3 ms·

What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate? Doesn't that Peter-Principle them right out of the ga

What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate? Doesn't that Peter-Principle them right out of the gate? Are we sure that this leads to better long term outcomes?

azangru 4y ago
> What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate? If a person making hiring decisions says that the next candidate for such-and-such role should be a person from such-and-such group (a woman, a person of color, etc.), then the criterion of being the better candidate doesn't apply. Or, rather, it gets adjusted such that belonging in the desired group is included in the list of what makes a candidate better.
- peteradio 4y ago
  That is in interesting way to define "better candidate" being that it does not tie to the bottom line except unless there are explicit business incentives to discriminate.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - azangru 4y ago
    > it does not tie to the bottom line I completely agree with you, which is what makes all these recent trends in hiring all the more fascinating to me. If the only concern of a company were the bottom line (which I would expect it should be), then there wouldn't have been any conversation about marginalised groups etc., because, for companies, a candidate's demographics would have been irrelevant. The only thing that would have mattered is which candidate is expected to be the best fit for a given position. That it doesn't work like that suggests that companies are also political creatures, and are concerned about their public image and, possibly, about things like ESG scores. It may even be that the public image and things like ESG scores are a strong contributor to the bottom line.
tsimionescu 4y ago
I am always amazed by this assumption that firms hire "the better candidate", absent DEI initiatives or such. In reality, people often hire the one they like best - which often tends to naturally be someone who resembles themselves. Not to mention, very very few companies and positions within those companies operate at a level where they will succeed or fail based on whether they have the best possible candidate. For the vast majority of jobs, a candidate has to be adequate, and you can easily find 10 adequate candidates for every position you want to fill. It's just like hiring the best street sweeper in the world is not going to significantly impact your bottom line - most CRUD jobs aren't too different from that.
- jfim 4y ago
  That really depends on the industry. If your idea of tech is web apps and mobile apps, then yeah, most candidates would do the job. If you're working on cutting edge technology, then finding ten adequate candidates is actually pretty tricky, because by definition the applicant pool is very small. Doubly so for fields that have high demand compared to the supply.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Sure, and I have been in both positions. But the reality is that the vast majority of tech jobs are in the first category. There are far more people building web sites than kernel network stack hackers.
- dalyons 4y ago
  Specifically in software, hiring is still not particularly objective, despite a decade+ of trying now. We still aren’t good at making truly objective interviews - it’s really hard, I’ve been involved in hiring at many companies and it’s just not an exact science. Ironically, the most objective hiring practices are the most hated(including by me) - lowest-common-denominator leetcode style formulaic questions with defined answers with little interpretation required by the interviewer

azangru 4y ago

> What is the assumption here? Marginalized groups will be hired even if they aren't the better candidate? If a person making hiring decisions says that the next candidate for such-and-such role should be a person from such-and-such group (a woman, a person of color, etc.), then the criterion of being the better candidate doesn't apply. Or, rather, it gets adjusted such that belonging in the desired group is included in the list of what makes a candidate better.

peteradio 4y ago
That is in interesting way to define "better candidate" being that it does not tie to the bottom line except unless there are explicit business incentives to discriminate.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- azangru 4y ago
  > it does not tie to the bottom line I completely agree with you, which is what makes all these recent trends in hiring all the more fascinating to me. If the only concern of a company were the bottom line (which I would expect it should be), then there wouldn't have been any conversation about marginalised groups etc., because, for companies, a candidate's demographics would have been irrelevant. The only thing that would have mattered is which candidate is expected to be the best fit for a given position. That it doesn't work like that suggests that companies are also political creatures, and are concerned about their public image and, possibly, about things like ESG scores. It may even be that the public image and things like ESG scores are a strong contributor to the bottom line.

tsimionescu 4y ago

I am always amazed by this assumption that firms hire "the better candidate", absent DEI initiatives or such. In reality, people often hire the one they like best - which often tends to naturally be someone who resembles themselves. Not to mention, very very few companies and positions within those companies operate at a level where they will succeed or fail based on whether they have the best possible candidate. For the vast majority of jobs, a candidate has to be adequate, and you can easily find 10 adequate candidates for every position you want to fill. It's just like hiring the best street sweeper in the world is not going to significantly impact your bottom line - most CRUD jobs aren't too different from that.

jfim 4y ago
That really depends on the industry. If your idea of tech is web apps and mobile apps, then yeah, most candidates would do the job. If you're working on cutting edge technology, then finding ten adequate candidates is actually pretty tricky, because by definition the applicant pool is very small. Doubly so for fields that have high demand compared to the supply.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Sure, and I have been in both positions. But the reality is that the vast majority of tech jobs are in the first category. There are far more people building web sites than kernel network stack hackers.
dalyons 4y ago
Specifically in software, hiring is still not particularly objective, despite a decade+ of trying now. We still aren’t good at making truly objective interviews - it’s really hard, I’ve been involved in hiring at many companies and it’s just not an exact science. Ironically, the most objective hiring practices are the most hated(including by me) - lowest-common-denominator leetcode style formulaic questions with defined answers with little interpretation required by the interviewer