[jldl805]

I don't recruit new grads so it would never happen. Similar to OP's post, it's almost always a situation where it's painfully obvious to everyone else involved why the person isn't getting hired, but it would be awkward or a waste of time to try to tell the person.

It's also virtually always social skill related... if you weren't up to the task technically, you wouldn't have been asked to interview. The in person interview is normally to decide "do I want to see this person 40+ hours a week for the next 5 years" rather than "can they do the job."

Lots of exceptions obviously but mostly true across the board.

[macksd]

For what it's worth, that's definitely not my experience. I've interviewed or phone-screened at least 200 people over the last few years, and yes, there's been a handful of rejections where the major concern was social skills: abrasive, over-confident, poor communication or lacking the appearance of motivation. But I've had far more people who simply couldn't perform well enough on the technical problem or who had obviously over-stated their qualifications and knowledge on their resume. I actually distinctly remember several interviews lately where I really liked the candidate as a person and had a very enjoyable chat with them, but I just didn't think they would do the job well.

There are a lot of flaws in the way interviews are done in our industry that make it more subjective than it should be, but I still wouldn't consider the latter set of problems to be social skill related.

[jldl805]

The only thing this tells me is you have an error in your hiring process that is leading you to interviewing people in person that cannot do the job. This should never happen.

[macksd]

Do you know of a way to screen out people who inflate their expertise on a resume or who fail to demonstrate competency in those areas during an interview, without actually interviewing them? Because if you do I'd love to hear it. But I thought that was the point of interviewing them. I don't expect recruiters and HR people who focus exclusively on hiring to have more than a shallow knowledge of what we're hiring for. I definitely don't encounter those more qualified to evaluate qualifications on LinkedIn, that's for sure. And LeetCode isn't nearly that good at eliminating crappy candidates. Plenty of people do it and then seem to lack those same skills when they show up.

That's why we have discussions like this: https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/.

If validating their technical qualifications is not the point of the interview, are you really only interviewing candidates to see if people like their social skills? That sounds legally shady for most cases, and honestly for extreme cases where there's a valid concern that IS the kind of thing I'd expect to be filtered out by an introductory call with a manager or something.

[jldl805]

Yes you interview them over the phone in an initial phone screen before you invite them in for an in person interview.

The phone screen should cover lots of technical areas with deep follow up questions and examples.

I work in a specific niche (not coding) and can tell you that I bat .1000 on technical fit... cultural fit cannot be assessed until you meet the person and they meet the team, or at a minimum, hiring manager.

[macksd]

Sorry, but your whole comment history sounds like you believe you've 100% figured out problems everyone else seems to have but you're unable to share details beyond No-True-Scotsman arguments.

[inopinatus]

Nope, hiring processes should bias for type 1 (false positive) errors at ingress, and bias for type 2 (false negative) on the decision side.

Otherwise we miss interviewing people who can do the job, and in my experience, some of the most interesting people; but this means, one may sometimes be interviewing people that cannot do the job.

Since these are human-mediated processes, there is no accurate single-stage filter, and anyone claiming to operate an unbiased hiring process is either a fool or a liar. A hiring funnel (and really, any decision process) that recognises the inevitability of biases, and is phased accordingly, leads to more optimal outcomes.

[jldl805]

Either I'm doing a bad job communicating or you're doing a bad job understanding.

I'm not saying no human should be involved. I'm saying an excellent human should screen candidates in a phone (or Teams or Zoom or whatever) interview before they are invited to sit across from you at your desk or in a conference room.

If you find yourself sitting across from someone who cannot technically do the job, your step one has failed (and should never fail).

If you don't hire someone because their in-person interview didn't go well, it is social skill (or cultural fit) related.

If that's not the case, reference step one to see that you have an error in who you are inviting for in-person interviews (or your phone screener should not be the person phone screening).

[inopinatus]

Oh, no, you're communicating perfectly well, and there's no lack of comprehension; I'm simply saying this is flat-out wrong:

"If you find yourself sitting across from someone who cannot technically do the job, your step one has failed (and should never fail)."

The suggestion that any screening test must be infallible is simply nonsense, since simultaneous perfect specificity and sensitivity is impossible, and contradicts numerous findings in decision-theoretic research, and I therefore simply and absolutely disagree. All processes fail, and in particular, because individual process steps fail; it merely remains to determine whether you're biased for showing interesting people the door, or inviting them in to take a closer look. This is also the essence of a screening test in, say, medicine, that are necessarily biased to be sensitive over specific, since a false rejection of a patient may be health threatening; more specific (and generally more expensive) testing follows. Or perhaps in sales, where a lead attracts ever more attention as it moves through the qualification funnel.

As I say, these are general consequences of decision theory, a branch of mathematics to which hiring has no magical exemption.

Ergo, anyone claiming their screening is infallible is either a fool or a liar. Sadly, many recruiters are both, which partially explains why so many HR departments are essentially a mediocrity police that create barriers to accessing the entire talent pool. These are not to be trusted (and must, therefore, be bypassed at the earliest opportunity) when in comes to building teams of heterogeneous and interesting people with complementary skills and diverse perspectives, which is to say, any high-performance team, or at least every high-performing team I've been privileged to encounter in the last forty years.

Incidentally, my experience at AWS was the opposite. The talent acquisition team there, at least that assisting my own business unit, was very much on the ball when it came to pulling in candidates from left-field.