3 ms·
> There is no meaningful data that any hiring process--good or bad--improves the outcome of a hire. Daniel Kahneman analyzed a bunch of data that lead him to c
by gfody 6y ago
> There is no meaningful data that any hiring process--good or bad--improves the outcome of a hire.
Daniel Kahneman analyzed a bunch of data that lead him to concluded that the typical interview process did nothing to help select the best candidate. There's a chapter about it in Thinking Fast And Slow [1] and the advice he gives is summarized in this article [2]. I remember thinking after reading this book that it was just a matter of time until everyone everywhere would be denouncing interviews but here we are - old habits die hard.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637 https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-kahneman-on-hiring-decisions-2013-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-kahneman-on-hiring-de...
- srtjstjsj 6y agoWhat are you talking about? The article is nearly the exact opposite of what you claim. It says: > A vast amount of research offers a promise: you are much more likely to find the best candidate if you use this procedure than if you do what people normally do in such situations, which is to go into the interview unprepared and to make choices by an overall intuitive judgment such as "I looked into his eyes and liked what I saw."
- gfody 6y agothe typical interview is a series of unstructured intuitive judgement calls - Kahneman suggests something more like a survey with a strong emphasis on its calibration and isolating/controlling biases. Thinking Fast And Slow goes more in depth on how terrible typical interviews are - the article merely summarizes the advice he provided for what to do instead.