[twic]

If the best you can do is to set a trivial programming problem, then indeed, that is deeply unimpressive.

Happily, that is not what the article is suggesting, nor what anyone actually does. The article gives three steps: first, a trivial programming problem, second, a challenging programming problem (here delivered as homework), and thirdly, a face-to-face interview to check cultural fit.

The purpose of the trivial problem, as explained in the article, and explained by anyone else who has ever advocated this approach, is simply to weed out people who just cannot code at all, and to do that early and cheaply.

My current employer uses a trivial programming problem like this as an early screen (it comes after our recruitment guy has read their CV, but before we put them on the phone with a developer). Therefore, i, and many of my colleagues, are experienced developers who have been given a trivial programming problem to solve. It did not any of us a message which put us off the company. I have not heard of anyone being asked to do this test and losing interest in working for us as a consequence. On the contrary, i was pleased when i was given the problem as an initial screen, because it told me that the company was serious about hiring people who can actually code, which puts them head and shoulders above many employers!

[VLM]

> check cultural fit.

I see lots of references to "culture" in hiring comments, so I'm not trying to call you specifically out, but what does it mean? It always bristles me, like if your criteria is "white men only need apply" well just outright say it, don't tiptoe around it. As a suggestion to anyone on HN who does hiring, if for example you're not going to hire my wife because of her ethnicity or because she's a woman, just put it in the job ad and save everyone involved a lot of time and tiptoeing around "culture".

[twic]

"Culture" is a bullshit nonspecific term and i apologise for using it. It's a word the article used, and i was trying to stick to its language.

For us, it just means "will we be productive and happy spending the working day with this person?". Somebody could be a great programmer, but might not be someone you're going to get on with. They could be too quiet, too loud, too aggressive, too passive, too arrogant, too sensitive, too confident, too insecure, strangely obsessed with tubs of jelly, etc. Great programming skill is a great resource, but if a programmer can't get on with their colleagues, that resource cannot be exploited.

We would not rule you or your wife out on grounds of gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, university, taste in literature, or the state of your lawn. If you for some reason wanted a job with us, and passed our technical tests, then all we would want to know would be that you could sit down and be an effective pair in programming, and stand up and be an effective participant in a discussion. Ideally, we would also like you to be good company at lunch or in the pub, but that's not essential.

[7Figures2Commas]

> They could be too quiet, too loud, too aggressive, too passive, too arrogant, too sensitive, too confident, too insecure, strangely obsessed with tubs of jelly, etc.

How about too picky? Hint hint.

> We would not rule you or your wife out on grounds of gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, university, taste in literature, or the state of your lawn. If you for some reason wanted a job with us...

How generous of you!

The language one chooses to use can reveal a lot about one's thinking and here, "rule you or your wife out" and "for some reason" is, I would argue, very telling.

[twic]

Yeah, i don't think we've ever had a problem with anyone being too picky.

[VLM]

Sounds like the word you (and many other hiring people) are looking for is "Professional" which pretty much meets all your requirements without borrowing an unrelated word. There is a strange aversion to it industry wide. Unclear why. My guess is some peculiarity in .gov regulation WRT overtime pay or maybe contractor status.

[mdkess]

Imagine hiring a manager who expected their reports to be in at 9am sharp, when the current company culture is to work whatever hours people want. Or someone who very strongly preferred a more methodological approach to development to a "ship fast and break things" approach in a company that values the latter. Or someone who wanted five weeks of vacation in a bootstrapping company where everyone was working 60 hour weeks (even if they were willing to accept less). Or someone who wanted 60 hour weeks in a company with a core value of work life balance.

In no case is the person wrong in what they want, but it might not fit in with the current culture, which can be bad for everyone involved.

That said - I agree that this can manifest itself as a never never land (the culture is drink till 4am on weekdays!), but I do still think that it is an important aspect of any organization, and properly applied can be beneficial.

[VLM]

LOL don't take it personally, but that is completely wrong.

Culture is not issued at your previous employer along with the company policies handbook, id card, and a dress code.

Culture is what you are, not how your immediately previous employer temporarily defined you while at work. My culture is I'm a northern European descended male living in USA, for my whole life I've been whats now called a "maker" for decades before being a maker was cool, religiously unaligned with any particular deity and live and let live with everyone else's imaginary man in the sky (and why is it always a "man in the sky" anyway?), educated in the classical "great books of western civ" sense, and my tastes in entertainment are vaguely European in outlook for example sex is great fun but violence is sick (I'm not a big fan of hollywood gorefest movies). And being a mostly German descended guy I have a pretty tidy front lawn in front of my house, that stereotype is often true.

Culture is not "$current_employer tolerates flextime so I could never work in the future anywhere else that doesn't have flextime because all human beings are permanently inflexible, oh wait, actually I've never worked the same schedule at two difference consecutive jobs so I guess it doesn't matter anyway"

Everyone knows 60 hour weeks means reduced productivity compared to 40 hour weeks, so I can slack off if I have to, to fit in with the other burned out sleep deprived zombies, but rest assured I'm only going to work like a demon for 40 hours and then surf the net for 20 because you get there the fastest by going slow.

[gregors]

I read it as "people from Standford aged 19-26"

[VLM]

See that's what causes frustration about "culture BS". OK fine it means you won't hire my wife because of ethnic reasons and gender reasons. Or wait, does it really mean you won't hire me because I'm a perfectly good white Germanic guy but I didn't go to Stanford. Or WRT not hiring my wife, does it mean my daughter need not apply because of her gender is still a cultural mismatch, her being a girl and all that, or is it enough of a cultural match that her dad is a pasty white germanic dude so it could be worth her time to apply?

Its somewhat frustrating that "what defines a good developer" to a boss might be being a white male brogrammer from Stanford. But whats even worse is the uncertainty of not understanding what the criteria even is. Is it only whites need apply, or only men need apply, or both, or neither? That is what makes it even more aggravating. Its not 1950 anymore boys, its a multicultural world, so demanding a certain culture/demographic fit is going to result in epic fail if any competitor is smart enough to (gasp!) hire women or people of color or dare I suggest it, non Stanford grads.

Startups and people who hire should realize that they're turning off good applicants when they start talking about "culture" because people of color are going to assume you mean white people only, women are going to assume you mean hire men only, etc. As a business decision its just a bad move.

[penrod]

If a company doesn't want to hire me (or my wife or my daughters) because I'm not a Stanford grad from the right demographic, that's absolutely fine because I don't want to work for a company run by idiots.

In fact, the louder and more explicit they are about their dumbass culture the better, because it makes it easier for me to avoid wasting my time with them.

[Killswitch]

I outright ignore any job postings talking about "cultural fit"