在白板上还是在线编辑器上，它都可以使雇主将工作样本，结构化面试和职业知识测验打包到一个会话中。 通过由多个不同的人进行许多这样的编码采访，您可以获得更好的结果，提高可靠性并减少偏差(“直觉”)。 这就是为什么招聘过程如此漫长且令人疲惫的原因(对于每个参与人员)。

I know I don’t have you convinced yet, but I’ll talk a bit more about how to assess the quality of this process later on.

我知道我还没有说服您，但是稍后我将再谈一些有关如何评估此过程质量的问题。

Ok then, let’s see how it’s done.

好吧，让我们看看它是如何完成的。

这是个好问题吗？ (Is this a good question?)

You are given three containers.

您将获得三个容器。

• One box contains all white balls, one all black balls, and one a mix of black and white balls.
  一个盒子包含所有白色球，一个包含所有黑色球，一个包含黑色和白色球的混合物。
• Each box is labeled, but all the labels are wrong.
  每个框都有标签，但所有标签都错误。

How many balls would you need to pull out to determine which box is which?

您需要拉出多少个球才能确定哪个盒子是哪个？

这个如何？ (What about this one?)

The count-and-say sequence is the sequence of integers beginning as follows:

计数序列是从以下开始的整数序列：

1, 11, 21, 1211, 111221, ...

1, 11, 21, 1211, 111221, ...

1 is read off as one 1 or 11.

1被读为1或11。

11 is read off as two 1s or 21.

11被读出为两个1或21。

21 is read off as one 2, then one 1 or 1211.

21被读为1，然后读为1或1211。

Given an integer n, generate the nth sequence.

给定整数n，生成第n个序列。

还是这个问题？ (Or this question?)

Are you pregnant or are you planning to become pregnant in the next year?

您是否怀孕或打算在明年怀孕？

你错了。 (You’re wrong.)

It doesn’t matter if you answered “yes” or “no”.

您回答“是”还是“否”都没有关系。

Questions are neither good nor bad.

问题既不是好事也不是坏事。

Now, I’m not recommending asking someone if she is pregnant, because that’s illegal and usually quite irrelevant. But if the job is in a factory with dangerous chemicals and hard physical labor, that question might actually be an important question to ask!

现在，我不建议您询问某人是否怀孕，因为那是违法的，而且通常无关紧要。 但是，如果工作是在危险化学品和艰苦体力劳动的工厂中进行的，那么这个问题实际上可能是一个重要的问题！

Questions should be the last thing you do when you build your process.

在构建流程时，问题应该是您要做的最后一件事 。

首先，问正确的问题 (First, ask the right questions)

• What is the actual job definition?

  实际的工作定义是什么？

• Which technical skills does one need in order to perform the job well?

  一个人需要什么技能才能做好工作？

• Which soft skills and personality traits do you value as an organization?

  作为一个组织， 您重视哪些软技能和人格特质？

• How much time, effort and money are you willing to spend in order to find the right person?

  您愿意花费多少时间，精力和金钱来找到合适的人？

• How much time and effort will the candidate be willing to spend in order to pass your process?

  候选人愿意花费多少时间和精力来通过您的流程？

Only after you have the answers to these questions can you begin to create a concrete process. You can’t copy the answers to these questions from another organization. You have to figure them out for yourselves.

只有获得了这些问题的答案之后，您才能开始创建一个具体的过程。 您无法从其他组织复制这些问题的答案。 您必须自己弄清楚它们。

创建正确的流程 (Create the right process)

• Decide what your screening parameters are and screen ruthlessly. Do not waste your or your candidates’ time.
  确定您的筛选参数，然后进行无情的筛选。 不要浪费您或您的候选人的时间。
• Use structured interviews for technical and for soft skills interviews.
  使用结构化面试进行技术面试和软技能面试。

• If you feel the candidate will be willing and it saves you a lot of time an effort, you can also use a work sample.

  如果您认为应聘者愿意并且可以为您节省很多时间 ，您也可以使用工作样本。

• Call references and perform background checks only as needed.
  调用引用并仅在需要时执行后台检查。

测量，完善，重复 (Measure, refine, repeat)

Every time I mention the validity of some process or other I’m asked how the validity was measured. I’ve actually read the articles and I can tell you the methods they used, but to be honest — it doesn’t really matter. What matters is what works for your organization. You may find that the “coding interview” doesn’t match your values or doesn’t give you the signals you need to decide who to hire. You may find your candidates love doing long work samples in the office and it allows you to get to know them better.

每当我提及某个过程或其他过程的有效性时，都会问我如何衡量有效性。 我实际上已经阅读了这些文章，并且可以告诉您它们所使用的方法，但是老实说-没什么关系。 重要的是对您的组织有效。 您可能会发现“编码面试”与您的价值观不符，或者没有给您发出决定雇用谁的信号。 您可能会发现候选人喜欢在办公室里做长时间的工作样本，这使您可以更好地了解他们。

The point is that once you have your process in place, you must make sure it is working!

关键是，一旦建立了适当的流程，就必须确保其正常运行！

• How many candidates who passed your initial screening made it through the interview process?
  有多少位通过您初选的候选人通过了面试过程？
• How many candidates who passed the entire process accepted the offer?
  有多少名通过整个过程的候选人接受了邀请？
• How long do employees stay with you?
  员工与您呆多久？
• How are their performance reviews?
  他们的表现如何评价？

Gather your data and refine your process accordingly. This is a continuous challenge!

收集数据并相应地优化流程。 这是一个持续的挑战！

避免偏见 (Avoiding bias)

Now you’ve built a process and have statistics on the candidates hired. How can you make sure you’re not testing for “rich white male” instead of “good programmer”? How do you verify you’re not hiring “people like us” instead of checking actual “culture fit”?

现在，您已经建立了一个流程，并具有有关所雇用候选人的统计信息。 您如何确定不测试“有钱的白人男性”而不是“好程序员”？ 您如何验证您不是在雇用“像我们这样的人”，而不是检查实际的“文化契合度”？

My personal pet peeve is open source contribution or other “after hour” projects as a requirement. If you’re an excellent programmer but have other hobbies, or if you god forbid have a family and actually want to spend time with them — that’s it, you’re out. That, to me, is an example of screening on irrelevant traits.

我个人的忌讳是“后一小时”项目的要求开放源代码的贡献或其他。 如果您是一个优秀的程序员，但又有其他爱好，或者如果您禁止拥有一个家庭，而实际上却想与他们共度时光–就是这样，那就出门了。 对我来说，这是筛选不相关特征的一个例子。

Unfortunately, some common quick fixes don’t seem to work. Implicit bias training doesn’t (usually) affect outcomes, it often makes things worse. Diverse interviewers do not necessarily make less biased decisions either, as they often show the same biases as anyone else.

不幸的是，一些常见的快速修复似乎无效。 隐性偏见训练通常不会影响结果，但通常会使情况变得更糟。 多样化的访问者也不一定会减少偏见，因为他们经常会表现出与其他任何人相同的偏见。

You should remember that this is an entirely subconscious effect — you don’t have to be overtly racist or a bad person to be biased. It’s a natural part of how our brain works, so it’s up to the process to help us fight our biases actively.

您应该记住，这完全是潜意识的作用-您不必公开地种族主义或坏人来偏见。 这是我们大脑运作方式的自然组成部分，因此这取决于帮助我们积极克服偏见的过程。

The best way to tackle this issue is to add diversity measures and use the “measure, refine, repeat” cycle to check how you’re doing.

解决此问题的最佳方法是添加多样性度量，并使用“度量，细化，重复”循环来检查您的工作状况。

If you measure diversity and refine your process accordingly — you’re going to find where the problems are and take appropriate actions. If it’s a real pipeline issue — read Moran Weber’s excellent article. If it’s not really a pipeline issue, look at how you treat diverse CVs, how well they pass your process, how often they accept your offers, etc.

如果您测量多样性并相应地优化流程，您将找到问题所在并采取适当的措施。 如果是真正的管道问题，请阅读Moran Weber的精彩文章 。 如果这不是真正的管道问题，请查看您如何对待各种简历，他们通过您的流程的程度，接受您的报价的频率等。

除了：诚信 (Aside: Integrity)

This is a bit off topic, but it’s just too good to skip. You could skip it anyway, I won’t hold it against you.

这有点不合时宜，但是跳过实在太好了。 您仍然可以跳过它，我不会反对您。

I mentioned graphology as a bit of a joke, it’s validity is so low that it’s an absolute waste of money. So why do some employers still use it? You’d be surprised: to some of them it’s a way for someone else to decide what they feel they can’t! But some of them actually believe it’s accurate, how can that be?

我提到笔迹学只是一个玩笑，它的有效性很低，以至于绝对浪费钱。 那么为什么有些雇主仍然使用它呢？ 您会感到惊讶：对于其中一些人，这是其他人决定他们认为自己做不到的一种方式！ 但是其中一些人实际上认为这是正确的，那怎么可能呢？

Let me tell you a story: When I was taking this course, during one of the classes we were asked to give a writing sample. When the next class started, we each got a graphological assessment of our personality and were asked to rate how accurate it was. Most of the class graded it 4 or 5 for accuracy. Turns out we all got the same analysis… How could we be fooled like that?

让我告诉你一个故事：当我上这门课程时，在一堂课中，我们被要求提供写作样本。 当下一堂课开始时，我们每个人都对自己的性格进行了笔迹学评估，并被要求评估其准确性。 大多数班级的学生将其评分为4或5。 事实证明，我们所有人都得到了相同的分析……我们如何被这样愚弄？

This is called the Barnum effect, and basically what it means is that when we read a generic text like astrology or graphology, we will believe the parts that are true and dismiss/forget the parts that are wrong! The final impression we’re left with is that the text was very accurate.

这就是所谓的巴纳姆效应 ( Barnum effect) ，基本上意味着当我们阅读占星术或笔迹学之类的通用文字时，我们将相信真实的部分而忽略/遗忘错误的部分！ 我们留下的最后印象是文本非常准确。

Turns out the best way to measure integrity is by asking directly! There are pen & paper tests with a series of questions about integrity. The irony is that dishonest people believe they are normal people in a dishonest world, so they have no problem telling the truth! They will say “sure, I take boxes of pens home with me” or “why shouldn’t I lie about being sick?”, and expose themselves as less than worthy of trust.

事实证明，衡量诚信的最佳方法是直接询问！ 有笔和纸测试，其中包含有关完整性的一系列问题。 具有讽刺意味的是，不诚实的人认为自己是不诚实世界中的正常人，所以他们说实话毫无问题！ 他们会说“确定，我把笔盒带回家”或“我为什么不为生病撒谎？”，并把自己暴露得不值得信任。

If you are recruiting, I hope this gave you some insight into how to build a good process. If you’re a candidate, I hope this helped you understand what’s broken in recruiting and what actually works. For me — I’ll finally have a ready made answer for all the frustrated candidates out there. Good luck!

如果您正在招聘，我希望这能使您对如何建立一个良好的流程有一些见识。 如果您是应聘者，我希望这可以帮助您了解招聘工作中遇到的障碍以及切实可行的方法。 对我来说-我将最终为所有沮丧的候选人提供一个现成的答案。 祝好运！

翻译自: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/hiring-right-an-engineers-perspective-on-tech-recruiting-7ee187ded22d/

以考代评职称需要聘任嘛