I wonder if there is any solid data on how hiring practices relate to candidate/team/company performance.
Is any of this better then randomly selecting? Do we even know if there is a skill set that is optimal, or if multiple complementary skill sets work best? Do we know what they look like, how to select for them? Or are we all just filtering for whatever collective definition of cleverness people involved in a given set of interviewing and hiring tasks prefer?
I suspect on average it's better to filter out good candidates than filter in bad ones so as long as a selection process skews towards eliminating most candidates probabilities will have most teams covered on that front. Of course this only works when salaries in programming are rising faster then the rest of the labor market, attracting a growing cohort each fiscal cycle.
Is any of this better then randomly selecting? Do we even know if there is a skill set that is optimal, or if multiple complementary skill sets work best? Do we know what they look like, how to select for them? Or are we all just filtering for whatever collective definition of cleverness people involved in a given set of interviewing and hiring tasks prefer?
I suspect on average it's better to filter out good candidates than filter in bad ones so as long as a selection process skews towards eliminating most candidates probabilities will have most teams covered on that front. Of course this only works when salaries in programming are rising faster then the rest of the labor market, attracting a growing cohort each fiscal cycle.