Evidence-Based Hiring

Zeljko Svedic
 License

This book is licensed under CC BY-ND (Creative Commons

Attribution-NoDerivatives) 4.0 license:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/legalco
de

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium

or format for any purpose, even commercially.

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a

link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You
may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way
that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the

material, you may not distribute the modified material.
 Contents
CHAPTER 1: The Failure of Traditional Employment
Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
My First Hire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Bell Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
“We Hire Only the Best” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
How Can We Fix Employment Screening? . . . 11
CHAPTER 2: The Current Model Doesn’t Work Be-
cause We’re All Biased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Screening by Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Proxies and Biases in Hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CHAPTER 3: Not All Methods Are Equal . . . . . . . . 21
Hiring Science Gone Wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Ultimate Measure: Predictive Validity . . . 24
Low Validity Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Medium Validity Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
High Validity Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The Multiple Methods Approach . . . . . . . . . . 27
CHAPTER 4: Reward vs Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Last Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Reward vs. Effort Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Why the Traditional Model Is Not Efficient . . . 30
Ways to Reduce Effort & Increase Reward . . . 32
CHAPTER 5: Maximizing the Reward: How to Ask
Good Questions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Great Questions Cheat Sheet: Bloom’s Taxon-
omy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Level 1: Remembering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Level 2: Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Level 3: Applying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Level 4: Analyzing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Level 5: Evaluating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Level 6: Creating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1
CHAPTER 6: The New Model in Detail . . . . . . . . . 53
Everything We’ve Learned: Validity, Reward
vs. Effort, Good Questions . . . . . . . . . 53
The Job Ad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
The Application Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Screening Résumés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Communicating With Candidates . . . . . . . . . 65
Detailed Screening Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Structured Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Probing Motivation and Character . . . . . . . . 72
Second Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Negotiating the Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Wrapping It Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
CHAPTER 7: We’re Not Done Yet: Continuous Im-
provement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
CHAPTER 8: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
BONUS CHAPTER: Screening Software Developers . 90
How Testing Platforms Work . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
One more thing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

2
 CHAPTER 1: The Failure of
Traditional Employment
Screening
The traditional hiring process is broken. It’s a throwback
to an industrial era hundreds of years ago, when we didn’t
have employment science and relied on our hunches in-
stead of data. If you’re reading this book, you probably
feel the same way.

Together, we’re going to change this! Hiring can be made

more accurate while requiring less time, resources, and
frustration from both employers and candidates. It can
be made more transparent, objective, and, perhaps some-
times, even enjoyable.

My First Hire
Many of us make the same mistakes when first hiring.
I remember posting my first job ad: I was proud, as it
was a sign that my little company was becoming serious.
Customers were loving my product and I needed a software
developer to help me out. It was obviously going to be the
first hire of the many thousands that would follow, putting
me on a path to me becoming the new Steve Jobs.

I had carefully crafted a job ad, put a paid listing on a local

job site, and went to sleep. The next morning, I jumped
out of bed in excitement, skipping across to my computer
pumped to see how many hundreds of the world’s most tal-
ented people had applied for my job. I did find résumés, not
hundreds but several from competent-looking candidates
and experts in multiple domains—databases to front-end,

3
XML to algorithms. They had more experience than me,
and they’d worked on cool projects at previous companies.
I started to expand my future company vision. Was I think-
ing too small? Maybe I could also do a hostile takeover of
Microsoft and Amazon?

As I had more than 20 applicants, I screened the top five

résumés. “I will hire only the best,” I said to myself, whilst
stroking my beard contemplatively. I invited those five for
an interview at the company “headquarters” (my apart-
ment on the fourth floor of an old building, without an
elevator).

If you have ever done a job interview for your company,

you probably know that it feels like a first date. There’s
the nerves, the desire to impress, and a looming sense of
the possibility that should things go well. Too nervous to
sit down, I kept myself busy vacuuming one last time—the
headquarters was spotless.

The first candidate arrived and I sat him down with a glass
of orange juice. We talked about his résumé and work
experience. I explained what the job was, he confirmed
that he was a very good fit for it. Great. We began talking
about IT in general. I enjoyed the conversation, so I didn’t
want to derail it by asking questions that may break the
rapport that we were developing. At the same time, a
nagging voice in my head told me that I needed to test the
candidate, not just chat with him.

After 45 minutes of chit-chat, I finally got the courage to

ask the candidate if we could do some specific screening
questions and he agreed. This is an awkward moment in
any interview, as you switch from a friendly conversation,
to an examination with you as the professor. I began with
questions related to the programming framework that the

4
job required. To my surprise, he clammed up, struggling to
answer even half the questions adequately. The interview
swerved off the rails, crashing into a ravine of my mis-
placed optimism and his bad bluffing. He was not qualified
for this job.

I should have ended the interview then. Somehow, I

couldn’t. Fifteen minutes later, I walked him out promis-
ing to “let him know if I was interested.” Disappointed, I
returned to HQ’s boardroom (my kitchen table). What a
disaster. We’d had such a nice chat in the beginning, too.

The next day, another candidate came to interview. I was

more confident this time, and shortened the chit-chat to
a mere thirty minutes. When I started asking prepared
screening questions, his answers were mostly okay. It
wasn’t clear if he didn’t understand some things, or merely
had trouble expressing them. He agreed that I could send
him a short coding test of basic programming skills. To my
surprise, the candidate’s solutions were completely wrong
and written in awful, amateurish code.

At least he tried to solve the test, though. The third can-

didate simply replied that he didn’t know how to solve
the tasks. The fourth candidate failed the basic screening
questions so badly that I didn’t even need to test him.

Just before the fifth candidate’s interview, he wrote that he

was no longer interested in the job. I sat in my freshly vac-
uumed headquarters, looking out the window and thinking
about what the hell was wrong with me. Why was I se-
lecting the wrong candidates? I’d picked five from twenty,
and they’d all been absolutely wrong for the position. Was
I just bad at noticing red flags in résumés? How would I
ever build a company? There had to be a better way to do
this. . .

5
 The Bell Curve
When I look back at those days, a decade ago, I can’t
help but break out into a smile. My simple mistakes are
funny in retrospect, because most first-time interviewers
make them. My biggest mistake was not understanding
the hiring bell curve.

While it is nice to think that everybody’s performance is

the same, it isn’t. If you recall math classes in school,
probably 20% of people were good at math, 60% got by,
and 20% couldn’t solve math problems without help. This
distribution is so common in nature that it is called a normal
distribution1 (also referred to as a bell curve), see the next
figure.

Normal distribution of performance for most skills.

Figure 1: Normal distribution of performance for most skills.

1Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

6
This distribution is used as a basis for scoring in every
school, country, and domain of knowledge. While you
would think that everybody who finishes medicine or
physics is equally good, as those professions attract top
performers, when you plot results of medicine or physics
students, you also get the bell curve. Yes, they know
much more about medicine or physics than the average
person, but, inside the domain, there are still enormous
differences between top and low performers.

Probably, you feel this about your profession too. When I

ask my friends who finished medicine, law, or architecture,
none of them have ever said, “Oh, all of us who finished
school X are equally good.” If all professionals in a do-
main look equally good to me, it’s a sure sign that I don’t
understand this area very well.

Even worse, the bell curve becomes more selective as

we move to knowledge-worker professions (lawyers, ac-
countants, managers, programmers, scientists, etc.), as
opposed to physical professions. A great dock worker might
be able to unload double the cargo of a bad worker, but
they can’t be five times better, because his performance
is limited—he’s still stuck with the same two arms and
two legs as everyone else. However, for knowledge work-
ers, their domain is their brain, and within their brain is
their particular combination of knowledge, competence,
motivation, and intellect. Have them apply this to tasks
where there are hundreds of possible solutions, you will
see the difference between individuals that can be several
orders of magnitude. The best programmer might have
the usable output of ten average hack coders. Lock one
hundred physics graduates into a room for a year, and they
won’t have achieved the output of a single Richard Feyn-
man. It’s not fair that achievements are not distributed

7
evenly among people or that we’re not all equal. But, this
inequality is a reality that academia and businesses must
accept.

When hiring knowledge workers, the goal is always to hire

from the top 10%. Unfortunately, the best performers
usually have good jobs already. They will rarely search
for a new position and are probably tapped up for new
jobs all the time. It’s often the case that they don’t even
have a résumé, they’ve simply never needed one. Bad
performers, however, will have plenty of time on the job
market applying for jobs and perfecting their résumés. So,
when you publicly post a job ad, most of the applicants
will be bad performers. It’s just math. If a great performer
finds a job in a month, while a bad performer takes five
month, the bad performer will likely apply to five times as
many jobs. In that simplified case, to hire someone in the
top 10%, you’d need to hire just 1-in-50 applicants!

“We Hire Only the Best”

Why does all this matter? Because of the top 10% fallacy:

The majority of companies say that they only hire

the top 10% of talent. But, if that was the case,
then 90% of people in any profession would be
unemployed.

Math tells us that most employed workers must have an

average performance, by definition. The logical conclusion
is that most companies are fooling themselves. Realizing
this can make you a little paranoid. If you interview a
candidate and they come out as knowledgeable and a hard
worker, why weren’t they hired by the rival companies that
also interviewed them? Why did their previous employer

8
let them go rather than offering them a pay raise to stay?
Hiring is a case of asymmetric information—the candidate
and their previous employers have much more information
than you can extract in a one-hour interview.

I did eventually get better at hiring, although it took a

lot of effort and testing. Several times, I’d proudly imple-
ment a new hiring process that I was sure would find a
ten-percenter. Then, I’d attend a professional conference
where, in the break, we’d start talking about our hiring
procedures. “We filter out 80% of people based on the
résumé,” one said, and everybody nodded in agreement.
“But, then, a phone call with a candidate, with a few quick
questions, will eliminate another 50%,” said someone else,
to another round of nods. “The onsite interview is the most
important part,” the conversation continued, “we spend
more than 90 minutes discussing previous jobs, education,
and motivation and asking specific questions that prove
their knowledge. This is how you hire the top talent.” We
did a bit more nodding. I was terrified. If we were all doing
exactly the same thing, then none of us would get the top
talent.

There is a joke about two people running away from a bear.

One person asks the other, “Why are we running? The
bear is faster than both of us!” His running partner replies,
“Well, I don’t need to be faster than the bear. I just need to
be faster than you!” A similar approach applies to hiring.
Illustratively speaking, if you want to hire the top 10%,
then you need to have a better hiring procedure than nine
other companies.

Hiring doesn’t get easier if you work in a big com-

pany—quite the contrary. If you have a great brand and
you can hire people from all over the world, then you will

9
have an insane number of applicants. In 2014, 3 million
people applied to Google2 , and only 1-in-428 of them were
hired. There is no way to screen a population which is
the size of Mongolia without resorting to some type of
automated screening. But, Google is still a small company.
If Walmart had a 1-in-100 selection criteria, they would
need to screen the entire working population of the US
and still find themselves 25 million people short3 . Before
I had experience in hiring, I would often get angry with
incompetent customer support representatives, delivery
staff, or salespeople. How could a company hire them
when they’re so incompetent? Now, I know better. I
imagine myself being a head of a department hiring 500
people in a new city—for a below-average salary. Large
enterprises hire on such a massive scale that they’re more
focused on screening out the bottom 20% than chasing
the hallowed top ten on the illusive far right of the bell
curve.

This might sound like a bad thing, but it’s not, as it means
a large majority of society can find employment. Hiring
knowledge workers is not hiring on a massive scale. You
can screen for the best and give them better benefits than
the competition. A great employee that delivers twice as
much is well worth a 50% higher salary.
2 Quartz article: https://qz.com/285001/heres-why-you-only-have-a-0-

2-chance-of-getting-hired-at-google/
3Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_States-

based_employers_globally

10
 How Can We Fix Employment
Screening?
For all the reasons discussed, the average hiring process
just doesn’t cut it. The following chapters will teach you a
new method called Evidence-Based Hiring. You will learn:

• The common errors that people make when screening

candidates.

• Ways to overcome our biases.

• The scientifically valid methods of screening.

• How to automate much of your screening process.

• The optimum position for a specific screening method

in the hiring pipeline.

• How to best communicate with candidates during the

process.

• The types of questions that you should ask to screen

high-caliber candidates.

• How to structure interviews.

• How to measure the efficiency of your entire hiring

process.

This book is focused specifically on everything which hap-

pens from the moment that you receive an application
to the moment that you hire a candidate. So, out of this
book’s scope are:

• Sourcing applications: where to put your ads to find

potential applicants.

• Employee branding: whether you should offer bean

bags, fruit baskets, and other creative ways to im-
prove the public perception of your company.

11
• Training and development: how to keep employees
skilled, happy, and motivated.

12
 CHAPTER 2: The Current
Model Doesn’t Work Because
We’re All Biased
Before we can fix what’s broken, we first need to under-
stand why it’s broken and who broke it.

Let’s talk about intelligence for a moment. Try this brain-

teaser:

A father and son are in a horrible car crash, which

kills the father. The son is rushed to the hospital.
Just as he’s about to go under the knife, the
surgeon says, “I can’t operate—this boy is my
son!”

How is this possible?

If you haven’t seen this puzzle, take no more than a minute

to try and solve it. The answer is on the next page. . .

13
The answer is simple: the surgeon is the boy’s mother.
Were you able to solve it, and how many seconds did it
take you to find the answer?

This is a classic question to test for gender bias. When we

imagine a surgeon, we tend to imagine a male surgeon.
Research from Boston University shows only 14% of stu-
dents are able to come up with the answer4 . Students
that identified as feminists were still only able to find the
solution 22% of the time.

You might think that you don’t have a gender or race bias,
but even people in an in-group can be biased against its
other members. Psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark
created “the doll tests”, where kids are given a choice of a
few dolls with different skin tones5 . African-American kids
overwhelmingly choose white dolls, as they “are prettier”
and “better.”

As adults, we can’t avoid our biases either. Whether on a

date or in an interview, the first thing that you notice is
the other person’s physical appearance. It’s regrettable,
but it’s human nature. We are not biased because we are
dumb or uneducated. We are biased because with a lack
of other information, we resort to stereotypes to make
a decision. That is usually intuitive and can’t be turned
off. If you think you can, I invite you not to think of a
polar bear. Ironic process theory states6 that deliberate
attempts to suppress certain thoughts make them more
likely to surface.
4 Boston University: https://www.bu.edu/today/2014/bu-research-
riddle-reveals-the-depth-of-gender-bias/
5 Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG7U1QsUd1g
6Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_process_theory

14
 Screening by Proxy
When hiring, as we already discussed, we have a lack of
information, and so we are likely to use proxies to make a
decision:

If a person is good at X (proxy), they are probably

going to be good at Y (work).

Popular screening proxies are; school prestige, years of

work experience, having worked at a big name company,
eloquence, self-confidence, appearance, punctuality, gen-
der, and race.

Screening by proxy is not necessarily bad. When hiring, we

must use proxies because we can’t know the results7 .

There are better and worse proxies. Good proxies

are supported by research and shown to lead to good
hires—they’re signals, while other proxies are just noise.

Screening discrimination probably won’t be based on a

single proxy. We tend to interview with a preconceived
idea of what a stereotypical candidate for that position
should look like. Let’s say I am hiring a surgeon and all
candidates have equal qualifications. One candidate walks
in for an interview and he is a tall, Caucasian male with
a deep, assertive voice. He’s missing the stethoscope
around his neck, but otherwise he’s the epitome of every
TV ER doctor. When interviewing him, I’m reassured by
this. The next candidate walks in and I’m surprised to
see it’s a young woman with short, dyed blond hair, and
a tattoo on her neck. She looks more like a punk-rock
singer than a surgeon. The interview goes well, and her
answers are good, but something in my gut just doesn’t
7 Unless you have a time machine, in which case please contact me in

my youth to tell me future stock prices.

15
feel right. A hidden part of my brain is telling me it has
never seen a surgeon like this. Situations that are familiar
make us relaxed, while situations that are unfamiliar make
us stressed and uncertain. Meanwhile, another part of
my brain is evaluating my social situation—what will my
coworkers say if I pick such a strange candidate? Is it worth
the risk?

This is how our hidden biases work:

If we don’t have enough information to decide

between applicants, our emotions tell us to go
with the most stereotypical candidate.

I am probably destined to choose the ER guy over the punk

girl. It’s the safer choice. What do you think you would do?

Not only do people judge by proxy, they often judge by

proxy of a proxy. For example, a common belief is that
people who are nice to their dogs are nice to other people8 .
Double-proxy reasoning states that, if someone has a dog,
they must have empathy and, therefore, they will be nice
to everyone. A similar double proxy is that, if a man has a
loving wife, he can’t be all that bad a human.

Sounds quite reasonable until you remember the guy in

the next figure.

By all historical accounts, Hitler loved his dog Blondi and

was a strong supporter of animal rights. The Nazis intro-
duced many animal welfare laws, offenders of which were
sent to concentration camps11 . Hitler, himself, was a veg-
8 Quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/29535-you-can-judge-a-

man-s-true-character-by-the-way
10Wikimedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv

_B_145_Bild-F051673-0059,_Adolf_Hitler_und_Eva_Braun_auf_dem_Ber
ghof.jpg
11Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Ger

many

16
 Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, and their dogs.9

Figure 2: Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, and their dogs.10

17
etarian12 and was planning to ban slaughterhouses after
WWII because of animal cruelty. He was also a non-smoker
and non-drinker. Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun, loved him
so much that she decided to share his faith. They got mar-
ried in his underground bunker and, 40 hours later, they
committed suicide together13 .

We can trust that all these proxies didn’t give people a

reliable read on Mr. Hitler, nor have we updated these
proxies since. So, while there are slightly more women
than men in the US, no woman has ever been elected
president, neither has a Hispanic or Asian minority. These
demographics, which represent 62% of society, have not
been elected once in 58 presidential elections.

So, who gets votes? Well, all American presidents for the
past 130 years, except one, had owned a dog14 . All but
two of them were married15 . All but two were Christians16 .
All, except one, were white. No matter what people say
they look for in a head of state, an older, white, religious
male with a wife and a dog fits a stereotype of a good
president.

The problem is not restricted to the average voter. When

Albert Einstein graduated from ETH Zurich in 1900, both his
professors of mathematics and physics refused to give him
a job recommendation17 . The professor of mathematics
refused because Einstein skipped his math lectures. The
12Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetariani
sm
13Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Braun#Marriage_and_s

uicide
14Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential

_pets
15 Quora: https://www.quora.com/Has-there-ever-been-a-U-S-president-

who-was-not-married
16Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_Pre

sidents_of_the_United_States
17 Book by Walter Isaacson: Einstein: His Life and Universe

18
professor of physics refused because Einstein called his
lectures “outdated” and questioned why he didn’t teach
modern theories. As a result, Einstein was the only one
in his class of students who couldn’t find employment in
his field. He was forced to work at a patent office, and
only managed to get an academic job a few years after
he published his special theory of relativity. If the main
criterion for examination had been creating original physics
papers, or if the testing of students was blind, it’s likely a
young Albert could have shown what he had to offer. In
the case of Einstein, his professors used a “did the student
attend my lectures” proxy and a “did the student like my
course” proxy.

It is important to realize that proxies are just proxies and

they should not be taken into account without data proving
their validity.

Proxies and Biases in Hiring

Let’s take a look at places where biases and incorrect
proxies can derail a typical hiring process:

1. Résumé screening - résumés are stuffed with proxies

which candidates have intentionally included to look
better, and that can trip our biases. Candidates of
the right age will put their birthdate, others will omit
it. Attractive candidates will attach their photo, the
others will not. Prominent schools and well-known
companies will be put at the top, even if the candidate
was not the best student or employee there. Some
candidates’ “personal achievements” sections will
list charity work, Boy Scouts, Mensa membership, or
other proxies-of-a-proxy.

19
 2. The telephone interview - here, we tend to ask candi-
dates very simple questions which are related to their
previous experience and résumé. Delivered this way,
it is not a knowledge or work test. Instead, it’s more
of a short communication skills test that extroverts
will ace. Even if the job requires communication skills,
this doesn’t mean a phone call is a good proxy for
work-specific communication.

3. Interviews - Most interviewers base their decisions on

subjective feelings, which research shows are largely
influenced by a 20-second first impression18 .

4. Giving candidates tasks on interviews - here, bias is

introduced when we watch a candidate solve a task.
It immediately puts them under pressure, which we
often want for our “performs well under stress” proxy,
but it’s an artificial situation that they’re unlikely to
be faced with when hired.

5. Standardized testing - although standardized testing

is good, bias is introduced when we decide what to
test. If we ask questions that require experience, then
we bias against young graduates that may otherwise
be great employees. If we administer verbal reason-
ing tests, we bias against non-native speakers.

We can’t rely on hunches or biases when hiring. We need

to be both methodical and scientific. Fortunately, there is
a great deal of hiring research that tells us which methods
work and which, well, don’t.

18 Paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313878823_The_i
mportance_of_first_impressions_in_a_job_interview

20
 CHAPTER 3: Not All Methods
Are Equal
Since we’re all biased and we use incorrect proxies, why not
just outsource hiring to experts or recruitment agencies?
After all, they’ve been screening people for many years, so
they must know how to do it right?

Not really. I was surprised to discover that many experts

disagree with each other. Everybody praises their pet
method and criticizes the others. Many of these methods
look legitimate, but are based on fake science.

Hiring Science Gone Wrong

Fake science looks similar to real science, with impressive-
looking studies, charts, and numbers—until you dig deeper
into what those numbers actually represent.

For example, let’s look at popular personality tests. HR

departments love personality tests, because they are uni-
versal—they need just one test for all candidates.

Many companies claim that their personality test has high

statistical reliability19 (when a candidate repeats the test
they get a similar result). That doesn’t mean a thing. A
person’s height has a high “reliability” because it doesn’t
change from day to day. That doesn’t mean it is good for
hiring—well, unless you’re hiring a basketball player.

It’s the same when companies claim high face validity

(the candidate agrees that the results accurately repre-
sent them). Horoscopes have high face validity20 , but
19Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_(statistics)
20Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect

21
we wouldn’t think of only hiring Libras because they are
supposedly curious and outgoing.

One of the oldest personality profiling system is My-

ers–Briggs. According to The Myers-Briggs Company, “88%
of Fortune 500 companies use it in hiring and training”21 .
Myers–Briggs sorts people into 16 archetypes22 that have
fancy names, like “Architect” and “Commander.” More than
20 studies concluded that Myers-Briggs doesn’t work23 .
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is not even reliable,
as 50% of people get a different Myers-Briggs archetype
on repeated testing24 . Forbes concluded that, “MBTI is
so popular because it provides the illusion of solution25 .”
The New York Times called Myers-Briggs “totally useless”
and concludes that it is popular because people like to put
themselves and others into categories26 .

Another popular assessment is DiSC27 (Dominance, Influ-

ence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness). DiSC results
are not normalized28 , meaning that you can’t compare
different people with it. Some assessment vendors, like
People Success, claim that DiSC “has a validity rate of
between 88% and 91%”29 . Validity around 0.9 would be a
spectacular result for any pre-employment method, on par
with a crystal ball. But, the vendor failed to mention that it
21 The Myers-Briggs Company: https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-

US/Products%20and%20Services/Myers-Briggs
22 16personalities: https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types
23 Psychometric Success: http://www.psychometric-success.com/person

ality-tests/personality-tests-popular-tests.htm
24 Article: http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf
25 Article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2014/09/29/the-

mysterious-popularity-of-the-meaningless-myers-briggs-mbti/
26 Article: https://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/why-myers-

briggs-is-totally-useless-but-wildly-popular/
27 RMi: https://www.rmiexecutivesearch.com/disc-assessment
28Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsative
29 People Success: http://www.peoplesuccess.co.uk/behavioural-style/va

lidity/

22
was just face validity30 .

Generally, modern psychology has debunked the idea that

people fall into certain “types.” Personality traits come in a
spectrum—for example, people are distributed on a scale
from introversion to extroversion. Traits are not binary.
And, the traits that people actually have are not the ones
claimed by Myers-Briggs or DiSC.

A personality test that is scientifically proven is the Big

Five31 , which measures openness, conscientiousness, ex-
traversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The Big Five
doesn’t classify people as a certain “type”, merely offers
percentage scores for each trait, see the next figure.

Percentage scores of a Big Five test.

Figure 3: Percentage scores of a Big Five test.

While scientific, the Big Five still gives weak predictions. A

paper by Morgeson et al.32 summarizes multiple studies
and concludes that only one of its variables (conscien-
tiousness) is worth looking at, and even that is weakly
30 Presentation:https://tinyurl.com/y7ubrkq7
31Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
32 Morgeson et al. (2007): https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0fc2/97c288

263c1a4d0e1e1119668563274d242e.pdf

23
correlated.

The Ultimate Measure: Predictive

Validity
The only statistical measure that we should look for is
predictive validity33 . This is different to face validity and
reliability because it actually measures how well the candi-
date did at their job after being hired.

Predictive validity is very hard to calculate. One would

need to follow up a few years after the hire to correlate
actual job performance with the original screening scores.
Fortunately, there’s research that shows which screen-
ing methods have high predictive validity. Schmid and
Hunter34 did a meta-analysis of thousands of studies and
compared different screening methods. Their conclusions
are in the next figure.

Predictive validity is a range from -1.0 (negative correla-

tion) to 1.0 (positive correlation). The higher the number,
the more often we were right about whether someone was
a good hire. A screening method with a 1.0 predictive
validity would find a great hire every time.

Now, let’s go through the rankings, from worst to best.

Low Validity Methods

These methods definitely shouldn’t be used, because they
have validity below 0.2 and, so, are about as good as
asking Mystic Mahjoob, the local fortune teller:
33Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_validity
34 Schmidand Hunter (1998): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/down
load?doi=10.1.1.172.1733&rep=rep1&type=pdf

24
 Validity of different selection methods.

Figure 4: Validity of different selection methods.

Method Validity Description

Age -0.01 Candidate age has non-existent validity, so companies that

discriminate against candidates that are “too young” or “too old”
should stop doing so—not only because it’s illegal in most
countries, but it’s also just plain invalid.
Graphology 0.02 Analysis of a candidate’s handwriting is advertised as a way to
detect their personality. It’s popular in Western Europe, especially
in France where 70-80% of companies still use it35 (no, I’m not
making this up). This is surprising, since it has no validity and
even the graphology wiki page36 states it is a pseudoscience.
Interests 0.10 Interests are a common part of a résumé that you can safely
ignore, as they have very low validity.
Years of education 0.10 Surprisingly, requiring more education for a job has very little
validity. In other words, slapping a PhD requirement on a job that
could be done by an engineer with just a bachelor’s degree
doesn’t significantly improve the quality of your hires.
Training and experience: 0.11 This method gives points for candidate’s training, education, and
point method experience, multiplied by the length of time in that activity37 . It
can be calculated manually from a résumé or automatically from
the application form. Point scoring is popular in government hiring,
but, today, even government websites point out that it “does not
relate well to performance on the job.”38

35 BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20171025-the-peculiar-

psychoanalysis-of-job-hiring
36 Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology
37 IPAC presentation: http://www.ipacweb.org/Resources/Documents/co

nf13/white.pdf
38 Section from OPM.gov: https://tldrify.com/pgu

25
Method Validity Description

Job experience (years) 0.18 Years of experience in the job correlates only slightly with the job
performance, and, thus, should not be used. It’s often a deciding
factor since it’s easy to determine from a candidate’s résumé and,
somehow, feels, intuitively, like it should be valid—it isn’t.

Medium Validity Methods

The methods below have validity between 0.2 and 0.45
and can be used in addition to high validity methods:
Method Validity Description

Reference checks 0.26 Contacting previous employers is a valid method, as past

performance predicts future performance. Unfortunately,
it is often not possible for a current job, as previous
employers are usually reluctant to share that information
and it is illegal in some countries.
Conscientiousness tests 0.31 Conscientiousness is a measure of a specific personality
trait and can be asked during an interview. It highlights
candidates with a high level of self-discipline.
Biographical data measures 0.35 Many life experiences (such as school, parenting style,
hobbies, sports, membership in various organizations,
etc.) are scored based on statistical data from past hires.
Quite hard to develop, but easy to use thereafter. Note
that sex, age, and marital status are illegal to use.
Assessment centers 0.37 Assessment centers use a variety of methods, including
personality and aptitude tests, interviews, and group
exercises. They are popular with companies, which is
unfortunate because their validity is low for such a
time-intensive, multi-method approach.
Employment interviews 0.38 A normal interview where there is no fixed set of
(unstructured) questions. It is enjoyable for both a candidate and an
interviewer, as it feels like a friendly chat, but doesn’t
have the validity of a more structured interview.
Integrity tests 0.41 These tests can either ask candidates directly about their
honesty, criminal history, drug use, or personal integrity,
or draw conclusions from a psychological test. Again,
conscientiousness is the most important personality trait.
Job tryout procedure 0.44 Candidates are hired with minimal screening and their job
performance is monitored for the next three to six
months. This method has reasonable validity, but it is
very costly to implement.
Training and experience: behavioral 0.45 First, companies identify Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
consistency method (KSA39 ) that separate high performers from low.
Candidates are then asked to give past achievements for
each KSA. Responses are scored based on a rating scale.

High Validity Methods

Only five methods have a validity above 0.45:
39 Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge,_Skills,_and_Abi
lities

26
Method Validity Description

Job knowledge tests 0.48 Question the specific professional knowledge required for the job.
This method has high validity, but can pose a problem when
screening junior candidates who require training.
Peer rating 0.49 Asking coworkers to evaluate a candidate’s performance and
averaging the results is surprisingly valid. People inside a
company have a better insight of each other’s abilities. A good
method for in-company promotion or reassignment, but not for
hiring outside employees.
General mental ability 0.51 GMA tests measure the ability of a candidate to solve generic
(GMA) tests problems, such as numerical reasoning, verbal reasoning, or
problem solving. They don’t guarantee that a candidate has the
required skills, just the mental capability to develop them if
trained. Note that brainteasers like “how would you move mount
Fuji?” are too vague and subjective for a GMA test.
Employment interviews 0.51 The same interviewer asks different candidates identical
(structured) questions, in the same order, writes down the answers (or, even
better, records the entire session), and gives marks to each
answer. This way, different candidates can be transparently
compared using the same criteria.
Work-sample tests 0.54 To test if a candidate will be good at work, give them a sample of
actual work to do. A simple and very effective idea.

As these methods have the highest validity, they should

be the core of our Evidence-Based Hiring process, and, so,
logically, they’re what we will focus on in the rest of this
book.

The Multiple Methods Approach

Based on the above research, we can conclude that:

No single method of screening has high enough

validity to be used exclusively, so it is necessary
to combine multiple methods.

There simply is no silver bullet for hiring. No simple signals

that you can detect in a résumé and decide if a candidate
is going to be a star hire. However, we do now know what
methods to combine to get the highest validity for the least
time, effort, and cost; work-sample tests, knowledge tests,
GMA, and structured interviews.

27
CHAPTER 4: Reward vs Effort
The Last Question
So, we need to use multiple methods. But, in which order?

Say that you apply for a Sales Manager job at the Acme Cor-
poration. First, they conduct a phone interview. Then, they
call you for a face-to-face interview. After that, you visit
for a whole day of testing: aptitude tests, situational tests,
personality tests, the whole shebang. The Friday after that,
you have an on-site interview with your prospective man-
ager. Ten days later, you have an evening interview with
his manager. More than a month has passed since you
applied, and you’re five rounds in. Annoying, since you’re
currently employed and need to make excuses to go for
each interview or test. Finally, they send you an email
stating they want to make you an offer. Again, you come
to the shiny Acme Corporation office for a final talk with
both managers. They offer you a salary you are satisfied
with—great. You wipe the sweat from your forehead and
relax into your chair.

Just one more question, your would-be future boss asks,

“Tu español es bueno, ¿no?”

“Erm. Sorry, what?” you say, flustered.

“You don’t speak Spanish?” he replies. “Oh, maybe we

forgot to mention it, but you’ll be working a lot with our
partners in Mexico. So, we need someone fluent in Spanish.
Sorry.”

What would you do in this situation? I would probably take

the nearest blunt object and launch it at their heads. How
could anyone forget such a simple requirement as “fluent
in Spanish”? All those afternoons wasted, for both you and

28
them, just because they forgot to ask one question.

This story would be funnier if a similar thing didn’t happen

to me, both as a candidate and as an interviewer. It is a
typical example of a minimum requirement which takes
less than a minute to check, yet it wasn’t checked until the
very end of the hiring process.

How you order your screening process makes all the differ-
ence.

Reward vs. Effort Ratio

When I started doing screening, I didn’t understand this. At
the beginning of the process, I did both all the things that
were traditionally done first and the things that were im-
portant to me. Everyone else began by screening résumés,
so I did that too. Meeting a candidate for an interview
was important to me, so that was a logical second step.
I understand, now, that I was completely wrong in the
ordering.

A screening process is a kind of funnel that collects infor-

mation at each step which can predict future behavior. But,
collecting information has a cost in both time and money.
In other words:

Screening_Efficiency = Reward / Effort

Accordingly, the screening process should be reordered,

so that the most efficient methods come first. Higher
efficiency methods give the most valid information to make
a decision, saving time for both you and the candidate.

In the Acme example, an on-site interview gives more in-

formation than checking Spanish fluency, but an interview
takes hours of managers’ and candidates’ time. Checking

29
Spanish fluency gives less information than an on-site in-
terview, but it requires only a one-minute phone call to
know for sure whether you can reject them. It is vastly
more efficient.

Why the Traditional Model Is Not

Efficient
Let’s examine effort and reward in the traditional screening
process for both candidates and employers. Here’s how
the Acme Corporation process for an average candidate
might look:

Step Company effort Candidate effort Reward Validity

Application form, 5 min. 25 min. Does the candidate Low

résumé, and a satisfy the basic
cover letter requirements?
Phone screen 20 min. 15 min. Can the candidate Low
communicate well
and answer
promptly?
First interview 45 min. 45 min. interview Find out more Medium
(unstructured) + 1 hour commute about the
candidate’s
education, work
experience, and
style of
communication.
On-site assessment 4 hours 4 hours of Candidate score on Medium
and knowledge test assessment + 1 personality test,
hour commute aptitude tests,
knowledge test,
and interview with
a psychologist.
Second interview 2x1 hour 1 hour interview + Details about the High
with two managers 1 hour commute candidate’s past
(structured) behavior,
experiences,
strengths, and
weaknesses, in a
form that can be
compared to other
candidates.
Job offer (phone) 5 min. 5 min. Will the candidate
accept the terms?
TOTAL: 7 hours 15 min. 9 hours 30 min.

As you can see, a huge amount of time is invested in each

application by both the company and candidate.
30
The problem occurs when you look at the last column.
The point of screening is to collect the maximum reward
(information) for the least effort (time). The first steps
don’t give much useful information at all. A résumé tells
us years of education or interests (validity of 0.1) and job
experience (validity of 0.18). A short, fifteen-minute phone
screening also has low validity. A company must invest
more than five hours to get their first piece of high-validity
information from the knowledge test. So, why structure
things this way around?

The traditional approach is popular because, first, most

people don’t question the way things have always been
done. Secondly, because people are uncomfortable asking
tough questions. Most companies spend the first few hours
with “soft” topics (conversation and personality tests) be-
fore they go to the “hard” topics (testing knowledge and
asking direct questions).

This makes sense for dating, because we often enjoy the

dating process. But, it doesn’t make sense for hiring —be-
cause both an interviewer and a candidate would rather
be elsewhere. Being direct saves effort for both.

If a candidate passes the entire process, it takes 7 hours

and 15 minutes of company time. Let’s look at how much
time could we save by eliminating them earlier:

Elimination Step Invested company effort Time efficiency

Candidate passes all stages 7 hours 15 minutes 1x

Candidate fails the knowledge test 5 hours 10 minutes 1.4x
Candidate fails the phone screen 25 minutes 17.4x
Candidate fails application form questions 5 minutes 87x

Eliminating a candidate from an application form is 87

times more time efficient (5 minutes vs 7 hours 15 min-
utes), and that’s before you multiply this again by the

31
number of candidates. If you have 20 candidates and an
average applicant takes five hours to screen, failing after
the knowledge test, the total effort is a huge 100 hours.

Surprisingly, real-world companies cover the entire spec-

trum of efficiency. For example, one government agency
which I know of would put every applicant through the
almost full procedure, so they would be close to 1x. Need-
less to say, they have a large HR department. At the other
end of the spectrum, some high-tech companies have au-
tomated screening, so that they can screen thousands of
candidates with very little effort.

What is the efficiency of your company? How much, on

average, does it cost you (in time and money) to eliminate
a candidate?

Recruiters often say that they are very efficient, because

they eliminate the majority of candidates from their résumé
alone. But, if 90% of candidates are eliminated based on
low-validity criteria, then that process can be summarized
with this joke:

A recruiter splits a stack of job applications, and

throws a half of them in the garbage. “What are
you doing?!” asks his coworker. “Well,” answers
the recruiter, “we don’t want unlucky people in
our company, do we?”

Ways to Reduce Effort & Increase

Reward
There is one ingenious idea rarely mentioned in screening
resources: find a person who knows the candidate the best,
and convince them to do a screening—for free. That person

32
is the candidate themself, and the method is candidate self-
selection. Candidates don’t want to be failures: they want
to succeed in their job. If your job description indicates that
they are probably going to fail if they were hired, they’re
not going to apply.

When advertising normal products, you want to

sell to as many people as possible. But, when
advertising jobs, you want to “sell” it to the right
people for the job—and scare away everybody
else.

I realized this the first time that my company was advertis-

ing a managerial position. Our previous job ad was for a
developer and we had 30 applicants. But, when we needed
a manager, which was a more demanding job, more than
140 people applied. The problem was that our developer
job ad was very specific: we listed languages and technolo-
gies which candidates needed to know. The manager’s job
ad was more general, and everybody thinks they would
be a great manager. It didn’t have specific criteria that
candidates could use for self-elimination.

Whenever you have a job ad that is too general, the quality

of candidates will decrease. Therefore, you must always
provide a realistic picture of what the job actually entails,
and your selection criteria for getting it. If your job requires
frequent weekend trips, say so. If the necessary criteria is
at least two years of experience managing five people, say
that loudly, in ALL CAPS if you must. It’s saving everyone’s
time.

If the job description is too unspecific, you will end up

with hundreds of candidates but run the risk of your hire
quitting after six months because the job was “not what
they were expecting.”

33
Sounds obvious, but I used to make the mistake of leaving
out one crucial part of the job description, just because
other companies omitted it too—the salary range. While I
knew exactly what salary range my company could afford,
salary negotiations are difficult and awkward, so I left them
for the end. As a result I spent hours and hours interviewing
some senior candidates, only to discover that—aside from
a unforeseen lottery win—I could not afford them. I wasted
their and my time.

The second way to decrease effort significantly is to employ

the magic of automated testing. Here, the computer can
screen hundreds of candidates for near-zero cost, once
we’ve invested the one-time effort of developing a good
automated test.

The third way to decrease effort is to divide testing into two

parts—short tests early in the screening process and longer
tests later. Most candidates will fail the first test anyway,
so we will save time by not doing longer, unnecessary tests
with them. This also saves time for candidates, as they
only need to take the longer test if they are qualified.

To increase the reward, we need to use high-validity meth-

ods as early as possible. Every method in the screening
process asks the applicant to answer questions. These
can be as simple as the “Name” field on the application
form, as complex as answering a mathematical problem
in a structured interview, or as straightforward as stating
whether they will accept a starting salary of $65,000. Our
rewards are the answers to these questions. They tell us
whether to send the applicant further down the funnel or
back home.

Every method, whether it has high or low validity, has one

thing in common—it’s only as good as the questions asked

34
within it. So, the next chapter is dedicated solely to the art
of asking good questions.

35
 CHAPTER 5: Maximizing the
Reward: How to Ask Good
Questions?
The general rule for screening questions in both tests
and interviews is simple, but very powerful once you’ve
wrapped your head around it:

Only ask a question if it can eliminate the candi-

date in the current screening round.

After all, if it can’t provide actionable evidence, why should

you waste time on it? Of course, you can always ask ques-
tions like, “What are your hobbies?” but, if one candidate
answers “football” and the other “sailing,” what can you
do with that information? How does it inform your hiring
decision? Are you going to reject the candidate who prefers
football? Interviewers often say that such questions help
provide a “complete picture” of a candidate, but previous
chapters have explained why that’s nothing more than a
back door for bias.

It’s the same with easy questions, asking a qualified ac-

countant the difference between accounts payable and
receivable won’t provide any actionable information. Of
course, in addition to being eliminatory and moderately
hard, a question also needs to have predictive validity. We
don’t want to eliminate 90% of candidates for being right-
handed, no matter how good our last left-handed employee
was.

36
 Great Questions Cheat Sheet:
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Fortunately, there’s one high-level concept that you can
learn in 15 minutes, which will make you much better at
asking elimination questions.

In every domain, there are different levels of knowledge.

Memorizing the formula E=mc2 shows some knowledge but
doesn’t make you a physicist—that might require applying
E=mc2 to a specific, related, problem.

The American psychologist Benjamin Bloom categorized

these different levels of knowledge into hierarchy we now
call Bloom’s Taxonomy40 , see the next figure.

At the bottom of the pyramid are lower-order thinking skills;

remembering, understanding, and applying. At the top of
the pyramid are higher-order thinking skills; analyzing,
evaluating, and creating. Creating is the hardest skill for
any profession and the smallest number of candidates can
do it.

For example, here is how Bloom’s taxonomy is applied to

testing foreign-language proficiency:

• Remembering: recall a word in a foreign language.

• Understanding: understand text or audio.

• Applying: use a language to compose an email or to

converse with people.

• Analyzing: analyze a piece of literature.

• Evaluating: discuss which book has better literary

value.
40Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy

37
 Bloom’s revised taxonomy.

Figure 5: Bloom’s revised taxonomy.

38
 • Creating: write a poem, essay, or fictional story.

Bloom’s taxonomy is an important tool for your screening

because:

The higher the question in the hierarchy, the

more domain knowledge the candidate needs to
demonstrate.

However, not all tasks require higher-tier knowledge. For

example, if you are hiring a Spanish-speaking customer
support representative, you need someone who applies
the language (level 3). So, while it might seem better to
have a candidate who can also create poetry in Spanish
(level 6), we need to consider if they will get bored doing a
job below their knowledge level. Therefore:

The elimination questions that we ask should

match the skill level required for the job.

If the test is too low in the hierarchy, then it is easier

for both the administrator and the test taker—but it com-
pletely loses its purpose. Unfortunately, both job screening
and academic tests often get this wrong. In education,
schools want most of their students to pass. Often rote
memorization is all you need. But, the fact that you’ve
memorized which year Napoleon was born doesn’t make
you a good historian—doing original research does.

Let’s see examples of automated questions for every level

of Bloom’s taxonomy, and how to automate scoring for
each step.

Level 1: Remembering
Let’s suppose you are hiring an astronomer. You could test
basic knowledge with the following question:

39
How many planets are in the solar system?

• 7

• 8 (correct)

• 9

• 10

• 11

This is often called a trivia question—recalling bits of infor-

mation, often of little importance. In my modest opinion,
using such questions in screening should be banned by law.
Why?

First, trivia questions test simple memorization, which is

not an essential skill for 21st century jobs.

Second, since memorization is easy, test creators often try

to make it harder by adding hidden twists. The hidden twist
in the question above is that there were nine planets until
2006, when Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet. A person
who knows astronomy, but was on holiday when news of
Pluto’s dismissal was going around, would fail this question.
On the other hand, a person who knows nothing about
astronomy but just happened to be reading a newspaper
that day, back in 2006, would answer correctly.

Third, trivia questions are trivial to cheat. If you copy-paste

the exact question text into Google, you will get an answer
in less than a second, see the next figure.

This is not only a problem for online tests: it’s also trivial
to cheat in a supervised classroom setting. All you need is
a smartphone in a bag, a mini Bluetooth earphone bud41 ,
and a little bit of hair to cover your ear. It doesn’t take a
41 Bluetooth Earbud on Amazon: http://a.co/fxz9Wbm

40
 Google answering question from Level 1.

Figure 6: Google answering question from Level 1.

master spy. How can you know if a student is just repeating

a question to themself or talking to Google Assistant?

For some reason, many employers and even some big test-
ing companies love online tests with trivia questions, such
as “What is X?” They think having copy-paste protection
and a time limit will prevent cheating. In my experience,
they merely test how fast a candidate can switch to an-
other tab and retype the question into Google.

Which brings us to the last problem which results from

badly formulated trivia questions: candidate perception. If
you ask silly questions, you shouldn’t be surprised if the
candidate thinks your company is not worth their time.

Level 2: Understanding
How can you improve the Pluto question? You could re-
frame it to require understanding, not remembering. For
example, this is better:

41
 Why is Pluto no longer classified as a planet?

• It is too small.

• It is too far away.

• It doesn’t dominate its neighborhood. (correct)

• We have discovered many larger objects beyond it.

All the options offered are technically correct: Pluto is

small, far, and astronomers have discovered many large
objects beyond it. But, that is not the reason for its reclas-
sification. You would need to understand that astronomers
must agree on three criteria for a planet, and Pluto doesn’t
satisfy the third one—dominating its neighborhood.

However, just like level-1 questions, even a rephrased for-

mulation above can be solved with a quick Google search,
see the next figure.

Google answering question from Level 2.

Figure 7: Google answering question from Level 2.

A smart candidate will deduce the right answer after read-

ing the first search result. It would take a little more skill
to do so, which is good, but not very much, which is not.
42
However, there is a trick to improving level-2 questions
even further:

If the question is potentially googleable, replace

its important keywords with descriptions.

In the example above, the Google-friendly keyword is

“Pluto”. If we replace it with a description (celestial body)
and decoy about another planet (Neptune), we get a better
question:

Recently, astronomers downgraded the status

of a celestial body, meaning that Neptune has
become the farthest planet in the solar system.
What was the reason for this downgrade of that
celestial body?

• It is too small.

• It is too far.

• It doesn’t dominate its neighborhood. (correct)

• We discovered many large objects beyond it.

Currently, the first result Google returns for this question

is completely misleading42 . Therefore, with a time limit
of two minutes, this question can be part of an online
screening test. However, Google is always improving and,
in a year, it’ll probably be able answer it. So, let’s look at
better questions to ask, further up Bloom’s taxonomy.

Level 3: Applying
Let’s presume that our imaginary candidates are applying
to work at an astronomer’s summer camp. They need to
42 As of 2017, the first answer on Google was: https://www.npr.org/temp

lates/story/story.php?storyId=5653191

43
organize star-gazing workshops, so the job requirement is
to know the constellations of the night sky.

One approach would be organizing a dozen late-night inter-

views on a hill outside of the city, and rescheduling every
time the weather forecast is cloudy.

However, there’s a much easier way—we just test if the

candidates can apply (level 3) their constellation knowl-
edge with a simple multiple-choice question:

Below is a picture of the sky somewhere in the Northern

Hemisphere. Which of the enumerated stars is the best
indicator of North?

• A

• B

• C

• D

• E

• F (correct)

44
This question requires candidates to recognize the Big Dip-
per43 and Little Dipper44 constellations, which helps to
locate Polaris (aka The North Star). The picture45 shows
the real night sky with thousands of stars of different in-
tensities, which is a tough problem for a person without
experience.

Because the task is presented as an image, it is non-

googleable. A candidate could search for tutorials on how
to find the North Star, but that would be hard to do in the
short time allotted for the question.

This level of question is not trivial, but we are still able to

automatically score responses. In my opinion, you should
never go below the apply level in an online test. Questions
in math, physics, accounting, and chemistry which ask test-
takers to calculate something usually fall into this apply
category, or even into the analyzing category, which is
where we’re going next.

Level 4: Analyzing
Unlike the apply level, which is straightforward, analyzing
requires test-takers to consider a problem from different
angles and apply multiple concepts to reach its solution.

Let’s stick with astronomy:

We are observing a solar system centered around

a star with a mass of 5x1030 kg. The star is
127 light years away from Earth and its surface
temperature is 9600K. It was detected that the
star wobbles in a period of 7.5 years, with a
43Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dipper
44Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursa_Minor
45 Credits: https://www.flickr.com/photos/50428479@N06/

45
 maximum star wobbling velocity of ±1 m/s. If
we presume that this wobbling is caused by a
perfectly round orbit of a single gas giant, and
this gas giant’s orbit plane lies in a line of sight,
then calculate the mass of this gas giant.

• 2.41 x 1026 (correct)

• 8.52 x 1026

• 9.01 x 1027

• 3.89 x 1027

• 7.64 x 1028

Easy, right? There are a few different concepts here:

Doppler spectroscopy, Kepler’s third law, and a circular
orbit equation. Test-takers need to understand each one
to produce the final calculation46 . Also, note that star
distance and surface temperature are not needed, as in
real life, the candidate needs to separate important from
unimportant information.

If the example above was a bit complicated, this second

one is more down-to-earth, see the next figure.

The above text box contains HTML with four errors and
a Run button which provides feedback to the candidate
on the debugging progress. As fixing invalid code is the
bread and butter of front-end development, this kind of
task easily filters out candidates with no HTML experience.

Of course, we’ve now moved beyond the realms of multiple-

choice answers, which means marking this type of question
is more difficult. But, it’s still possible to automate it. You
46Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_spectroscopy#Exa
mple
48 TestDome: https://www.testdome.com/questions/html-css/inspector/

17629

46
 Online Inspector question.47

Figure 8: Online Inspector question.48

need to write something that checks the output of a piece

of code, called a unit test49 . Today, a few platforms provide
a testing service where you can upload your own code and
unit tests to check them.

Level 5: Evaluating
The next level, evaluating, demands more than merely
analyzing or applying knowledge. To be able to critique
literature or architecture, you need to have a vast knowl-
edge of the subject to draw from. Typical questions in the
evaluating category might be:

• Do you think X is a good or a bad thing? Explain why.

• Judge the value of Y?

49Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_testing

47
 • How would you prioritize Z?

While great in theory, scoring answers to evaluating-level

questions is difficult and subjective in practice. Reviewing
a candidate’s answer would require a lot of domain knowl-
edge, and would still be subjective. If a candidate gave
a thorough explanation as to why the best living writer is
someone who you’ve never heard of, let alone read, would
you give them a good or bad score?

In the end, it is highly opinionated. That means that it’s

not easy to measure knowledge, and highlights:

A. How strongly a candidate’s opinion matches those of

the interviewer. “She also thinks X is the best, she
must be knowledgeable!”

B. How eloquent the candidate is. “Wow, he explained it

so well and with such confidence, he’s obviously very
knowledgeable!”

Unless you want your company to resemble an echo cham-

ber or a debate club, my advice is to avoid evaluating
questions in tests and interviews. Because of the problems
above, Bloom’s taxonomy was revised in 200050 . We’re
using the revised version, with evaluating demoted from
level 6 (the top) to to level 5. Let’s go meet its level-6
replacement:

Level 6: Creating
Creating is the king of all levels. To create something
new, one needs not only to remember, understand, apply,
analyze, and evaluate, but also to have the extra spark of
creativity to actually make something new. After all, it’s
50 Article: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#revised

48
this key skill that separates knowledge workers from other
workers.

Surprisingly, creating is easier to check then evaluating. If

a student is given the task of creating an emotional story,
and their story brings a tear to your eye, you know they
are good. You may not know how they achieved it, but you
know it works.

Accordingly, creating-level tests are often used in pre-

employment screening, even when they need to be manu-
ally reviewed. For example:

• Journalist job applicants are asked to write a short

news story based on fictitious facts.

• Designer job applicants are asked to design a landing

page for a specific target audience.

• Web programmers are asked to write a very simple

web application based on a specification.

Although popular and good, this approach has a few draw-

backs:

• Manually reviewing candidate answers is time con-

suming, especially when you have 20+ candidates.

• Reviewers are not objective, and have a strong bias

to select candidates who think like them.

• The best candidates don’t want to spend their whole

evening working on a task. Experienced candidates
often outright reject such tasks, as they feel their
résumé already demonstrates their knowledge.

The solution to these problems is to break down what

you’re testing into the shortest unit of representative work,
and test just that. Here is an example of a creating-level

49
question which screens data scientists, by asking them to
create a single function in Python, see the next figure.

Online Marketing Costs question51 .

Figure 9: Online Marketing Costs question52 .

A good data scientist with Python experience can solve

this question in less than 20 minutes. While there are a
few ways to implement this function, which method the
candidate chooses doesn’t matter as long as it works. We
can just automatically check if the created function returns
valid results.

Most people think their profession is too complicated to

be tested automatically. Don’t presume this. For example,
architecture is a very complex profession, where there are
52 TestDome: https://www.testdome.com/questions/data-science/mark

eting-costs/11855

50
an infinite number of solutions to an architectural problem.
Yet, you will probably be surprised to learn that, since 1997,
certification for architects in the United States and Canada
is a completely automated computer test. The ARE 4.0
version of that test53 contains 555 multiple-choice ques-
tions and 11 “vignettes.” A vignette is actually a full-blown
simulation program where the aspiring architect needs to
solve a problem by drawing elements. For example, the
Structural Systems Vignette from the next figure asks a
candidate to complete the structural framing for a roof,
using the materials listed in the program.

Structural Systems Vignette problem from the ARE 4.0 test.

Figure 10: Structural Systems Vignette problem from the

ARE 4.0 test.

The candidate’s solution is automatically examined and

scored, without human involvement. That makes the test-
ing process transparent and equal for all. There is no
53Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect_Registration_Exa

mination#ARE_4.0

51
chance for examiner bias, nepotism, or plain corruption in
the examination process.

If architects in the United States and Canada are automat-

ically evaluated using questions from the creating level
since 1997, why is such testing an exception and not a rule
for technically-oriented jobs 20 years later?

I don’t know, and I think we can do much better.

52
 CHAPTER 6: The New Model
in Detail
Now, we have all the building blocks we need. Let’s do a
quick recap and then explain our new screening process
step by step.

Everything We’ve Learned: Validity,

Reward vs. Effort, Good Questions
We learned that not all methods of screening are equal, as
they differ substantially in their predictive validity. High-
validity methods are:

• Job knowledge tests.

• Peer rating (for in-company hiring).

• General mental ability tests.

• Structured employment interviews.

• Work-sample tests.

Therefore, these are going to be the primary methods of

our improved screening process.

To minimize possible bias, we will write down the require-

ments needed for the job and stick to them in every step
of the process. We will avoid subjective judgements of “fit”
and write every decision down, so that the process can be
reviewed by other people. Because different jobs require
different levels of knowledge, we will take into account
Bloom’s hierarchy and write questions pitched at the job’s
level.

If the information gathered at each step doesn’t give us

53
the criteria to exclude a candidate, it is not relevant for
screening. All steps together form a funnel where the most
effective methods start at the top of the funnel, see the
next figure.

Hiring funnel.

Figure 11: Hiring funnel.

Note that the funnel diagram is not to scale, as each step is

drawn just slightly smaller than the previous one. In reality,
the number of candidates can be 5-10 times smaller for
each step (e.g. 2,000 job ad views and only 200 applica-
tions). Automation can be used most effectively at the top
of the funnel, when you have larger amounts of candidates
being considered, to save the most time.

Ready? Excited? Let’s get started by looking at the first

54
step in our new screening funnel: the Job Ad.

The Job Ad
Take a look at this sample job ad:

Rockstar Developer Wanted

Do you want to change the world? Join AirBabysitters

and revolutionize the babysitting business. Millions of
families have problems finding short-term babysitters, and
millions of students would like to earn extra money. We
connect them, giving parents time for themselves and
giving students nice and flexible work, thus disrupting the
on-demand childcare sector. Our platform is a web app,
and you will be one of the rockstars developing it. It needs
to be mobile friendly, rock-solid, and scalable to millions of
users.

If you have technical expertise, join our awesome team.

We are very friendly, informal, and have a flexible work
schedule. Last but not least, we have a sweet downtown
office with a ping-pong table, an in-house yoga teacher,
and bulletproof coffee on tap!

If interested, send your résumé to our email: . . .

Do you think it does a good job of summarizing the com-

pany and vacancy? Let’s imagine a following story:

Joe, a young father of two, likes the ad. He is acutely aware

of the problem of finding a babysitter whenever he wants
55
to take his wife to dinner and a movie. He applies. His
enthusiasm shows in the interviews, and his twelve years
of experience don’t hurt either. He gets the job.

The problems begin immediately. . . although he knows

everything connected to front-end development, the
Airbabysitter’s back end is written in Java and he hasn’t
used Java in years. Also, after the initial week, he finds
he’s in charge of technical customer support, a job he
has never liked. But, the biggest problem is the work
schedule. His coworkers are mostly young, childless, and
arrive at work after 10am. They stay until 7pm, or even
later, drinking beer or playing ping-pong. Joe’s kids are in
kindergarten, so he’s on a completely different rhythm.
He’s in at 8am after dropping them off, and leaves work
at 4pm to pick them up. This is a problem for him and
his colleagues, as many technical issues appear later in
the day. Even worse, every second weekend, they work
overtime because of important deadlines. The last time
they had weekend overtime, Joe refused to participate,
arguing that he needs his weekends for his family. The
founder who hired him gets angry. It turns out “flexible
work schedule” meant the employee was supposed to be
flexible, not the company. In the end, they agree on a
mutual contract termination five months in. Joe’s furious.
The startup helping young parents fired him–because he’s
a young parent. The company founder is equally mad
and shouts at HR for the bad job that they’re doing when
screening employees for “cultural fit.”

Withholding relevant information in a job ad to look “more

sexy” only hurts your company (and future hires) in the
end. Your selection process doesn’t start with the first
question in an interview, or the first time that you screen
a résumé. It starts with the job ad.

56
If you take a look at the Rockstar Developer job ad again, it
fails to mention many things that Joe and other candidates
would find relevant:

• Work schedule.

• Expected salary range.

• Overtime work.

• Day-to-day tasks (e.g., technical support).

• Required skills (e.g., back-end Java experience).

• Whether the company offers stock options, remote

work, or visa sponsorship.

And, while we’re at it, what do buzzwords like “rockstar

developer” or “awesome team” even mean? The job ad
asks, “Do you want to change the world?” Everybody wants
to change the world, or, at least, their small corner of it, so
there’s no filtering happening there.

Let’s rewrite that job ad to include the relevant information:

Full-time Web Developer (HTML/JS/Java) in a Startup

AirBabysitters is a platform that connects parents and ca-

sual babysitters. We already have thousands of users and
we’re growing rapidly.

We are hiring a full-time web developer who will work on

the following:
- Front end (HTML/CSS, Javascript).
- Back end (Java and PostgreSQL).
- Architecture of the entire platform.
- Technical customer support (25% of your time).

57
Our office is downtown and parking is in the same building.
We are a team of 15, who are mostly younger, informal,
and very diverse. Most of the people in the office work
from 10am until 7pm, with a long lunch break. We often
have beers or dinner after work. Because of deadlines,
we sometimes work on weekends, but compensate with
overtime pay or extra vacation days. You are expected
to travel at least two times a year, to conferences in Las
Vegas and New York.

The salary range is $70,000 to $90,000 per year, but

we also offer 0.4% equity with a two-year vesting period.
Salary depends on your level of experience and knowledge.

Minimum requirements are good knowledge of HTML/CSS,

Javascript, Java, SQL, and three-years experience. We will
screen candidates with an online test (60 minutes of your
time). Selected candidates will be invited to a 30-minute
Skype interview and 90-minute face-to-face interview at
our office.

We need someone who can begin working next month.

Unfortunately, we can’t offer visa sponsorship or remote
work.

If interested, please apply using this form: . . .

If Joe had seen this ad, he would have never applied. He

could easily see that the job requires Java and technical
support, which he dislikes, and a late working schedule,
which he can’t do. On the other hand, we can easily imag-
ine the following person:

58
Emma found this job to be a perfect match. She is young
and single, often going out and sleeping late into the morn-
ing. Hanging out with coworkers is really important to her.
The salary is in her expected range, and she would even
get equity. She doesn’t mind working some weekends, and
she can use the extra vacation days for her next trip to
Thailand.

While the second job ad is less sexy, it is much more

specific, thus filtering more job seekers. Candidates are
completely capable of screening themselves, at zero cost
for you, if you give them all the relevant information. In
hiring, being honest and transparent pays in the long run.
The last thing that your company needs is a dissatisfied
employee leaving after five months because you over-
promised in the beginning.

If you don’t know what criteria to put in the job ad, think
of the most common reasons why your candidates fail at
interviews. Probably, you can add text to the job ad that
would have deterred them from applying in the first place.

The Application Form

The job ad finished with instructions on how to apply. As a
rookie employer, I would put this:

“If interested, send your résumé and cover letter

to our email: . . . ”

I learned the hard way that this is a mistake. My inbox

instantly got filled with 30 résumés, two pages long on aver-
age, and 30 cover letters which were obviously copy/paste
jobs from prepared templates. I was stuck with 70+ pages
of tedious reading that wouldn’t give me the actual informa-
tion that I needed to eliminate candidates. As I mentioned

59
in Chapter 2: Proxies and Biases in Hiring, most people
have a polished résumé, full of buzzwords and examples
of how they’ve changed the world. Switching to an appli-
cation form makes a huge difference.

Why?

Because, after asking biographical details, you can sneak

in a few, quick, selective questions. You shouldn’t overdo
it, because candidates tend to quit on longer application
forms. In the case of my companies, 20 minutes is the
maximum a candidate should spend applying, and we
estimate that it takes them five minutes to fill in their
name, email, LinkedIn profile, and upload a résumé. That
leaves us with 15 minutes for quick screening questions.
While the higher-level questions, like creating from Bloom’s
hierarchy, are usually too long to be included, we can
comfortably fit in three to five applying-level, multiple-
choice questions. Every question that we include must
meet two requirements:

1. The question must be basic enough that, if the appli-

cant answers incorrectly, they will be eliminated from
the process.

2. The question must be difficult enough that at least

20% of applicants will fail it.

It might seem hard to find questions that are both basic

and difficult. But, that’s not the case. For example, one
of the really basic skills that we want from an employee
working in a tech company is an ability to interpret a simple
chart. The online three-minute question that checks just
that is in the next figure.
55 TestDome: https://www.testdome.com/questions/numerical-reasonin

g/profit-per-employee/10960

60
 Online Profit per Employee question54 .

Figure 12: Online Profit per Employee question55 .

61
To our great surprise, so many people failed this applying
question that we have classified it as hard in our testing
system. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think candidates
who fail this question are bad workers, but, between two
candidates, I prefer to hire a person who doesn’t need help
interpreting data.

This question checked numerical reasoning, which is a

part of general mental ability (which we know from earlier
has a 0.51 predictive validity). The same system of short,
demanding questions works in almost every domain of
knowledge. For example, when hiring a WordPress expert,
you could use online question from the next figure.

Online Theme Header question56 .

Figure 13: Online Theme Header question57 .

Our data shows that more than 70% of people claiming

WordPress expertise can’t achieve a full score on this ques-
tion, even if they have three minutes to google it in a
separate tab. Given two candidates, I prefer to give a
job to a candidate who has the expertise that they are
claiming.
57 TestDome: https://www.testdome.com/questions/wordpress/theme-

header/11688

62
Again, as with the Job Ad, if you’re not sure what questions
to ask in your application form, think of basic questions
which candidates fail in your interviews.

When you do it right, you get results as those in the appli-

cation test in the next figure.

Our B2B Internet Marketing Generalist test.

Figure 14: Our B2B Internet Marketing Generalist test.

For this remote-working marketing position, we got 230

applications. But, after the application test, 201 candidates
failed to reach the passing score of 70%. That was 201
résumés and covering letters that we didn’t have to read,
allowing us to focus on just the top 28 candidates. It is also
a great experience for these 28 candidates, because, they
qualified for the next round in just ten minutes. And, they
knew that they did well, since our testing system displays
63
their score at the end of the test.

To conclude, short screening questions embedded within

the application form are the second most effective screen-
ing method, after a properly written job ad.

Screening Résumés
The next step is reading résumés. Résumés should be
read as what they are, a marketing brochure. We need
to wade through the hyperbole haystack in search of the
fact-needles that we require. To do so in a structured way,
first, make a list of relevant requirements before reading
any résumé. This will be easy, since these are already
stated in the job ad. For example, if you are searching for
a marketing manager, the requirements might be:

• Has experience in marketing projects with a total

spend of at least one million.

• Has led, at least, a five person team for, at least, a

year.

• Average duration with each employer is more than a

year.

It’s easier to uncover our biases when we create lists like

this. Is it OK that we require experience with million-dollar
projects? What if a candidate led a small team of three
people for five years? Would that still qualify? You must
decide in advance if you want the requirement to be a
minimum criteria (pass or fail) or scoring criteria (e.g.,
from 1 to 10).

It is probably obvious that you shouldn’t give negative

points for age, gender, or ethnicity, not only because it’s il-
legal but because it has no predictive validity. It’s perhaps

64
less obvious, however, that you shouldn’t give positive
points for the same things. This is called “positive discrimi-
nation” and some companies use it in an effort to increase
diversification. Mathematically, giving two positive points
to a certain ethnicity is equal to giving two negative points
to all other ethnicities. It’s just negative discrimination in
disguise.

While companies will have different résumé scoring pro-

cedures, they should all ask the same question: “Would
we feel comfortable if our procedure was posted on the
company notice board?” If the answer is no, then there’s
something wrong.

After we have a fixed set of requirements, we can read

résumés and search for the relevant information only. We
assign a score to each candidate and they get a pass or a
fail. This treats candidates more equally and the screening
process takes only 2-3 minutes per candidate.

Communicating With Candidates

Imagine that you are a very talented candidate. You ap-
plied to a few companies and passed their initial tests. You
know you are good. Why would you spend time progress-
ing through multiple stages with companies that don’t get
back to you for weeks?

Therefore, for most companies, the key communication

begins after the application form and résumé screening.
You’ve already screened most candidates. You can now
inform all who have failed, thanking them for their time.
Next, you need to motivate candidates who passed to
invest effort in the upcoming stages. No big words or
motivational speeches are needed here. You just need to

65
let good candidates know that:

• They passed the application form questions.

• They passed the résumé screening.

• You are thankful for their interest and invested time.

• What the next steps in the screening process are

going to be.

• The name of the person who reviewed their applica-

tion, together with that person’s contact details in
case they have questions.

Having a real person address them by name shows both a

personal touch and that someone cares about their appli-
cation. The level of personal attention depends whether
your company is hiring in an employer market (where un-
employment is high) or a candidate market (where talent
is scarce). In employer markets, email communication as
a first step is fine. If you employ in Silicon Valley, however,
email will probably not cut it. You will have to call or meet
with candidates, explain why your company is good, how
you can help their career, and make sure you have good
reviews on GlassDoor.com.

Here are a few common questions which our candidates

tend to ask at this stage, together with our answers:

Q: Is the salary range from the job ad fixed?

A: Yes, usually it is, otherwise we would put a different
range.

Q: Can I work part-time, instead of full-time?

A: Usually no, because otherwise we would have put part-
time in the job ad.

Q: How long will your process take, as I am also talking

with another company?
66
A: We can hurry up your application, but the minimum time
is X.

Whatever the answer is, give it directly and timely. It is

very annoying for candidates not to receive a response for
days or to get a convoluted answer. Your communication
is a mirror of your company culture, so make it shine.

Detailed Screening Test

After you have motivated candidates to continue, you can
send them a detailed screening test. Normally, this test is
between 50 and 100 minutes, and I would advise against
anything longer. The shorter, the better. You should also
present the test as a benefit to them: after all, they can
take it from their home, at their convenience, and, in the
process, distinguish themselves from other candidates.

To select good questions for a test, you need to identify

two things:

A. The key, testable skills for the job.

B. Bloom’s level of those skills.

For example, empathy can be a key skill for a customer

representative but it’s hard to test for. On the other hand,
language skills, verbal reasoning, or typing skills can easily
be tested. Don’t worry if you can’t test something that
is important for a job—for other stuff there is always the
interview. The purpose of the detailed screening test is to
detect unqualified candidates in all testable skills. Even
the most empathetic person will be a bad customer repre-
sentative if they don’t properly speak the required support
language.

Next, create screening questions to match the Bloom hi-

67
erarchy level that is required for the job. If you make the
level too low, you’ll end up with employees who can only
do the basic tasks. If you make the level too high, they will
be overqualified and bored.

To give you an idea, below is a list of jobs and fitting work-

sample questions:

Job Work-sample test question

Accountant “File the following ten invoices into the accounting system. If the invoice is missing
some details, select what is missing in the More information needed dropdown.”
Customer Analytics “Given the following Excel pivot table, find the count and total of requested customer
refunds in Germany for December which were not paid out by the end of that month.”
Factory Product Manager “Calculate cost variance for a project with the starting budget X (spread equally over
duration) and expected duration Y, if you are currently A months into the project and
the money spent so far is B.”
Translator “Below is the example of an original and translated text. Unfortunately, the translated
text has seven words that are mistranslated. Select each of them and provide a word
that fits the context.”
Programmer “Change the following HTML code, so the page formats correctly for screens with a
width of 480px.”
Journalist “Given the following facts, write a title and a lead paragraph of a maximum of 35
words.”
Customer Service Agent “Below is an email from an angry customer whose delivery failed to show up on time.
Our system indicates that the delivery was late because of road traffic. Write your
response to the customer.”

I have noticed that many people fail to create short tests,

primarily because they don’t understand the difference
between elimination and knowledge tests. Screening tests
are elimination tests. Most candidates should fail. They’re
not knowledge tests like those used in schools, where
students are sorted into A, B, C, D, and F grades. You
don’t need easy D-level questions, as you would never hire
D-level candidates anyway.

It’s both not fair and not necessary to give applicants long
work-sample tests, such as asking a translator to translate
a few pages from a book or asking a programmer to create
a simple app. Although this approach is popular, it takes up
too much of candidate’s time, they can feel they are doing
free labor, and their creations are difficult to evaluate.

In jobs where performance is highly subjective (such as

68
writing or design), it is often impossible to do automated
scoring. But, even then, you can use this trick:

Ask multiple people for a blind review and then

use the average score as a result.

For example, when evaluating designers, ask three col-

leagues to rate their designs. Don’t tell them the candi-
dates’ names or show them résumés. After all, visitors to a
web page won’t ever know who designed it. Your screening
processes should be just as blind.

Structured Interviews
With the detailed screening test completed, we have now
eliminated most of the candidates. We only need to in-
terview the few who remain. Interviews come in a few
forms; phone, video call, and on-site interview. No matter
which medium of communication is used, the problem is
the same. How do you objectively compare candidates?

Easy, we’ll only use structured interviews.

Remember, the validity of unstructured interviews is 0.38,

while the validity of structured interviews is 0.51. The
effort to prepare questions in advance is well worth a 35%
better prediction.

Structured interviews enforce a rigid process:

• There is a list of specific questions.

• Every candidate is asked the same questions, in the

same order.

• The interviewer writes down the score for every ques-

tion, based on a predefined criteria.

• Candidate answers are written down or recorded.

69
 • The company keeps records of all interviews for future
analysis.

All the tools that you need for structured interviews are
available free of charge. We use Google Docs for questions
and scoring, as well Skype and Call Recorder58 for calls.
Our interviews look like in the next screenshot.

Screenshot of our Skype interview.

Figure 15: Screenshot of our Skype interview.

Of course, this requires preparation on the side of the inter-

viewer. So, write questions in advance. If the answer to the
question is complex, define the criteria for evaluation. For
example, these are some of our questions for a position of
Internal Project Manager:

58 Ecamm Call Recorder: https://www.ecamm.com/mac/callrecorder/

70
Question Scoring criteria Answers and marks (1-5)

Tell me about a time when you had Wrong: Pushing your idea onto
to make someone enthusiastic others.
about your idea or problem so that
they would want to help you? Correct: Having empathy to
understand the motivations of
others and present them something
in a way that they will like.
Imagine that you are managing an Wrong: Threatening them.
expert who repeatedly misses
deadlines. How would you handle Correct: Following up a couple of
this? times to understand the obstacle
that’s preventing them doing their
job. If it repeats three or four times,
find a replacement contractor.
Imagine that your job changes Wrong: Working harder or hiring a
overnight, going from managing subordinate to assist you.
five experts to 20. How would your
supervision style change? Correct: Move from a personal to a
more systematic
approach—documenting, tracking,
and measuring everything, using
reminders.

When the structured interview is over, we are in a much

better position to judge candidates. Multiple interviewers
can read notes, or listen to a recording and give their marks.
All these marks are then added to compare candidates. We
can even compare today’s candidate with a really good
employee who we hired three years ago.

Here are some tips for running an effective structured

interview:

• Let the candidate talk. If you’re talkative, I strongly

suggest recording your interviews. If you later find
out that candidate is talking less than 70% of the time,
you’ve failed as an interviewer.

• Don’t be suggestive in questions. If the candidate

isn’t talking much, or taking a long time to formu-
late an answer, resist the temptation to offer them
more information like, “would you rather do A or B?”
Choosing an option and rephrasing is much easier
than answering independently, so you are giving that
candidate an unfair advantage.
71
 • Be comfortable with silence. A good rule for pre-
sentations is that, whenever you ask an audience
if they have questions, you should silently count to
ten before continuing. People need time to speak up.
Exactly the same applies to interviews. Use silent
moments to your advantage: often a candidate will
start talking just to end the silence.

• Control the flow of the conversation. If the candidate

goes into too much detail or starts to meander into
what they did three jobs ago or as a Boy Scout in
Alaska, raise your hand and gently interrupt them:
“Unfortunately, because of time constraints, we need
to move to the next question.”

Some people feel the above recommendations are too

restrictive, formal, or cold. But, in my experience, a struc-
tured, professional interview gives better predictions than
a friendly, conversational interview and is fairer on the
applicant. We both need some distance to be objective.

While we’ve focused mostly on work-related questions so

far, I’ll now explain why it’s equally important to probe a
candidate’s motivation and character—a lesson that I have
learned the hard way.

Probing Motivation and Character

I was hiring a programmer for a full-time, remote position.
One candidate came out on top, let’s call him Mike. He
not only knew how to code, he was teaching it to kids at
summer camps. However, his résumé was not great. He’d
prolonged his time at university for many years and he
still didn’t finish it. He started working a few years ago
but had long periods out of work. He blamed both on his

72
health problems and family issues. Still, he was smart and
I really wanted to hire him. He assured me that he could
balance his remaining exams with work. Just to be on the
safe side, we agreed on a four-day workweek, and signed
the employment contract.

In Mike’s second week some of his tasks were unexpectedly

unfinished. There were many silly bugs in his code, includ-
ing those that programing tools report automatically—if
you ever run them. After weeks of similar inattention and
amateur mistakes, we had to conclude that Mike was smart
but sloppy and that he didn’t pay attention to details. After
talking with him, he promised to be more attentive.

This saga continued for months until, one day, his manager
came to me. “I think we have a problem,” he said. “Mike’s
been logging normal 9-to-5 working hours but has not been
on Skype which made me suspicious. So, I checked the
commit logs. Mike’s been committing a little bit of code
every day at 11PM but not working at all during the day.”
Mike had pulled the four-hour workweek59 trick on us.

I wondered if I should have sent Mike for psychological

testing before hiring him? After all, many companies do
them as a first step in their hiring process. Maybe they’d
have found what I had obviously missed? I decided this
was the perfect opportunity for an experiment.

I sent Mike to a specialized psychological testing company,

for a multiple-hour Big Five test60 , emotional testing across
eight dimensions, and an interview with a licensed psychol-
ogist. Two days later, I got a three-page PDF report in my
inbox. It was a fascinating read–Mike was rated as a great
employee. The report stated that Mike is “very honest,
59 Book: https://www.amazon.com/4-Hour-Workweek-Escape-Live-

Anywhere/dp/0307465357
60Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

73
conscientious, and diligent,” “committed to his job,” and,
“when he starts something, he finishes it”.

Did they mix up the results with someone else, I wondered?

I called Mike to the office the next day. I turned a monitor

around showing his timesheet and an actual log side-by-
side. He turned red. He admitted that he was not working
some days. He said that he was busy with university and
that he thought he could manage the work at night. “It
won’t happen again,” he said. “I am sure it won’t,” I replied,
“here is your contract termination.” He took the document
and left in silence.

I learned a lot from this unfortunate event. All the clues

were there: he had studied without finishing his courses
for over a decade and had held a whole series of jobs.
But, he’d spun a nice story during the interview which had
evoked my empathy. He was even good at manipulating
professional psychologists, it seemed. I would never have
used the words, “when he starts something, he finishes it”
for a person who studied for ten years without graduating.

That’s the problem with psychology. Companies pay bil-

lions of dollars for the promise of reading a candidate’s
mind, but it doesn’t work. Psychological tests are based on
self-reporting and smart candidates are able to manipulate
them, just like Mike had done. Until we invent a mind-
reading machine, a lot of today’s psychological testing is a
waste of money.

Accepting all this, how can you probe motivation and char-
acter? Well, you have to be willing to give a candidate
tough questions, while trying to find inconsistencies in
their story.

There are two phenomena that can help us become better

74
at this:

• While most people are prone to exaggeration and

overpromising, few will outright lie.

• People are more likely to lie in writing, in comparison

to when they are looking you in the face.

With that in mind, we can:

• Ask situational questions. Instead of asking a candi-

date if they are good at X, ask them for a situation
where their actions demonstrated that proficiency.
“Good at X” is just an exaggeration, and a lot of can-
didates will have no problem saying that. Inventing
an entire story is an outright lie, and most people will
not go that far.

• Ask about the candidate’s past, not a hypothetical

future. If you have ever studied product development,
interface design, or run focus groups, you have al-
ready learned the mantra: the best predictor of future
behavior is past behavior. Ask people if they would
donate to charity and an overwhelming majority will
answer yes. Ask them, “how many times have you
donated to charity in the last year?” and you’ll get a
vastly different result.

• Ask tough questions in person. If you suspect a candi-

date could be dishonest, hold back difficult questions
until the in-person interview.

Here is a list of suggested questions and scoring criteria to

help you probe motivation in an interview.

75
Question Scoring criteria Answers and marks (1-5)

How did you hear about the Is the candidate selective in applying
position and what motivated for a job? Is the candidate motivated
you to apply? by this specific work?

Red flags: Too much emphasis on

money.
Why did you decide to leave Is this position a logical next step for
your last job? them? Are the reasons for leaving
their last job fulfilled by this job?

Red flags: Bad mouthing their last

employer or having unrealistic career
expectations.
Would you mind if I contact your Are they welcoming to the idea, do
previous employer and ask they feel the previous employer
them for a reference? would say nice things about them?

Red flags: They had a dispute with

the last employer which can’t be
justified.
Why do you have this gap / job Can the candidate provide a
change in your résumé? consistent explanation for gaps in
career or frequent job changes?

Red flags: Unconvincing

explanations, withholding
information.
Where do you see yourself 3-5 Does the candidate’s ambition align
years from now? with the company’s typical career
development?

Red flags: Extremes, such as doing

the same thing as now or advancing
unrealistically far.
Tell me about a Do they handle conflicts at work in a
disagreement/difficult situation calm, rational, respectful manner?
which you had with your
manager. Red flags: Not taking any ownership
for the bad things. Making conflicts
personal.

You should also add motivation and character questions

that are specific to the job vacancy. For example, when
hiring a designer, the obvious thing to look for is the like-
ability of their designs. But, in my experience, the frequent
problem with designers is that they get too attached to
their designs and treat any feedback as a personal insult. I
even had an interior designer storm out on me because I
bought a designer chair not in accordance with his vision
of my flat. Therefore, when I look for designers now, I ask
questions like:

76
Question Scoring criteria Answers and marks (1-5)

What are the first steps of your Do they invest time talking with the
design process and how much client or understanding the target
time do you spend on each? audience first?

Red flags: Start designing before

they have sufficient input.
How many variants of your Does the designer create multiple
design do you normally do? variants and iterate on designs,
based on feedback?

Red flags: Insisting on just one

variant of the design.
What happened the last time How does the designer overcome
that a client didn’t like your disagreement with the client? Do
design? they try to understand their issues?

Red flags: Pushing their vision upon

the client.

Next, let’s look at example questions for a representative

working on the phone for customer technical support. In
this profession, representatives often lose motivation and
there’s high staff turnover.

Question Scoring criteria Answers and marks (1-5)

Have you had a customer-facing job Do they show enthusiasm for this
before? If you had it, how did you type of work? How realistic are they
like it and what were its good and in their assessment of it?
bad sides?
Red flags: No relevant experience.
Unrealistic idea of the job.
Give me an example of the last two Do they show enjoyment for
times that you helped a friend, explaining technology? Do they just
family member, neighbor or jump in and solve the problem or
stranger with a technical issue? actually take the time to explain it
How did you approach the problem? to the user, so that they could solve
it themselves next time?

Red flags: Impatience,

unwillingness to help, disrespect for
laymen.

There are many positions in which technical knowledge

is less of a problem than motivation, such as in the job
above. Therefore, it might seem better to do interviews
first and screening tests after. It isn’t. Having a quick
application test or detailed screening test first will always
be more effective. Interviews, no matter how well-done,
are expensive. It’s always better to wait until you have
77
the smallest pool of candidates before investing time in
interviews.

Second Opinions
Interviews don’t require the effort of just one person, they
require collective effort to get right. Generally, having
multiple people involved in the interview process is better
because:

• If the main interviewer is busy asking questions, com-

municating with the candidate, or writing notes, a
second pair of eyes and ears can notice things that
might be missed otherwise.

• Everybody has bias. But, multiple people have differ-

ent biases, and, so, can compensate for each other.

• Different people have different expertise. A second

interviewer might notice problems with skills, knowl-
edge, or motivation missed by the first.

There are a few ways to solicit second opinions:

A. Have multiple people on the interview. One leads

the questioning and conversation, while the others
listen and make notes. After the interview finishes,
they compare impressions and discuss the differences
between them.

B. Note-taking by a single interviewer. Just the simple

task of taking notes makes interviewers more ratio-
nal and unbiased. People will rarely write, “I don’t
like this candidate.” They are more likely to provide
an explanation, such as, “Often the candidate didn’t
answer the question directly.” These notes can later

78
 be reviewed by another interviewer as the basis for
eliciting a second opinion.

C. Multiple rounds of interviews, done by different inter-

viewers. For example, Google has at least four rounds
of interviews with different members of the team. Any
interviewer has the power to veto a candidate if they
conclude the applicant is unfit for the job. Often com-
panies undertake interviews with multiple levels of
the organization—e.g., HR, project management, a
departmental boss, etc.

D. Recording audio or video of the interview. If the can-

didate agrees, you can record the interview. Other
interviewers can then review these at their own con-
venience, and you have a detailed archive for future
reference.

When we hire internally, we find a combination of the last

three works best. Two rounds of interview, with a single in-
terviewer taking notes and recording a video. This reduces
scheduling issues and the waste of a second interviewer’s
time if the main interviewer decides to veto the candidate.
If the interviewer decides the candidate is a potential hire,
another team member reviews the recording and the given
scores.

Reviewing recorded interviews is not as time-consuming

as you might think. If conversational speech is slow, you
can set the speed to 1.5x and skip the parts where the
interviewer talks, as well as the softer initial and end parts.
As a result, you can usually finish in less than half the time
the interview originally took.

You can purchase a Skype call recorder or use the Zoom.us

client which has free video recording. Many video players
supports listening to videos at higher speed. Recording
79
and reviewing interviews is both easy and worthwhile.

A special form of second opinions are the references from

previous employers. As mentioned before, the best predic-
tor of future performance is past performance. We always
ask a candidate, “Would you mind if we contact your pre-
vious employer and ask them for a reference?” This way,
even if the candidate is reluctant, they will still have to
explain why.

In an ideal world, you could then call their previous em-

ployer. However, this is often problematic—as legal de-
partments of most companies don’t want the liability for
giving that information. Asking previous employers is still
an option if they are a small business, or if you are well-
connected in the industry. You can search your LinkedIn
profile for connections in one of the candidate’s previous
companies. Of course, you should treat this information
confidentially.

Negotiating the Contract

With all the previous steps completed, if you still think that
this is the right hire, it’s time to negotiate the contract. Un-
fortunately, often negotiations will fail, but that is expected.
Your improved screening process will find you good employ-
ees, and good employees usually have multiple available
options.

Transparency is the single best thing to improve the chance

of hiring. Give the candidate honest feedback after each
step of the process. If you don’t, the simple fact of passing
each stage will lead them to think they are perfect and,
so, push for the top of the salary range that you stated in
the job ad. If, during the process, you realize that they are

80
more junior than desired, tell them this. If their technical
skills in Java disappointed you, inform them that they need
to improve. This way, there are no big surprises when it
comes to the negotiation and the salary you offer.

Ideally, transparency should come from both sides. This

is often not the case. No matter how well and fairly you
communicate, negotiations can break down because an
applicant suddenly decides to reject your offer for reasons
that they have never articulated. This is unavoidable and
doesn’t mean that you’ve done anything wrong.

In case of uncertainty, both you and a candidate have the

option of a probation period. While extremely resource-
intensive, probation periods are the ultimate work-sample
test. In the case of a probation period, it is important to
negotiate:

• How long will the probation period last? Normally, it

is two to six months.

• What specific performance criteria does the employee

need to satisfy?

• When and by whom will the performance be reviewed?

If during probation period you realize that the candidate

isn’t right, there’s no reason for you both to invest further
time, just terminate the contract.

Wrapping It Up
Once you have a hire, before you can go out and celebrate,
you need to wrap everything up properly. Contact the other
candidates to inform them that you’ve hired someone else.
Explain the reasons why you preferred the other candidate,
so that they know how to improve in the future. Keep

81
bridges open—if you leave them with a good impression,
perhaps they’ll come to you later in their career. If they
were your second choice for the hire, tell them so. We
once had a situation where our primary pick turned out to
have motivational problems when working remotely. We
terminated his contract and contacted our second pick
who previously didn’t get the job because he had less
experience, but was otherwise great. He is now employed
by us and we’re very satisfied with his work.

Lastly, archive all lists, interview notes, recordings, test

results, and related emails. There are practical reasons
why—you will need data to analyze for improving your
screening process, and you can get into hiring or employ-
ment lawsuits. It is in the company’s best interest to have
everything archived. If such a lawsuit happens, you will
have years of data to justify the reasonings behind any of
your decisions.

Now, your screening process is much improved, but you’re

not done yet. . .

82
 CHAPTER 7: We’re Not Done
Yet: Continuous Improvement
How do you know if your Evidence-Based Hiring process is
any good? There is only one way to tell—look at the data.

As in science, if you collect the data right, the data will

be honest to you. Sometimes, the data will tell that you
are doing well; sometimes, that you are doing badly; and,
sometimes, that you’re not really doing anything at all. A
good rule of thumb is that, if a company says that their
screening procedure is excellent, it’s likely they’re not
analyzing their data at all.

While there is good research on the general validity of

each screening method, the best method to use is likely
to vary slightly for your specific industry. You must sys-
tematically evaluate what methods and questions work for
your profession and in your locale. Thus, your screening
process becomes a never-ending cycle of Plan → Execute
→ Measure → Improve61 , see the next figure.

Planning is deciding what methods to use, what skills are

necessary, and what questions to ask.

Executing is doing the screening rounds.

Measuring is writing down all candidate answers and

scores.

Improving is analyzing what is good and what is bad in

your process, and changing your hiring standards for the
next round.

Note that improving part can even start in the execution

phase, because, after reviewing just a few candidates, you
61 Also known as PDCA cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA

83
 Plan → Execute → Measure → Improve cycle.

Figure 16: Plan → Execute → Measure → Improve cycle.

will already have enough data to notice mistakes.

Here are checklists of what to review during different parts

of the screening process:

Résumé screening checklist When to check? Corrective action

Does screening of each résumé take too After 5-10 résumés Create a list of selection criteria or
much time? shorten your existing one.
Do applicants have the desired level of After 10-20 résumés If you want more experienced
experience? screened applicants, update the Job Ad to target
them:
- Raise salary level.
- Explicitly state that you’re looking for
experience.
- Update company branding to reflect
employee age diversity.
Are too many applicants applying? After 50-100 Revise the Job Ad to include more
applications requirements, and make sure that the
application form has questions that
eliminate candidates.

Preparing questions checklist When to check? Corrective action

Are the questions ambiguous? Immediately after writing Send questions to, at least, one
questions other coworker for review.

84
Preparing questions checklist When to check? Corrective action

Are the answers to the questions available Immediately after writing Rephrase question using
online? questions suggestions from Chapter 5: Level
2: Understanding to make it less
googleable.

Testing candidates checklist When to check? Corrective action

Do the majority of candidates answer the After 5-10 If everybody answers the question
question correctly? candidates tested correctly, it has no predictive value.
Make it harder, or replace with another
question.
Do all of the candidates answer the question After 10-30 Since you’re searching for a top-10%
incorrectly? candidates tested candidate, most applicants should get
your questions wrong. But, if 100% fail,
it’s likely the question, not them. Make it
easier, or replace with another question.
Do enough people answer the question within After 10-30 Fast solvers often need only half the
the allotted time? candidates tested allotted time. If most of the correct
answers as submitted close to the
maximum time, increase that maximum.
Do many, otherwise good, applicants give the After 10-30 There is a high probability that they are
same, incorrect answer? candidates tested right and you are wrong. Double-check
the correct answer.

Structured Interview checklist When to check? Corrective action

Do interviews overrun their allotted time? After 2-3 candidates Ask a more experienced interviewer to
interviewed sit in and give feedback. An
interviewer should talk less than 30%
of the time, whilst still controlling the
flow of the conversation.
Do candidates have a wrong impression of After 3-5 candidates The Job Ad is probably misrepresenting
the job? interviewed the job. Ensure that every key task,
responsibility, perk, and expectation is
listed there.

Negotiation checklist When to check? Corrective action

Do negotiations with After 2-3 failed Be more transparent with candidates in the entire
potential hires often fail? negotiations process after every step, from the Job Ad to the
negotiation.
Do you regularly lose After 2-3 lost candidates Audit your process against similar companies. How
promising applicants to long are they taking to make an offer? Increase the
other companies during speed of your screening process.
the screening process?

Post-hire checklist When to check? Corrective action

Does a new hire fail to After 2-6 months of Check if the job requires a different set of skills than
perform on the job? employment what is tested in the screening process.

85
Post-hire checklist When to check? Corrective action

High turnaround of new After 6-18 months of Get feedback from people leaving the company. Use
hires? employment that knowledge to improve motivation questions
asked at interview.

If the problem persists, there might be an issue with

your company culture. Undertake an anonymous
employee survey.

Some of these problems, such as question difficulty and

allotted time, are really hard to get right when creating
your initial hiring process. Accept this and adopt a lean ap-
proach, correcting mistakes as soon as you have the neces-
sary data. You don’t need anything high-tech—spreadsheet
software and a list of reminders is enough.

86
 CHAPTER 8: Conclusion
In my modest opinion, we don’t live in a world of equal
opportunities.

To understand why I think this and why I wrote this book,

you need to know a little about my background. I grew up in
a small, poor, provincial city in Croatia. I didn’t attend the
eighth grade of primary school—because, in 1993, nobody
did. Croatia had just separated from Yugoslavia and there
was a civil war. My primary school was bombed62 . Every
second day, we sat in an air shelter instead of a classroom.
The war stopped by the time I enrolled in high-school, but
my education was not looking bright. The average monthly
wage at that time was $14063 , so it took a year to convince
my parents to buy my brother and me a computer. We had
heard of the Internet, but there was no such luxury in my
city.

Then, one day, I got a large package. A state agency

responsible for youth computer science education had
selected me for a programming competition. I got a photo-
copy of a photocopy of an American book about algorithms.
I read page after page and tried to use my new knowledge
to solve the tasks.

I went to the state competition and was surprised by the

level of transparency. To prevent professors leaking prob-
lems to their students in advance, all tasks came in sealed
envelopes that are opened at the moment the competi-
tion starts. To ensure evaluations are fair, an evaluator
program connected to students’ computers and calculated
the scores. When the competition finished, we all went out-
62 Photo: http://os- amihanovic- sb.skole.hr/upload/os- amihanovic-

sb/images/multistatic/24/Image/1.jpg
63 Paper (Croatian): http://www.hde.hr/sadrzaj.aspx?Podrucje=171

87
side the room while the evaluator computer calculated and
printed the results. When I have finally read the printed
results, my name was not in the middle or at the bottom of
the list. It was at the top. The evaluator computer had de-
cided that I was the best young programmer in the country,
for that year.

A few months later, there was a summer computer science

camp. The president of the state agency called me and
asked if I want to give a five-day course on programming
to younger students. “You won, so you obviously know
something you can share with younger folks,” he said.
I was surprised. I was just a high school student with
no experience, and no diploma. I won a contest that, in
most domains, someone like me would never even have
been invited to enter. Now, I was allowed to teach purely
because I’d proven I knew the topic.

Never again in my life have I experienced such a level of

transparency and equality as in those computer science
competitions. I’ve never forgotten them and it’s a mystery
to me why the world doesn’t run on similar principles. I got
lucky, but so many others don’t. If I hadn’t been selected
for competition and sent photocopied books, my career
would go in a very different direction.

Today, identical twins separated at birth and sent to dif-

ferent countries still have completely different chances of
professional success. In 2017, average monthly wage was
23 times higher in Switzerland than in the Ukraine64 . Both
have similar climates, population, rich history, and are just
two hours flight time from each other. Yet, because of lan-
guage, culture, and visa requirements, it is extremely hard
even for a talented Ukrainian to go to a Swiss university or
64Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries

_by_average_wage

88
get a Swiss job.

It has always been a matter of luck where you are born

and, until recently, there was not much you could do about
it. Slowly, the world is changing. The Internet has changed
how we study, find jobs, and work. Because there are no
borders online, geography is just not what it used to be.
In 2015, 20-25% of the workforce were teleworking65 and
freelancers made up 35% of the U.S. workforce66 . In 2017,
81 million students studied online67 . While the numbers
are still small, the trends are obvious. Today, motivated
individuals need only a laptop to get an education and to
enter the workforce.

Businesses shouldn’t care how someone looks, where they

live, what school they attended, and with what accent
they speak. They should only care what they can do, and
for what price. Outliers don’t want to be judged by their
appearance, they want to be judged by their work. Being
fair doesn’t cost companies anything—quite the contrary,
it makes them money. The truth is that the best employees
are outliers, and this book tries to give you the tools to find
them.

65 Global Workplace Analytics: http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/tel

ecommuting-statistics
66 Upwork study: https://www.upwork.com/i/freelancing-in-america/20

16/
67 Article: https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2017/

89
 BONUS CHAPTER: Screening
Software Developers
Since my background is in programmer screening, what
follows is a detailed guide for this. Note that this guide is
not designed for a general audience because programming
differs from other jobs in multiple ways.

First, you will almost always want to hire an already good

programmer. Why not hire an average one and then train
them up? The problem is that years of experience and
training don’t guarantee that somebody will become a
great programmer. The large majority of great program-
mers love programming and have done it from an early
age. In that sense, programmers are similar to musicians.
Would you ever hire a mediocre 27-year-old musician with
the hope that they will improve? Absolutely not—if they
were really into music, they would already be great.

Second, since the output of programming is a working

program, the testing of programmers can be mostly au-
tomated. And, the great thing about automatic testing is
that it can find really good outliers. For example, one of
the top competitors at the data-science-challenge platform
Kaggle.com is a 16-year-old high schooler68 .

Third, there is a large variety of productivity levels among

programmers. We are not sure why, but good programmers
can write code that is shorter, more elegant, runs faster,
and has fewer bugs, up to ten times quicker69 . Most people
who apply for a programming job can’t solve even the
simplest coding task.
68 Mashable: https://mashable.com/2017/07/28/16-year-old-ai-genius/
69 Article: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/07/25/hitting-the-high-
notes/

90
This effect has been observed for a long time. Imran Gorky
wrote in 2007:

“I’ve come to discover that people who struggle

to code don’t just struggle on big problems, or
even smallish problems (i.e., write a implemen-
tation of a linked list). They struggle with tiny
problems.”70

He proceeded to develop the famous FizzBuzz question71 .

Today, I don’t recommend using FizzBuzz, as even program-
mers who had been living under a rock have heard about
this task. But, I can confirm that the effect is real, because
we accidentally bumped into a similar question, which is
even shorter than FizzBuzz.

Our FizzBuzz was discovered when creating a tutorial for

candidates’ testing interface. We provided them with a
code template and a method that works in some cases. Tu-
torial asked them to correct two minor bugs in the method.
Take a look at our average-method problem:

Fix the bugs.

...
public static double Average(int a, int b) {
return a + b / 2;
}
...

Can you find both bugs in the allotted time of five minutes?
We didn’t want it to be a trick question, so we also provided
reasons why the formula failed:
70 Blog post: https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-

find-developers-who-grok-coding/
71 C2 wiki: http://wiki.c2.com/?FizzBuzzTest

91
These hints make it obvious that operator priority makes
the calculation wrong (primary school math), and that an
integer divided by another integer results in an integer
division (this is the same in C++, Java, or C#). But, even if
a candidate can’t find the bugs with the current code, they
could write their own. A good programmer should be able
to write an average method in less than 30 seconds.

To our great surprise, a third of people were not able to

come up with any of the correct solutions, such as “re-
turn (a+b)/2.0;”, or “return (a+b)/2d;” or “return (dou-
ble)(a+b)/2;” And our FizzBuzz is just three lines of code!

That is why writing simple code should be the first step of

your screening process. Some of the people who couldn’t
solve this task had nice-looking résumés listing experience
in cloud computing, multi-tier architectures, and other
buzzwords. Résumé screening would provide completely
wrong impression of them.

However, despite all of the reasons presented above, it has

taken two decades for the idea of automated programmer
testing to catch on. The main reason is the complexity
of automated testing. Because of that complexity, you’re
unlikely to be developing a testing platform yourself, but
using one of the existing platforms, such as Codility, Hack-
erRank, or our company, TestDome. To be honest, exactly
which platform you pick is not so important—it’s how you
test. Here’s a walkthrough for programmer testing, cre-
ated using TestDome but replicable on any of the testing
platforms. The examples are for a .NET Web Developer
internal vacancy.

92
The first test was short, and part of the candidate applica-
tion process. The key was to focus on just the two or three
most important job requirements that can be automatically
tested.

For example, our job ad clearly stated that “we require a

strong knowledge of C# and JavaScript.” So, we decided
to have two ten-minute questions, one for C# and another
one for JavaScript, see the next figure.

C# and JavaScript Screening Test.

Figure 17: C# and JavaScript Screening Test.

The first question asked to call a few methods with proper

exception handling. The second asked for a method to
modify the page after a button click. Both questions were
easy, but required candidates to write, at least, some code.

Although the job ad clearly stated the requirements, out of

415 candidates that applied, only 140 were able to solve
both questions (a candidate pass rate of 34%). This pass-
rate seems low, but it’s typical for both us and users of our
testing platform.

It is only after the screening test that we proceed to résumé

screening. We had predetermined criteria for what we
93
search for. As I explained in Chapter 6: Screening Résumés,
this reduces our biases, improves prediction, and saves
time.

After we had a smaller pool of candidates, we patted them

on the back, saying that we like their résumé and that
their score on the screening test was good. But, since we
had many more candidates, we needed another test. We
divided necessary coding skills into discrete tasks, using
short questions on specific topics. Take a look at our test
in the next figure.

Detailed Web Developer Test.

Figure 18: Detailed Web Developer Test.

A few things about how the testing was organized:

• The test was 90-minutes long, which still took up less

of a candidate’s time than coming in for an interview.

• The C# skills were tested in two distinct areas: object-

oriented programming (OOP), and algorithms and
data structures. The OOP question asked to imple-
ment a fictive IBird interface, while the algorithm

94
 question asked to calculate where a grasshopper
would be after N steps.

• The CSS skill was tested with the Ad question, which

asked to style a specific <div> element.

• The JavaScript skill was also tested in two distinct

areas—processing data in JavaScript (Height question)
and using JavaScript to manipulate the HTML DOM
(Cards question).

• All questions were automatically scored.

When we used this test, we set the minimum pass score

to 78%. This allowed a candidate to flop one question and
still be invited for an interview. In the end, only 20% of
invited candidates passed (28 of the 140 that made it to
this round).

The next step was conducting Skype interviews with can-

didates, recorded and reviewed by another coworker. We
covered this step in detail in Chapter 6: Structured Inter-
views. We ended up hiring a candidate who didn’t have
the top test score, but scored highly in the interview. As I
wrote before, technical expertise is just one factor, but it is
the easiest and cheapest to test.

How Testing Platforms Work

If you want to implement your own testing platform, or are
interested in how testing platforms work, here is a detailed
breakdown.

Let’s start with automated checking of answers. How is

that implemented? There are two standard ways:

• Text input and output. The candidate writes a pro-

gram that reads standard input and writes to standard
95
 output. Text output is compared to the correct out-
put. This works in the same way for all programming
languages, so test cases can be language-agnostic.

• Unit testing. The candidate needs to perform just the

task (e.g., fixing a bug), and doesn’t need to write
code for reading input and output. The solution is
tested using a unit testing framework, specific for
each language.

Most testing platforms use the text input and output ap-
proach, but we opted to use unit tests. It’s easier for
candidates and allows us to test many more things. Be-
cause we have HTML/CSS unit tests running in headless
Chrome72 , we can ask such questions as the one in the
next figure.

Inspector HTML question.

Figure 19: Inspector HTML question.

72 Google: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/04/head
less-chrome

96
In addition to simply testing if a program’s output is valid,
we can also test algorithmic complexity, performance, and
memory consumption.

Algorithmic complexity is denoted with Big O73 . O(1)

means that the program is guaranteed to run in constant
time. O(N) means the maximum program running time is
proportional to length N of input. There is also logarithm
complexity O(log N), quadratic complexity O(N2 ), and
many others74 . The lower the complexity, the better.
Determining exact O requires manual examination, but
there is a hack. Testing platforms measure complexity
indirectly, by measuring performance. Here are the steps:

1. Limit the maximum running time of a program, e.g.,

2 seconds.

2. Code a solution that has the lowest possible O.

3. Increase N (size of input) until your optimal solution

runs within a given running limit, e.g., 1.6 seconds.

4. Candidate solutions that are not optimal will exceed

the maximum running time for N, and, thus, fail the
test.

In other words, it is easer to test if the answer has the

optimal O or not, then to find exact O. An example is our
Binary Search Tree75 , where one third of the points are
given for performance.

Memory consumption can be measured in the same way.

If we limit memory consumption of a candidate’s code to
73Wikipedia: https://rob-bell.net/2009/06/a-beginners-guide-to-big-o-

notation/
74Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#Orders_of_c

ommon_functions
75 TestDome: https://www.testdome.com/questions/c-sharp/binary-

search-tree/12976

97
12 MB, and we know that the optimal solution takes 10
MB, then candidate solutions which take more than 20% of
optimal memory will fail.

There are other aspects of programming that would be

nice to check, but are unfortunately a bit subjective.

Code length should be as short as possible, while main-

taining readability. Two common measures people use are
lines of code (LOC76 ) and byte length of code. They are
both simple, but problematic. The LOC measure gives an
advantage to programmers who put multiple statements in
the same line, which decreases readability. Similarly, byte
length of source code gives an advantage to programmers
who name variables “a” instead of “average”, which is
bad practice. If you want to compare the code length of
two solutions, there is a better way: compare the sizes
of zipped77 source code instead. In a ZIP file, repeating
patterns of whitespace are compressed, and repeating the
variable name “average” doesn’t take much more space
then “a.” The popular Computer Language Benchmarks
Game uses this measure78 .

Readability of code is hard to judge. For example, func-

tional code or code that uses a certain design pattern
will be hard to read for some, but completely readable to
others. Still, checking readability of code makes sense,
because people in the company need to be able to read
the code employees produce.

Our system automatically scores program validity, perfor-

mance, and memory consumption. We believe that these
are the most important—a program which works is better
76Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code
77Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gzip
78 Benchmarks Game: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.ne

t/benchmarksgame/how-programs-are-measured.html#source-code

98
than a shorter/more readable program which doesn’t work.

There is one more thing companies use to score candidates:

real-time coding. Personally, I don’t know why watching
someone code would give better insights than merely see-
ing the end result. In the case of a whiteboard interview,
candidates who talk a lot often appear smarter than quiet
candidates. In the case of an online test, a candidate
who doesn’t code anything in the first five minutes (while
thinking about the problem) would appear worse than a
candidate who writes some partially correct code in the
same time.

Now, we need to address one common concern regarding

online tests—the fear that candidates will cheat. This
cheating comes in two forms.

Finding answers online. A valid concern, if you are a test-

ing company or test thousands of people with the same
questions. If you test less than that, don’t worry; it takes
time for questions to leak. The majority of candidates will
not share questions online because of the fear that they
are going to be identified and sued. As we are a testing
company, it is a concern for us. After we had more than
500 paying customers, some candidates started posting
our questions online. We combated this with automated
leaking detection. A script periodically queries Google for
unique parts of our questions. If leaked, we get a notifica-
tion. You can do the same for your questions by setting
automated Google Alerts79 .

Another person taking the test. This happens rarely with

individual candidates. However, a few years ago, we tried
to use oDesk (now Upwork) to find developers for low-level
tasks. We were impressed with the quality of the candi-
79 Google Alerts: https://www.google.com/alerts

99
dates who applied, only to discover later that they had no
intention of doing the work. After passing the screening
process, they delegated the work to an inexperienced per-
son, while the expert would be busy applying for further
jobs to outsource. Having such an “interview expert” is
a common tactic for outsourcing agencies in developing
countries.

A way to combat this is to verify identity using a computer’s

webcam. There are three types of such online proctoring:
live, record-and-review, and automated80 . We use record-
and-review proctoring, where pictures of a candidate are
taken periodically (see the next figure).

Record-and-review online proctoring.

Figure 20: Record-and-review online proctoring.

Conclusion
For HR departments the easiest way to hire is to have the
same process for every applicant, and to not have sepa-
rate tools for developers, students, salespeople, etc. But if
80Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proctor#Online_Proctoring

100
you screen developers like every other employee, you are
wasting your time and not getting the best talent. Program-
mer screening is quite advanced and there are 20 years of
experience in using better tools than a phone or a white-
board. Live coding, automated checking of correctness
and memory consumption, coding replay, code analysis,
and online proctoring are all available on various platforms
where you can even enter your own custom questions. And
let’s not forget that such testing is asynchronous, mean-
ing candidates can take it whenever works best for their
schedule and avoid traveling to your office.

In conclusion, setting up a developer screening process

takes an upfront effort, but in the end pays out for both
you and the candidates.

101
 One more thing. . .
Thanks for finishing the book!

But, how do you decide what to read among millions of

books? Reviews help readers like you, and they also help
authors know what is good about the book, and what can
be improved.

If you enjoyed this book, please take a few minutes

to review it on Amazon (https://rebrand.ly/ebh) and/or
Goodreads (https://rebrand.ly/gr-ebh).

102
 About the Author

Zeljko Svedic is a cofounder of TestDome, a company

which provides automated pre-employment screening to
ABB, eBay, PayPal—and thousand others. He and fellow
cofounder Mario Zivic met while preparing for computer-
science competitions. It seems that both prepared quite
well, as they each won first-place prizes in national com-
petitions (Zeljko in 1997, Mario in 2000). After university,
Zeljko went to work for Microsoft and Infragistics and Mario
went to work for Ericsson. Together, they founded Test-
Dome in 2013, after realizing that company testing still
lagged behind the competitions that they participated in
back in the ’90s.

In his private life, Zeljko loves reading obscure blogs, writ-

ing even more obscure articles, and traveling to warm
places. He is a proud father of a lovely, pink-loving princess
named Sara.

103