4 ms·

How is that even remotely related to the job at hand? Why would you sabotage possible good candidates just so you can get your needless debate rocks off?

stronglikedan 8y ago
Same reason why some would sabotage possible good candidates just because they never wondered how a toilet works. People are weird.
pxue 8y ago
Because you're joining a team and should be a good fit beyond technical expertise. I would be very happy to have answered that question and would be a plus one in my books if I can have these types of heated talks with my coworkers.
- Loughla 8y ago
  Non-baited statement (and I'm aware it's discussed a lot here), but my experience with people saying the candidate wouldn't be a good 'fit' was just a way to enforce bias either unconsciously or consciously. And led to problems with group-think and an inability to think in different ways. Now granted my hiring sample is less than 100, but that has been my experience so far.
  - PorterDuff 8y ago
    As a serious question, why do you think that dissimilar groups product faster or higher quality work? How far can you take that concept? Should they even speak the same language?
    - jimcsharp 8y ago
      It probably makes it easier to act like a professional. If you reduce the social gel at work, perhaps more work gets done. Maybe I've gained a morning of productivity today because a conversation didn't devolve into a Simpsons quote-athon.
    - Loughla 8y ago
      Dissimilar groups produce higher quality work, in my opinion and experience. It takes longer, because of the discussion that needs to happen. But, again in my experience, quality of product is far more important than speed of production. If I worked on a factory line making widgets, maybe this would change. But the quality of the outcome, again in my experience, is higher for groups that are dissimilar overall in background and viewpoints. Teams structured in this way are able to view things from different angles. They are able to challenge each other in ways that groups from similar backgrounds with similar view are simply not able to even think of. >How far can I take the concept? What does that matter? Honestly? >Should they even speak the same language? It's helpful? What does this have to do with 'fit' actually being current business manager code for 'implicit bias'? And my point wasn't that dissimilar groups work better; my point was that looking for 'fit' is just a way for groups to embrace their own biases about 'insert trait here' without feeling guilty, and leads, in my opinion and experience, to groupthink and circlejerky ideas. My experience has taught me that any business more concerned with fit is not a place for me. I have yet to be challenged intellectually anywhere that 'fit' has been part of the interview process.
  - JudgeWapner 8y ago
    why should the candidate just apply for software engineering jobs? Isn't focusing on one field just enforcing their bias to a particular industry? Shouldn't we enforce basic rules that candidates apply to a diverse gamut of other jobs, such as truck driving, painting, and customer service? And shouldn't we shame them if they decline an offer for a labor job by calling out their biases? Shouldn't we require candidates to apply to more than one company? I mean, if they focused on one company at a time, that clearly enforces their bias (either unconsciously or consiously). How are we going to contain this blatant bias in job applicants?
    - Loughla 8y ago
      I can't tell if you're being serious or not. If you are, then you have missed the point entirely and I would argue don't even understand what I was talking about in the first place. If you're not, then you got one over on me 100%.
geofft 8y ago
Misaligned incentives: the people doing interviews have such indirect financial incentive to hire the right people (only that a good/bad hire affects the company's profit, which affects their own salary/stock), almost no way of telling if they made a bad hire decision, and definitely no way of telling if they made a bad no-hire decision. Remember Alan Greenspan's story of finding a competitive advantage because everyone else was happy to ignore half the population in hiring. If you have no direct incentive aligned with the business's needs, then the incentive of "I will derive pleasure from the interview process" (whether it's having a fun conversation, or having a conversation that makes you feel powerful / more confident about yourself, or hiring in a way that reinforces your existing biases) is all that remains.
- airstrike 8y ago
  > Alan Greenspan's story of finding a competitive advantage because everyone else was happy to ignore half the population in hiring Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I've never heard of that. Would you mind sharing a link?
  - geofft 8y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/business/the-quiet-allure-of-alan-greenspan.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/business/the-quiet-allure... > Though David Rowe, a veteran architect of the Wharton forecasting model, has played a key role in developing the firm's econometric model, the senior staff, including Miss Eickhoff, Judith Mackey and Lucille Wu, is mostly female. Mr. Greenspan explains the gender bias with the free-market pragmatism that has become his hallmark: "I always valued men and women equally, and I found that because others did not, good women economists were cheaper than men. Hiring women does two things: It gives us better quality work for less money, and it raises the market value of women." That is, just a few decades ago, the leading economic consulting firms in the world—economists!—were regularly overpaying men because they didn't want to hire equally capable women, such that Greenspan could find an obvious mispricing in the labor market. Imagine how much more poorly people who are not economists and not owners of their firm must be making hiring decisions on much less blatant biases than gender.
toyg 8y ago
> How is that even remotely related to the job at hand? It is not. But they cannot ask you "did you vote for party X? Because everyone here votes for party X and it would be awkward to have someone with Y sensibilities", that would be discriminating.
- meddlepal 8y ago
  Political affiliation is not a protected class in federal law so you could ask that... though state law might prevent it.
  - nsxwolf 8y ago
    It's perfectly legal to discriminate against the candidate for this but also perfectly legal for the candidate to talk to the media about it.
HillRat 8y ago
It would actually be a pretty good way to see if a candidate can be persuasive, logical, able to acknowledge opposing points of view, and capable of divorcing argument from emotion on heated topics. Pretty crucial skills in the workplace!
- Loughla 8y ago
  But the problem is, that's not how it's presented. The OP stated that it was because they enjoyed having spirited debates and wanted to make sure the interviewee can hold their own (my words, not OP). If the purpose is to do what you say, then you have to say that. If in an interview you find yourself trying to trick the people interviewing, for any reason whatsoever, you're not clever, you're a dick and your company, by extension, is a bag of dicks.

stronglikedan 8y ago

Same reason why some would sabotage possible good candidates just because they never wondered how a toilet works. People are weird.

pxue 8y ago

Because you're joining a team and should be a good fit beyond technical expertise. I would be very happy to have answered that question and would be a plus one in my books if I can have these types of heated talks with my coworkers.

Loughla 8y ago
Non-baited statement (and I'm aware it's discussed a lot here), but my experience with people saying the candidate wouldn't be a good 'fit' was just a way to enforce bias either unconsciously or consciously. And led to problems with group-think and an inability to think in different ways. Now granted my hiring sample is less than 100, but that has been my experience so far.
- PorterDuff 8y ago
  As a serious question, why do you think that dissimilar groups product faster or higher quality work? How far can you take that concept? Should they even speak the same language?
  - jimcsharp 8y ago
    It probably makes it easier to act like a professional. If you reduce the social gel at work, perhaps more work gets done. Maybe I've gained a morning of productivity today because a conversation didn't devolve into a Simpsons quote-athon.
  - Loughla 8y ago
    Dissimilar groups produce higher quality work, in my opinion and experience. It takes longer, because of the discussion that needs to happen. But, again in my experience, quality of product is far more important than speed of production. If I worked on a factory line making widgets, maybe this would change. But the quality of the outcome, again in my experience, is higher for groups that are dissimilar overall in background and viewpoints. Teams structured in this way are able to view things from different angles. They are able to challenge each other in ways that groups from similar backgrounds with similar view are simply not able to even think of. >How far can I take the concept? What does that matter? Honestly? >Should they even speak the same language? It's helpful? What does this have to do with 'fit' actually being current business manager code for 'implicit bias'? And my point wasn't that dissimilar groups work better; my point was that looking for 'fit' is just a way for groups to embrace their own biases about 'insert trait here' without feeling guilty, and leads, in my opinion and experience, to groupthink and circlejerky ideas. My experience has taught me that any business more concerned with fit is not a place for me. I have yet to be challenged intellectually anywhere that 'fit' has been part of the interview process.
- JudgeWapner 8y ago
  why should the candidate just apply for software engineering jobs? Isn't focusing on one field just enforcing their bias to a particular industry? Shouldn't we enforce basic rules that candidates apply to a diverse gamut of other jobs, such as truck driving, painting, and customer service? And shouldn't we shame them if they decline an offer for a labor job by calling out their biases? Shouldn't we require candidates to apply to more than one company? I mean, if they focused on one company at a time, that clearly enforces their bias (either unconsciously or consiously). How are we going to contain this blatant bias in job applicants?
  - Loughla 8y ago
    I can't tell if you're being serious or not. If you are, then you have missed the point entirely and I would argue don't even understand what I was talking about in the first place. If you're not, then you got one over on me 100%.

geofft 8y ago

Misaligned incentives: the people doing interviews have such indirect financial incentive to hire the right people (only that a good/bad hire affects the company's profit, which affects their own salary/stock), almost no way of telling if they made a bad hire decision, and definitely no way of telling if they made a bad no-hire decision. Remember Alan Greenspan's story of finding a competitive advantage because everyone else was happy to ignore half the population in hiring. If you have no direct incentive aligned with the business's needs, then the incentive of "I will derive pleasure from the interview process" (whether it's having a fun conversation, or having a conversation that makes you feel powerful / more confident about yourself, or hiring in a way that reinforces your existing biases) is all that remains.

airstrike 8y ago
> Alan Greenspan's story of finding a competitive advantage because everyone else was happy to ignore half the population in hiring Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I've never heard of that. Would you mind sharing a link?
- geofft 8y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/business/the-quiet-allure-of-alan-greenspan.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/business/the-quiet-allure... > Though David Rowe, a veteran architect of the Wharton forecasting model, has played a key role in developing the firm's econometric model, the senior staff, including Miss Eickhoff, Judith Mackey and Lucille Wu, is mostly female. Mr. Greenspan explains the gender bias with the free-market pragmatism that has become his hallmark: "I always valued men and women equally, and I found that because others did not, good women economists were cheaper than men. Hiring women does two things: It gives us better quality work for less money, and it raises the market value of women." That is, just a few decades ago, the leading economic consulting firms in the world—economists!—were regularly overpaying men because they didn't want to hire equally capable women, such that Greenspan could find an obvious mispricing in the labor market. Imagine how much more poorly people who are not economists and not owners of their firm must be making hiring decisions on much less blatant biases than gender.

toyg 8y ago

> How is that even remotely related to the job at hand? It is not. But they cannot ask you "did you vote for party X? Because everyone here votes for party X and it would be awkward to have someone with Y sensibilities", that would be discriminating.

meddlepal 8y ago
Political affiliation is not a protected class in federal law so you could ask that... though state law might prevent it.
- nsxwolf 8y ago
  It's perfectly legal to discriminate against the candidate for this but also perfectly legal for the candidate to talk to the media about it.

HillRat 8y ago

It would actually be a pretty good way to see if a candidate can be persuasive, logical, able to acknowledge opposing points of view, and capable of divorcing argument from emotion on heated topics. Pretty crucial skills in the workplace!

Loughla 8y ago
But the problem is, that's not how it's presented. The OP stated that it was because they enjoyed having spirited debates and wanted to make sure the interviewee can hold their own (my words, not OP). If the purpose is to do what you say, then you have to say that. If in an interview you find yourself trying to trick the people interviewing, for any reason whatsoever, you're not clever, you're a dick and your company, by extension, is a bag of dicks.