2 ms·

> testing more applicants directly Testing anyone, whatever his achievements, may attract many candidates and therefore cost more than a bit of efficiency. Mo

> testing more applicants directly Testing anyone, whatever his achievements, may attract many candidates and therefore cost more than a bit of efficiency. Moreover testing also induces biases, those of the people who specify/conduct/assess the tests. I'm not sure it is less subjective than meritocracy, especially meritocracy with commonly-accepted (long reviewed) criteria. > Accept more redundancy. Take chances with people. I agree, however it doesn't condemn any selection method which can be applied, as usual as a sieve, while retaining a larger fraction of selected candidates. > Fire politicians I fully agree, recall elections are a must-have and a tool to alleviate bad choices, however it also doesn't particularly plays against meritocracy as a selection tool.

AstralStorm 5y ago
By testing I meant actually trials, not formalized tests. Actual on the job experience with some allowances for being new. (Covered by redundancy and peer review, where applicable, formal training when not.) A lot of the time, the difference in merit is, as you have noted, irrelevant for the task at hand, or the task/person fit is wrong. Applying this strategy would allow vastly more people from nontraditional backgrounds to work, and ultimately improve efficiency by weeding out worse performers over time (hiring for already taken positions).
- natmaka 5y ago
  Do you know a company hiring in such a way, for positions above 'non-qualified staff'? AFAIK in most industries the overall cost would be prohibitive: some allowances for being new, redundancy, formal training... it adds up. Some potential side-effects (particularly for jobs involving contact with any prospect/customer/partner or knowledge of some confidential information) aren't to be neglected. However it may indeed lead to a better overall context (more performant and pleased employees), and adding new nontraditional backgrounds to existing teams often produces interesting or even wonderful results (for all involved).
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    I've seen similar hiring practices in a few companies for line workers (who were qualified staff), but never for management positions. Essentially the companies overhired by a factor and then did practices such as pair or team programming. Credentials were seen but not given special treatment, and while there was an entry test, it was minimal and meant only to not waste time of the people hiring. The elite positions were always handled very differently for no particularly good reason beyond conservatism and elitism.
    - natmaka 5y ago
      I petition that it is considered as possible, and even a good practice, for (relatively) new domains, with too few well-known ways to compare the candidates' merits (diplomas, course of studies, apparent achievements...). Software development is such a field. The elite positions are indeed heavily elitism-tainted, and 'merit' often means 'identical/similar diploma than the ones detained by the staff'.

AstralStorm 5y ago

By testing I meant actually trials, not formalized tests. Actual on the job experience with some allowances for being new. (Covered by redundancy and peer review, where applicable, formal training when not.) A lot of the time, the difference in merit is, as you have noted, irrelevant for the task at hand, or the task/person fit is wrong. Applying this strategy would allow vastly more people from nontraditional backgrounds to work, and ultimately improve efficiency by weeding out worse performers over time (hiring for already taken positions).

natmaka 5y ago
Do you know a company hiring in such a way, for positions above 'non-qualified staff'? AFAIK in most industries the overall cost would be prohibitive: some allowances for being new, redundancy, formal training... it adds up. Some potential side-effects (particularly for jobs involving contact with any prospect/customer/partner or knowledge of some confidential information) aren't to be neglected. However it may indeed lead to a better overall context (more performant and pleased employees), and adding new nontraditional backgrounds to existing teams often produces interesting or even wonderful results (for all involved).
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  I've seen similar hiring practices in a few companies for line workers (who were qualified staff), but never for management positions. Essentially the companies overhired by a factor and then did practices such as pair or team programming. Credentials were seen but not given special treatment, and while there was an entry test, it was minimal and meant only to not waste time of the people hiring. The elite positions were always handled very differently for no particularly good reason beyond conservatism and elitism.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    I petition that it is considered as possible, and even a good practice, for (relatively) new domains, with too few well-known ways to compare the candidates' merits (diplomas, course of studies, apparent achievements...). Software development is such a field. The elite positions are indeed heavily elitism-tainted, and 'merit' often means 'identical/similar diploma than the ones detained by the staff'.