[Hovertruck]

This analogy is backwards... Hiring a programmer is an exchange of company money (or equity, benefits, etc) for a service (programming skills). Renting a car is an exchange of one's own money for a service (use of the car).

In this case, the person renting the car would be "interviewing" the car rental company to determine if their service is worth their money.

[arscan]

>> In this case, the person renting the car would be "interviewing" the car rental company to determine if their service is worth their money.

It goes both ways... the rental car agency interviews the person to make sure she is trustworthy of driving the car. The author is asking you to think about the relationship a little more abstractly than simply who is giving money to whom.

Having said, that, I think this is a poor analogy because I don't find it particularly illuminating and the situations just don't seem very... analogous.

[bentcorner]

Something like "if interviewing carpenters was like interviewing programmers" would work, with various questions regarding trivia about the Mightyman Bansaw 3000, specific experience using square-faced carbon tipped reverse-threaded screws and comparisons between building red versus white cabinets.

[Jtsummers]

http://www.jasonbock.net/jb/Default.aspx?blog=entry.7c334037...

If Carpenters Were Hired Like Programmers

[narrator]

That, and cars are interchangeable standardized goods. Programmers vary widely in ability. The process's closest analogy is buying a home. You want to take a walk through, compare multiple properties, get an inspection report, have everything tidy legal-wise, etc.

[loahou04]

true but i would hope we all know what hes getting at. And by the way its hilarious because anyone who has been a contractor and gone through a staffing firm knows EXACTLY that same situation

[dlss]

Maybe this is me having spent too much time thinking about econ, but I don't get why the analogy is backwards here. What is special about the person spending money? A car rental company is filling a large number of slots, and the renter would like to fill one. Why is that not as natural an analogy point for you?

Instead of "whoever is giving up money should do the due diligence," I would suggest you consider "both sides should do increasing due diligence as the importance of a decision increases."

From this perspective, the article is pointing out the dumbness of some due diligence methods currently being used at software companies.

[dgreensp]

Because car rental companies exist to provide a service to the people who walk into them, so we walk in expecting to be served, providing we can pay. It's a simple transaction; they get money, you get use of a car. Everyone is happy. If they start giving you the third degree, you'll be inclined to respond, "Geez, do they want my money or not?".

To walk into a job interview with the same expectation of being "served" is ridiculous. It's true that if they're smart, they will try to entice you and provide a nice experience, but primarily they are trying to decide whether to spend large amounts of time and money on you versus someone else. Most companies are not in the business of quickly and efficiently hiring as many people off the street as possible. You can be flustered by an interviewer's poor technique, but don't be impatient to receive the job offer you feel entitled to.

[kaliblack]

The analogy is backwards if it is a direct hire by the company. The article used an agency, which gets money from the hiring company for placing the candidate. If you look it at like that then the programmer is the car and the hiring company is the driver.

[werner34]

Thanks, exactly what I thought when I read the article.