3 ms·

This. People think stupid tests and ineffective recruitment stand for incompetence. They may actually signify a well-tuned process to identify compliant, medioc

This. People think stupid tests and ineffective recruitment stand for incompetence. They may actually signify a well-tuned process to identify compliant, mediocre individuals that don't produce results, stand out, nor are self-motivated, but rather aim to please the boss, without question, and to "fit in". As an engineer, you want to increase your value contribution to the org and the org should see you the same way. This usually means look for software product companies with at least some meritocracy. It should be about software all the way down. In any other scenario, it's about something else, usually pleasing the boss, you are a servant, and good luck with that.

Clubber 6y ago
>They may actually signify a well-tuned process to identify compliant, mediocre individuals that don't produce results, stand out, nor are self-motivated, but rather aim to please the boss, without question, and to "fit in". You might be giving them too much credit. I suspect that may have been the original intent of the question, but was mindlessly aped after appearing in an article by countless hiring managers and recruiters.
- NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
  It doesn't even have to be conscious. Implementing a meaningless test still provides a valid test as far as candidate compliance and desire to fit in are concerned. Merit-driven applicant: This test is not backed by science, does not measure anything related to performance relevant to the job and is arbitrary. Oh, and did you check how do the developers of the test address the fundamental problem of lack of replicability and reproducibility in psychology? Hiring (if they can actually articulate and self-reflect, a rare occurrence): So you think you're smarter than us? Subservient applicant: I gave this test 110%, thank you for this opportunity! I look forward to learn more about how I can contribute to the continued success of [org name]! Speaking to a mediocre manager with a very stable career, tt was a revelation for me to hear them say "smart people get frustrated quickly. I've learned through the years to select those that are agreeable". Value and value creation were not on that managers radar.
  - DebtDeflation 6y ago
    >"smart people get frustrated quickly. I've learned through the years to select those that are agreeable" That might make sense if you're hiring people to dig holes in the ground but seems absurd to use as a filter for any sort of skilled professional position.
    - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
      The idea here is that the hiring manager is likely to care about things other than raw productivity of their direct reports, such as how easy they are to manage.
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    A different take on your last paragraph: Ignorance can be fixed relatively easily compared to poor personality traits. I think somewhere here is a conflation between "ignorance" and "intelligence". First priority is to get someone who doesn't stir up unnecessary shit. Second priority, get someone smart. Third priority, get someone who already knows the tech.

Clubber 6y ago

>They may actually signify a well-tuned process to identify compliant, mediocre individuals that don't produce results, stand out, nor are self-motivated, but rather aim to please the boss, without question, and to "fit in". You might be giving them too much credit. I suspect that may have been the original intent of the question, but was mindlessly aped after appearing in an article by countless hiring managers and recruiters.

NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
It doesn't even have to be conscious. Implementing a meaningless test still provides a valid test as far as candidate compliance and desire to fit in are concerned. Merit-driven applicant: This test is not backed by science, does not measure anything related to performance relevant to the job and is arbitrary. Oh, and did you check how do the developers of the test address the fundamental problem of lack of replicability and reproducibility in psychology? Hiring (if they can actually articulate and self-reflect, a rare occurrence): So you think you're smarter than us? Subservient applicant: I gave this test 110%, thank you for this opportunity! I look forward to learn more about how I can contribute to the continued success of [org name]! Speaking to a mediocre manager with a very stable career, tt was a revelation for me to hear them say "smart people get frustrated quickly. I've learned through the years to select those that are agreeable". Value and value creation were not on that managers radar.
- DebtDeflation 6y ago
  >"smart people get frustrated quickly. I've learned through the years to select those that are agreeable" That might make sense if you're hiring people to dig holes in the ground but seems absurd to use as a filter for any sort of skilled professional position.
  - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
    The idea here is that the hiring manager is likely to care about things other than raw productivity of their direct reports, such as how easy they are to manage.
- _carbyau_ 6y ago
  A different take on your last paragraph: Ignorance can be fixed relatively easily compared to poor personality traits. I think somewhere here is a conflation between "ignorance" and "intelligence". First priority is to get someone who doesn't stir up unnecessary shit. Second priority, get someone smart. Third priority, get someone who already knows the tech.