3 ms·
> 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 i
by 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 agoWhy 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.