Formulate it: how we rewrote the text of the vacancy and slipped to the solution of mathematical inequality

In the development company, we are humanists working with a team. And girls. It will take a sufficient amount of time before the conversations around will stop reminding the Valirian one and we can at least occasionally laugh at the topic. It will take even more time, and we will become so bold that we will write a whole article on Habr, where we will tell you how we tried to create a vacancy in the form of a mathematical formula and why this might be useful.

As is customary to indicate on job sites - FunCorp , the company “up to 50 people”. We are always looking for talents, especially over the last couple of years: the team is growing and the hiring process begins to be systematized.

It was decided to rewrite the vacancy template for a banal reason - I stopped liking it. We didn’t set ourselves any artificial frames; at the time of the experiments, everything is possible with us. Therefore, after several visits, it was thought: “What if the canvas from the text is optimized into a formula - a more understandable substance for programmers?” Then they decided to go ahead and make the vacancy look like a classic puzzle.

It was tight. We did not understand what should be the result: just a formula or an equation? And if the equation, which one? The discussion of the main components helped us decide.

Given:

On the one hand, there is a company that offers something. And this is something she considers important and advantageous. In our case:

• The scale and focus of the product on which to work. We will not abbreviate and denote the name - $$$iFunny$
• Bonuses, buns and other corporate development opportunities - $$$Bonus$. Since this is good in bulk, let's make the sum of its component parts.
• $$$P$- money, where without them.

On the other hand, there is an applicant who offers something. And this is something he (a) considers important and advantageous. But we are looking, not us, therefore the employer sets the conditions here:

• Required technology stack - $$$S$
• Desirable skills that will be a plus $$$p$
• Experience - $$$t$
• Personal qualities - Wit and Courage. Short - $$$O_2$

The question is how to relate the conditions of each of the parties so that they correctly reflect reality? You just can't sum it up, because dependencies are also important. At this stage, it was decided to call the physicist to help the lyricists, because we could not cope. This is what happened in the end if you start with a request for candidates.

Watch your hands:

$$$(S + p) ^ t \ cdot O_2$

where it is important for us to stack and the desired skills to set the degree of experience, and Wit and Bravery are not done with something to go through: if one of these qualities is not there, everything will multiply by zero.

A skeptical voice is already coming:
- Yes, straight, if there is an excellent specialist - you close your eyes to the fact that he is without a sense of humor.
- NO.

Why we need O2 as oxygen is an important story. It so happened that our products are built on wit, in which millions of people joke daily. Team relations are built in the same language of memes: we are joking in Slack, Confluence, in the kitchen and in the analysis of errors. And even when we present newbies or roll out with habrastatyu with feils.

Solutions are built on courage. Do not be afraid to take responsibility, offer, implement, argue, make mistakes and grow above you. Enter the American market without moms, dads and loans. Why not? And the development process is directly related.

With one part clear.

The second:

$$$iFunny + \ sum \ limits_ {i = 1} ^ 9Bonus_i + P$

It was easier here. Plus the product, the amount of bonuses and money.

But it was not easier at the stage of isolating these three parameters, because I wanted to add separately about the training, interview stages, all sorts of quarterly bonuses and food. Be sure to go. But it is good that the formula is not rubber and we have generalized a lot.

To find:

Finally, we got to the point. If we have a problem, then what will we ask to find in it? Were weak attempts to remember: what is the difference between the equation and inequality, where and what signs to put correctly and how does all this relate to the original goal?

We stopped on the fact that we give the applicant to solve the inequality and to understand for himself: his proposal is greater than ours or equal. Both of these options are desirable and true for us.

$$$(S + p) ^ t \ cdot O_2 \ geq iFunny + \ sum \ limits_ {i = 1} ^ 9Bonus_i + P$

That is, we assume that the candidate’s experience and skills may not only be equal to what we give. If knowledge and skills objectively require a higher salary, the person has the right to put a sign > . We will not be offended and will negotiate.

Decision:

The idea seemed perfect. We went to the fields and gave an example of a vacancy to our developers: they are always ready to help. The main concerns concerned clarity, informativeness and general impression of such a format.

The results were surprisingly pleasant. Here we think that our idea is also brilliant. Here are some examples:

Answer:

Final option

We did not use this template.
¯ \ _ (ツ) _ / ¯ or, as they say, Fun Happens :)

Bug work:

• A mathematical formula is not a code, and for many programmers it is not understandable after years.
• The format of the problem cannot be reproduced in any way on job sites: the formula breaks, the indents of the curves, the editor flies constantly. This is about hh.ru and “My Circle”. Perhaps they deliberately reduce the degree of creativity on their sites. That's our reduced.
• Of course, this idea was not ideal. When it seems so - it's time to think: “Something is definitely going wrong.” We did not find such vacancies at the time of recurrence, although, if you dig deeper, surely they are. But that's not the point.

In our case, such a format is a reference to a certain academic character, which we don’t have. It is not enough visible professionalism of the team, plus many will be able to find inconsistencies: for example, that it is incorrect to compare the original data of an individual person and the whole company.

And the most important thing.
Is it brave to publish such a vacancy to a wide audience? - Yes.
Is it witty? - Not really.

Total:

Feil was suddenly and irrevocably turned in favor. We realized that this formula can be used for internal purposes: at interviews and when comparing candidates.

If you outline all the parameters, it is right to give them weight and put the questions in such a way as to reveal them step by step and evaluate them correctly - people will be at a glance. This technique gave us clarity: we know what we want from a person, and we understand what we give him. Abstract “personal qualities”, in turn, are concentrated in a clear and tangible image.

Do not think that after the interviews you can witness the wild scene, where HR with a timlid calculates the courage factor and multiplies the skills by experience. Not. All calculations take place in the mind. A given formula reduces the time of discussions and reduces subjectivity in decision making. This process has made it easier for us.

At first glance, this stupid experiment made us really feel that experimenting is great, and systematization needs to be continued.
And may you initially plan to arrange the words into beautiful sentences, the experiment curve may lead you to ordering something more.

Findings:

• Experiment.
• Ask if you don't understand.
• Organize as much feedback as possible.
• To accept the fact that a brilliant idea is not always brilliant.
• Turn fales in favor.

Well, to be witty and courageous is a permanent condition.

Have Fun :)