So a little more on the interview. I've got a laptop setup with eclipse, all rigged up with an integration test and filled out function signatures. I show the interviewee what to press to compile, and the subsequent failing tests. The code builds in it's initial state, but the tests fail. I also show them on the desktop that the original source is squirreled away in case they fat finger and erase everything (I've totally done that too, lol. Source control is a beautiful thing in the real world). Then I peace out for a few minutes to give them space (I know I'm close to an order of magnitude worse at typing when someone is looking over my shoulder).
Given the negative response we've had in the past about take home assignments for senior devs (their time is pretty valuable, so I try spend the same time they do), I'm not sure what else to do to accommodate.
It's not entirely obsession/neurosis either. Several of those things are valid training/familiarity needs and/or safety/ergonomics/self-care needs.
For instance, I nearly avoided very early carpal tunnel issues in graduate school by entirely relearning to touch-type on the Colemak keyboard layout. Sure it only takes a few minutes to switch to the layout on Linux and macOS these days, when I remember where the keyboard preferences are, but it still takes Administrator access and a software install in Windows.
Even "easy", that's still a cognitive load distracting from whatever the actual question was and starting into the actual problem. More importantly, at this point in my career, it's something that I'm going to see this as an immediate sign that employee ergonomics may not be a concern for the person giving such a test, which may speak to other aspects of the work environment.
Todd, is that you? Sounds a lot like the process used by someone I worked with years ago.
It sounds to me like you’ve done some careful thinking about this, and it doesn’t sound unreasonable. One of my beefs really gets down to the interview process turning into a one-way grilling, dehumanizing the candidate into a “code monkey.” It sounds to me like you are trying really hard to evaluate their technical skills, but in a way that is collaborative.
> dehumanizing the candidate into a “code monkey.”
Bingo.
A hiring process that attempts to convert the multidimensionality of humans to a handful of numeric variables is essentially trying to hire the best drone out there, not the best human fit for the job.
I learn more about candidates from the types of questions they ask me, and their reply to open-ended questions I ask them, than from any technical grilling test.
A dev manager I work with insists that one of the best indicators, along with all the usual things you try to suss out about a software development candidate is whether or not he does any software development in his spare time. Not everyone who's good does, but there's a good correlation between people who would be good at writing software, and people who do it for fun.
So I would take writing software for fun as a plus, but would not take not writing software for fun as a minus.
Pair. I do this. I drive, with my machine, on my setup that I'm comfortable with. They navigate, and tell me what to do.
This gives me a pretty deep insight into how they approach a problem, but also how they interact with others. There's no adversarial element, and it gives them the chance to see me screw up to give them the mental space not to sorry about stupid errors.
The one worry I have about this is that it's more vulnerable to my own biases than a more disinterested process would be, but if I'm consciously aware of how that can play out, I'm in a better place to counter them.
I find trying to describe what I want another person on a computer to do an incredibly frustrating experience. I can't imagine how awful it would be under interview conditions!
Given the negative response we've had in the past about take home assignments for senior devs (their time is pretty valuable, so I try spend the same time they do), I'm not sure what else to do to accommodate.