3 ms·

I think the problem is a bit simpler. When I'm hiring, I often want to hire someone I know to be qualified. The most rational process is: - If I know you, a

by blagie 4y ago

I think the problem is a bit simpler. When I'm hiring, I often want to hire someone I *know* to be qualified. The most rational process is: - If I know you, and you're qualified, I'll hire you (over potentially more qualified candidates, where I don't have the same quality of information) - If I don't know, but a friend whom I trust does, again, I'll hire you (over potentially more qualified candidates, where I don't have the same quality of information) - If no one in my network is qualified, I go with resume+interview. This process gives very poor-quality information. What friends (and references) avoids are genuinely bad hires. In most cases, I'll take a candidate I *know* to be good over one who is *probably* better, but where there's a chance of a bad hire. This re-entrenches social and power structures, but it is also rational and not corrupt.

refurb 4y ago
Pretty much this. It's similar to hiring CEOs with big pay packages. You hire the guy who was at the helm of a company that double its revenue. You know the CEO may or may not have actually be responsible for the growth, but hey, if that's the only data you have, you go with it.
mgh2 4y ago
It is perhaps a shortcut the brain evolved with, but its practice can be detrimental (even unethical) to society when scaled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEe_QTNPffU&t=13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEe_QTNPffU&t=13s Note: The article may be a flawed interpretation of the paper cited - possible clickbait
- blagie 4y ago
  It's not a shortcut. I described that as the most rational process, and why it makes sense for individuals who want to run successful businesses. It absolutely is detrimental and unethical when scaled. Solving this problem doesn't consist of yelling at management to do something different (if they do, they'll be less competitive, and a less ethical competitor will win). It does consist of re-aligning incentives, whether through regulation or otherwise, so there is a level, ethical playing field for everyone.
moralestapia 4y ago
I disagree, particularly on this industry. I have hired people as well, any capable engineer is able to prove its worth in a couple technical interviews at most. And no, I'm not talking about "inverting the tree" and similar bs, give them a real-life problem that your business usually encounters, let them do their thing, observe, ask questions. I worked for a company that was building wireless infrastructure for a big region, the engineers we hired like this were great and stayed for years, some of them had no real education or a chaperone, still, they performed and that's all we cared about. Your method seems just lazy, honestly.
- jjk166 4y ago
  > I have hired people as well, any capable engineer is able to prove its worth in a couple technical interviews at most. There is so much more to being a good employee than just the ability to demonstrate technical aptitude. How do they handle a crisis, how well do they cooperate with other employees, how's their work ethic, how diplomatic is their communication? The aspect of the engineers you hired which you chose to highlight was that they stayed for years - how did them solving a technical problem give you insight into their long term personal life plans? I've seen countless brilliant engineers who I would never in a million years hire. I'd much rather teach a good employee how to be a good engineer than teach a good engineer how to be a good employee.
  - blagie 4y ago
    Last time I managed a team, the worst employee was technically brilliant. He was a former professor at a good university. He basically went off and did his own thing, mostly unrelated to what the rest of the organization wanted or needed. He disregarded corporate policy, including in ways which might have exposed us to liability. For example, we deal with highly-sensitive, regulated personal information. He copied files onto his own laptop, where he also downloaded and ran warez he found on sketchy web sites. That was the tip of a very deep iceberg. I think I spent more than half of my management time on issues related to him. He left for a different team within the org, and later, left the organization. He's now at a FAANG, analysing sensitive personal information. I'm not surprised he passed their interview process. There might even be a good spot for him there, but NOT dealing with sensitive, personal information.

I think the problem is a bit simpler. When I'm hiring, I often want to hire someone I *know* to be qualified. The most rational process is: - If I know you, a

by blagie 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

Pretty much this. It's similar to hiring CEOs with big pay packages. You hire the guy who was at the helm of a company that double its revenue. You know the CEO may or may not have actually be responsible for the growth, but hey, if that's the only data you have, you go with it.

mgh2 4y ago

It is perhaps a shortcut the brain evolved with, but its practice can be detrimental (even unethical) to society when scaled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEe_QTNPffU&t=13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEe_QTNPffU&t=13s Note: The article may be a flawed interpretation of the paper cited - possible clickbait

blagie 4y ago
It's not a shortcut. I described that as the most rational process, and why it makes sense for individuals who want to run successful businesses. It absolutely is detrimental and unethical when scaled. Solving this problem doesn't consist of yelling at management to do something different (if they do, they'll be less competitive, and a less ethical competitor will win). It does consist of re-aligning incentives, whether through regulation or otherwise, so there is a level, ethical playing field for everyone.

moralestapia 4y ago

I disagree, particularly on this industry. I have hired people as well, any capable engineer is able to prove its worth in a couple technical interviews at most. And no, I'm not talking about "inverting the tree" and similar bs, give them a real-life problem that your business usually encounters, let them do their thing, observe, ask questions. I worked for a company that was building wireless infrastructure for a big region, the engineers we hired like this were great and stayed for years, some of them had no real education or a chaperone, still, they performed and that's all we cared about. Your method seems just lazy, honestly.

jjk166 4y ago
> I have hired people as well, any capable engineer is able to prove its worth in a couple technical interviews at most. There is so much more to being a good employee than just the ability to demonstrate technical aptitude. How do they handle a crisis, how well do they cooperate with other employees, how's their work ethic, how diplomatic is their communication? The aspect of the engineers you hired which you chose to highlight was that they stayed for years - how did them solving a technical problem give you insight into their long term personal life plans? I've seen countless brilliant engineers who I would never in a million years hire. I'd much rather teach a good employee how to be a good engineer than teach a good engineer how to be a good employee.
- blagie 4y ago
  Last time I managed a team, the worst employee was technically brilliant. He was a former professor at a good university. He basically went off and did his own thing, mostly unrelated to what the rest of the organization wanted or needed. He disregarded corporate policy, including in ways which might have exposed us to liability. For example, we deal with highly-sensitive, regulated personal information. He copied files onto his own laptop, where he also downloaded and ran warez he found on sketchy web sites. That was the tip of a very deep iceberg. I think I spent more than half of my management time on issues related to him. He left for a different team within the org, and later, left the organization. He's now at a FAANG, analysing sensitive personal information. I'm not surprised he passed their interview process. There might even be a good spot for him there, but NOT dealing with sensitive, personal information.