"In regards to what works the best, I found that these 2 ideas work the best when combined. PAID Sample project assignment (err on the side of paying fairly — say $100+/hour for estimated completion time — if the problem should require 2 hours to complete, offer $200) Bring the candidate in and discuss the solution. Let the candidate talk about their design decisions, challenge them as you would any team member and let them provide their reasoning."
"Build work-sample tests. Instead of asking questions about the kind of work you do, have candidates actually do the work. Careful. I am not saying candidates should spend a 2-week trial period as a 1099 contractor. That’s a terrible plan: the best candidates won’t do it. But more importantly: it doesn’t work. Unlike a trial period, work sample tests have all three of these characteristics: they mirror as closely as possible the actual work a candidate will be called on to perform in their job, they’re standardized, so that every candidate faces the same test, they generates data and a grade, not a simple pass/fail result." "Ask yourself some questions about your hiring process. Is it consistent? Does every candidate get the same interview? Does it correct for hostility and pressure? Does it factor in “confidence” and “passion”? If so, are you sure you want to do that? Does it generate data beyond hire/no-hire? How are you collecting and comparing it? Are you learning both from your successes and failures? Does it make candidates demonstrate the work you do? Imagine your candidate is a “natural” who has never done the work, but has a preternatural aptitude for it. Could you hire that person, or would you miss them because they have the wrong kind of Github profile? Are candidates prepped fully? Does the onus for showing the candidate in their best light fall on you, or the candidate?"