Triplebyte vs Internal Technical Hiring Data
On average 104.88 engineers hours are spent per in house hire compared to 71.12 with Triplebyte.
The total time to make an engineering hire in house is 74 days. Triplebyte was 34 days per hire, approximately 40% faster.
Can you describe your role at Box?
I'm the Director of Engineering for Enterprise group. We build customer facing products typically for the Chief Security Officers, IT, Legal and Compliance teams using Box.
What were the main hiring challenges you were looking for help with when considering external hiring support?
Well primarily we weren't hitting our hiring targets and that was putting a strain on our ability to hit our business objectives and product goals. When I joined Box, there was a general sentiment that responsibility for hiring fell entirely on the recruiting team and not engineering. I wanted to shift that culture towards making everyone feel responsible for hiring and in particularly getting engineering managers used to spending at least 50% of their time on hiring and building a team.
This was a foreign concept for most of them. They weren't used to it and didn't know how to do things like source candidates themselves. So we started looking at additional tools that could support them in taking on additional hiring responsibilities and make that easier for them.
A secondary challenge we had was also ensuring our interview process was consistent, with clear rubrics for interviewers. We were finding that interviewers would ask the same candidate different questions and form very different opinions. Without consistent evaluation it's hard to know which opinion is more accurate when making hiring decisions.
How did you hear about Triplebyte?
I've been following your blog posts and content for a while, I first came across it on Hacker News and have kept following since.
What were the perceived advantages and concerns about working with Triplebyte initially?
It was a big advantage that we could get setup quickly and easily without investing time or money on our side. We were behind on hitting our hiring targets so we figured there was nothing to lose by trying it out. We viewed it very much as an experiment with no downside.
Our main concerns were over cost and would using Triplebyte be cost effective. There was also a small concern about whether the quality of the candidates would be high and if we could trust the quality of the technical evaluation but we viewed those both as easy to answer quickly.
What were the main advantages/successes of working with Triplebyte?
We were able to meet our hiring goals in a rapid period of time using Triplebyte. That has set us up well for a chance of success with our upcoming product goals. Before working with Triplebyte we weren't hiring at the pace we needed so that's a huge success.
How has Triplebyte differed from other recruiting products and services you've used in the past?
Our recruiting team loves how Triplebyte has a web interface and software for searching and filtering candidates. This makes it much easier than working with multiple traditional recruiting firms who each have their own processes and ways of doing things. They don't build their own software so you usually have to call them to manage candidates, Triplebyte is much easier.
I also like how as an engineering manager I can input my technical hiring preferences and the specific skills I'm looking for in each role by selecting archetypes.
What is your advice to others who might be considering using Triplebyte?
I'd say Triplebyte is a clear way to get ahead in the technical recruiting war, and it's definitely a war! If you have the budget to invest in scaling your engineering team, I'd say it doesn't make sense not to use Triplebyte considering how hard it is to make a technical hire. Even if you're concerned about cost savings, I'd say it still makes sense for mission critical hiring and situations where you really need to hire in full time people quickly, instead of using temporary solutions like hiring contractors.