[andrewstuart]

I am both a recruiter and a highly experienced developer and software designer.

I once sent one of the very best programmers I know for a job interview.

I have met a small handful of outstanding programmers in my > 30 years in IT and this guy was in the top five, near the top.

I had personally worked directly with him for 5 years and he was unquestionably one of the most talented programmers there is, and a nice guy, easy to get along with and great to work with. Incredibly productive, and capable of the most incredible feats of software development.

The client interviewed him and said ....... no thanks.

There you go - I have just explained everything you need to know about technical recruiting. Give it some thought - the more you think about it, the more it reveals the deepest truth about YOU and your software hiring processes.

NO-ONE - no-one ever thinks they make the wrong call when they reject a candidate - including you.

If you want to know what happened after that - I called the CEO who I knew quite well and essentially said to him "What the fuck are you doing? I sent you one of the best programmers there is - and I know this from first hand personal experience over five years - and your interviewers rejected him?". They employed him because of that and he became their chief technical architect pretty quickly.

[mattrp]

I’ve seen this so many times as well where candidates under sell themselves or key accomplishments never get brought up. Even Elon Musk in the most recent Autonomy day had to say to Karparthy “introduce yourself and don’t be bashful.” Even then, I’ve noticed, I’ve noticed that people don’t “hear” things until a second or third conversation. The idea that you can absolutely hear everything a candidate has to say in 60 minutes is just unreasonable. At the same time, I think you did the right thing: you helped your client make a better decision but not letting them rely on a first look exclusively.

[andrewstuart]

You assume that the reason the guy did not get the job is that candidate undersold themselves.

It is mostly the responsibility of the technical interviewers to determine if the candidate is suitable.

[rsyring]

> NO-ONE - no-one ever thinks they make the wrong call when they reject a candidate - including you.

At least for me, a "no hire" does't mean that I'm convinced the developer wouldn't be a good fit. In fact, I'm pretty sure my team is likely passing on some good developers that just don't look that way given the limited time and options we have to evaluate their skills and overall "fit."

But, we try to follow Joel Spolsky's suggestion of turning any "maybe" into a "no", so this reality is an accepted trade-off in the model that informs how we hire.

[apple4ever]

> NO-ONE - no-one ever thinks they make the wrong call when they reject a candidate - including you.

I disagree. Maybe not immediately, but I’ve definitely picked the wrong candidate when I had two other better candidates in hindsight.

[ramblerman]

This is all pretty hyperbolic. And NO-ONE applies to you too, you are vested in the belief your candidate is a genius, especially when you pulled strings to get him in.

As long as you are thinking in absolute truths, you are missing the point imo. There is a set of good candidates for a given moment, and context, and the idea is to increase the percentage picked from that pool. The cost of missing someone from the good pool is also far smaller than picking a bad candidate.

Anecdotes of rock stars, and 10x programmers just further muddy the waters. Because those guys are the 0.1% and will be fine either way.

[danieltillett]

Why did they reject him the first time around?

As a recruiter what percentage of the time are you throwing candidates at jobs to see what sticks?

[andrewstuart]

>> Why did they reject him the first time around?

Because most people do a really bad job at technical interviewing and selection - there's so much to say about why it would take a book to explain it all. BUT importantly - everyone thinks they do a great job at interviewing and selection.

>> As a recruiter what percentage of the time are you throwing candidates at jobs to see what sticks?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it saying "recruiters send any old person for a job in the random hope they might get it, how often do you do that?".

I don't do that.

I try to find the right person for the job, I look for people who are smart and get stuff done and I send people who I think are going to contribute something meaningful to a company. I use my technical expertise to try to understand the candidates level of technical experience, and I articulate the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate to the employer.

[danieltillett]

Thanks for answering. I guess I was asking what was it about this super candidate that they miss or got wrong?

I have been on the receiving end of a lot of bad recruiters. I have found that my needs were ignored and anyone who could fog a mirror was thrown my way has made me somewhat cynical of recruiters. If you are doing the right thing then this is fantastic. I wish people like you weren’t so rare.

[Balgair]

In your opinion, do you think that the hiring manager rejected the applicant because that hiring manager thought the applicant was too good? As in, that the applicant was a possible threat in the company hierarchy to the hiring manager?

Asking because I've seen that one play out a fair few times.

[andrewstuart]

>> In your opinion, do you think that the hiring manager rejected the applicant because that hiring manager thought the applicant was too good?

Not in this case, but I definitely think you are correct, that some people don't want to hire someone who might be smarter than them and therefore be a threat to their position in the hierarchy/sense of belonging/job security.

[otabdeveloper2]

Sounds like this guy was overqualified for the position. (Probably asked too much money, too.)

The fact that the candidate went on to a non-programming position confirms.

In any case, it was the strings you pulled that let the guy get promoted.

[andrewstuart]

All your conclusions are wrong.

He wasn't asking too much money.

He wasn't overqualified.

He took the job and did programming.

Why you assume lead architect means not programming is not something I know.

I didn't pull strings to get him promoted.

But all your conclusions illustrate why technical recruiting is so broken - no-one ever has any problem justifying outcomes after the fact and making up stories to match their own reality.