3 ms·

Very true. Like buying from IBM will never get you fired, neither would hiring from Google (though they may start to change in their case.) Certainly it's eas

Very true. Like buying from IBM will never get you fired, neither would hiring from Google (though they may start to change in their case.) Certainly it's easier to look at education, corporate brand as signaling than to really dive into someone's skills and capacity to be successful.

eldavido 10y ago
The worst thing is that I see myself falling into this trap. I get dismissive of people without the right "pedigree", but then I realize it's the worst form of mental laziness. I wonder whether truly great companies are different. I think that, just like really great investors (Fred Wilson and Michael Seibel, to name two) have said, "just tell me what you're doing in simple language", implicitly saying "I trust my own judgment" (vs. some elaborate dance of social networking/signaling), I suspect hiring at really top-tier companies doesn't turn as much on pedigree as on some measurable element of skill, or actual work performance. In any case, the people I admire most in this world are the contrarians who have the conviction to act on their beliefs, like the Big Short guys, or Billy Beane from the A's -- but that kind of thinking isn't career-friendly, AT ALL. I also think Nassim Taleb has the right idea that "skin in the game is a moral imperative". In all cases where people pass the buck, the problem is that their interests (e.g. their own careers) are insufficiently aligned with those of their principals (the firms' investors). You want to really see what works, look at the guys who are playing with their own money (e.g. hedge funds, proprietary traders, closely-held companies), not the pundits on CNN.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
basseq 10y ago
> Certainly it's easier to look at education, corporate brand as signaling than to really dive into someone's skills and capacity to be successful. Even more insidious because it actually works. The "average" Stanford CS major coming out of Google is very good. Your false-positive rate (they're actually not that great) is pretty low. However, your false-negative rate (if you didn't go to Stanford or work at Google, you're crap) is insanely high.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Why is Google hiring? If they're hiring to get someone to do a job, their setup makes sense. (A false positive - a bad hire - can be quite damaging, but a false negative - someone you fail to hire who would have been good - is not damaging at all, if in the end you hire someone good to do the job.) But if Google is hiring for more than that - say, for what the employee will come up with on their own in their 20% time - then the false negatives could be extremely expensive to Google.
  - dilemma 10y ago
    >But if Google is hiring for more than that - say, for what the employee will come up with on their own in their 20% time - then the false negatives could be extremely expensive to Google. This hiring process, together with internal structure, is exactly why companies eventually stagnate. They hire for compliance and create an environment that values the same. There may be smart people in the organization, but great ideas are not compliant because they require change. This is why consultants and outside agencies are needed to come up with ideas - ideas are not welcome in many environments.

eldavido 10y ago

The worst thing is that I see myself falling into this trap. I get dismissive of people without the right "pedigree", but then I realize it's the worst form of mental laziness. I wonder whether truly great companies are different. I think that, just like really great investors (Fred Wilson and Michael Seibel, to name two) have said, "just tell me what you're doing in simple language", implicitly saying "I trust my own judgment" (vs. some elaborate dance of social networking/signaling), I suspect hiring at really top-tier companies doesn't turn as much on pedigree as on some measurable element of skill, or actual work performance. In any case, the people I admire most in this world are the contrarians who have the conviction to act on their beliefs, like the Big Short guys, or Billy Beane from the A's -- but that kind of thinking isn't career-friendly, AT ALL. I also think Nassim Taleb has the right idea that "skin in the game is a moral imperative". In all cases where people pass the buck, the problem is that their interests (e.g. their own careers) are insufficiently aligned with those of their principals (the firms' investors). You want to really see what works, look at the guys who are playing with their own money (e.g. hedge funds, proprietary traders, closely-held companies), not the pundits on CNN.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

basseq 10y ago

> Certainly it's easier to look at education, corporate brand as signaling than to really dive into someone's skills and capacity to be successful. Even more insidious because it actually works. The "average" Stanford CS major coming out of Google is very good. Your false-positive rate (they're actually not that great) is pretty low. However, your false-negative rate (if you didn't go to Stanford or work at Google, you're crap) is insanely high.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Why is Google hiring? If they're hiring to get someone to do a job, their setup makes sense. (A false positive - a bad hire - can be quite damaging, but a false negative - someone you fail to hire who would have been good - is not damaging at all, if in the end you hire someone good to do the job.) But if Google is hiring for more than that - say, for what the employee will come up with on their own in their 20% time - then the false negatives could be extremely expensive to Google.
- dilemma 10y ago
  >But if Google is hiring for more than that - say, for what the employee will come up with on their own in their 20% time - then the false negatives could be extremely expensive to Google. This hiring process, together with internal structure, is exactly why companies eventually stagnate. They hire for compliance and create an environment that values the same. There may be smart people in the organization, but great ideas are not compliant because they require change. This is why consultants and outside agencies are needed to come up with ideas - ideas are not welcome in many environments.