5 ms·

This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination. I think it's more likely to reinforce the la

This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination. I think it's more likely to reinforce the lack of diversity in tech than to combat it as people unlike the interviewer tend to be viewed less favorably and would be less likely to be viewed as a person who could pick up the specific knowledge he/she doesn't already know.

hvidgaard 10y ago
Maybe, but my mantra is a mix. I use standard technical questions ect. to weed out candidates that cannot do the job - I try to stay general such that I see problem solving, rather than certification. Then I'm left with a pool of people that are real potential hires. After that I'm looking for a learner with the right mindset, and THEN I'm looking for a fit - preferably someone who will complement the team, rather than reinforce what is already working. Hiring is not an exact science, and what works for me, is probably not working for others.
slgeorge 10y ago
Having read through it, I think he's trying to hire for fit with himself and his team. An inbuilt assumption is that the candidates are capable of doing the role - he mentions going through their CV, or perhaps he's already covered off skills. I don't think he's saying that skills to do the role aren't required: so he's not hiring graduates and then giving them the skills for the job, for example. It's a tough one, if you don't look at whether a candidate could fit within the team (in this case they care about 'passion') then you're storing up problems on the team dynamic front. On the other hand, as you point out, it's difficult to hire on personality without subconsciously hiring people you like which is often people like you: which means less diversity.
takno 10y ago
I feel like it's telling that he refers to the candidates as guys throughout
- SeanCrawford 10y ago
  If you mean the article, then I disagree, for I read him as using this person, candidate, and even the gender neutral "them" in the singular. As for "guy," the word is like nation and nationalist: it must be read in context: nation can mean Kurds and Quebec, or Iraq and Canada. Yes, if you want Quebec to separate then you are a nationalist, and if you want Canada to stay whole then you are a nationalist. In talking to two women I can mention a gorgeous guy in my classroom and then ask, "Are you guys going to the concert?"
wolfgke 10y ago
> This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination. You also discriminate against applicants who don't seem to be very capable in programming or seem to have really toxic personality traits (which is a good idea). How do you come to the idea that discrimination that "hiring for personality" is biased to leads to worse outcome?
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Discrimination in employment law only refers to specific classes of people based on race, religion, gender, military service, etc. Passing up on someone who isn't qualified for a job isn't discrimination. "Hiring for personally" can result in "hiring potential drinking buddies" which means your hiring may skew towards people who share your race, gender, creed, and religion because humans usually pick people like ourselves for friends. This can become a positive feedback loop. If your hiring practices are discriminatory that is illegal.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > Discrimination in employment law only refers to specific classes of people based on race, religion, gender, military service, etc. Passing up on someone who isn't qualified for a job isn't discrimination. A central idea of empirical science is Occam's razor. (Nearly) all religions violate this principle since they introduce assumptions that are not necessary. With this argumentation one can easily argue why a religious person could not be qualified for a job in empirical science.
humanrebar 10y ago
> I think it's more likely to reinforce the lack of diversity in tech than to combat it... I have mixed feelings about this. I have a hard time valuing diversity for its own sake, especially since there are so many qualities to have diversity in, and especially since the ones that actually affect the organization (like diversity of perspective) are so hard to measure and quantify. That being said, it's hard for me to sit in an interview and think, "Hmmmm... this is a diversity candidate, so I should ___________." I'm not even sure what to put in that blank. And I feel like I'm already discriminating since I'm already treating this person like a demographic. So what's the answer? Don't get to know any personalities? Treat everyone like a demographic? I'm not sure that's an improvement.
- atom-morgan 10y ago
  > Treat everyone like a demographic? I'm not sure that's an improvement. That's basically it. We've reduced everyone down to race and gender because diversity. This is the reason for criticizing "culture fit".
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Not discriminating against people not like you has absolutely nothing to do with "diversity for its own sake." Honestly, if when I go in to interview with you, you're already having a mental narrative and discussion with yourself about "diversity candidates", I'd prefer you didn't get to know me. Just ask me technical questions, please; I'm begging for a whiteboard to get out of that. Or a different face to wear when I go to job interviews.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > I'd prefer you didn't get to know me I'd prefer not think about it and just get to know people as well. That's what I was trying to get at. It's disappointing that my attempt to express the catch-22 from my end turns you off to the point of ending the conversation. This is part of the problem with 'diversity' qua 'diversity' IMO. Culture blew past tolerance and on to something else a long time ago. I'm not sure we want real diversity so much.
- 10y ago

hvidgaard 10y ago

Maybe, but my mantra is a mix. I use standard technical questions ect. to weed out candidates that cannot do the job - I try to stay general such that I see problem solving, rather than certification. Then I'm left with a pool of people that are real potential hires. After that I'm looking for a learner with the right mindset, and THEN I'm looking for a fit - preferably someone who will complement the team, rather than reinforce what is already working. Hiring is not an exact science, and what works for me, is probably not working for others.

slgeorge 10y ago

Having read through it, I think he's trying to hire for fit with himself and his team. An inbuilt assumption is that the candidates are capable of doing the role - he mentions going through their CV, or perhaps he's already covered off skills. I don't think he's saying that skills to do the role aren't required: so he's not hiring graduates and then giving them the skills for the job, for example. It's a tough one, if you don't look at whether a candidate could fit within the team (in this case they care about 'passion') then you're storing up problems on the team dynamic front. On the other hand, as you point out, it's difficult to hire on personality without subconsciously hiring people you like which is often people like you: which means less diversity.

takno 10y ago

I feel like it's telling that he refers to the candidates as guys throughout

SeanCrawford 10y ago
If you mean the article, then I disagree, for I read him as using this person, candidate, and even the gender neutral "them" in the singular. As for "guy," the word is like nation and nationalist: it must be read in context: nation can mean Kurds and Quebec, or Iraq and Canada. Yes, if you want Quebec to separate then you are a nationalist, and if you want Canada to stay whole then you are a nationalist. In talking to two women I can mention a gorgeous guy in my classroom and then ask, "Are you guys going to the concert?"

wolfgke 10y ago

> This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination. You also discriminate against applicants who don't seem to be very capable in programming or seem to have really toxic personality traits (which is a good idea). How do you come to the idea that discrimination that "hiring for personality" is biased to leads to worse outcome?

nommm-nommm 10y ago
Discrimination in employment law only refers to specific classes of people based on race, religion, gender, military service, etc. Passing up on someone who isn't qualified for a job isn't discrimination. "Hiring for personally" can result in "hiring potential drinking buddies" which means your hiring may skew towards people who share your race, gender, creed, and religion because humans usually pick people like ourselves for friends. This can become a positive feedback loop. If your hiring practices are discriminatory that is illegal.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > Discrimination in employment law only refers to specific classes of people based on race, religion, gender, military service, etc. Passing up on someone who isn't qualified for a job isn't discrimination. A central idea of empirical science is Occam's razor. (Nearly) all religions violate this principle since they introduce assumptions that are not necessary. With this argumentation one can easily argue why a religious person could not be qualified for a job in empirical science.

humanrebar 10y ago

> I think it's more likely to reinforce the lack of diversity in tech than to combat it... I have mixed feelings about this. I have a hard time valuing diversity for its own sake, especially since there are so many qualities to have diversity in, and especially since the ones that actually affect the organization (like diversity of perspective) are so hard to measure and quantify. That being said, it's hard for me to sit in an interview and think, "Hmmmm... this is a diversity candidate, so I should ___________." I'm not even sure what to put in that blank. And I feel like I'm already discriminating since I'm already treating this person like a demographic. So what's the answer? Don't get to know any personalities? Treat everyone like a demographic? I'm not sure that's an improvement.

atom-morgan 10y ago
> Treat everyone like a demographic? I'm not sure that's an improvement. That's basically it. We've reduced everyone down to race and gender because diversity. This is the reason for criticizing "culture fit".
pessimizer 10y ago
Not discriminating against people not like you has absolutely nothing to do with "diversity for its own sake." Honestly, if when I go in to interview with you, you're already having a mental narrative and discussion with yourself about "diversity candidates", I'd prefer you didn't get to know me. Just ask me technical questions, please; I'm begging for a whiteboard to get out of that. Or a different face to wear when I go to job interviews.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > I'd prefer you didn't get to know me I'd prefer not think about it and just get to know people as well. That's what I was trying to get at. It's disappointing that my attempt to express the catch-22 from my end turns you off to the point of ending the conversation. This is part of the problem with 'diversity' qua 'diversity' IMO. Culture blew past tolerance and on to something else a long time ago. I'm not sure we want real diversity so much.
10y ago