4 ms·

Sort of. Being effective in nearly any role requires interpersonal skills, and it's not unreasonable for the strength of one's professional network to play a ro

Sort of. Being effective in nearly any role requires interpersonal skills, and it's not unreasonable for the strength of one's professional network to play a role in landing interviews. Of course at one extreme, pure nepotism does exist as the "opposite of meritocracy" you bemoan -- but that hardly represents the majority case, where human connection and evidence that someone, somewhere, was glad to have worked with you, improves your perceived strength as a candidate. TLDR even if you write code for a living, your career is still all about people.

giantg2 4y ago
The part you're missing is that candidate A might be just as better than and just as sociable as candidate B. But if the manager knows candidate B, candidate B will get the job. The result is that the best person did not get the job. It's observation bias.
- chrisweekly 4y ago
  I'm not really "missing" that part, rather I have a different PoV. In my experience on both sides of the tech hiring equation over the past 24 years, it's not a given that "B will get the job" (based solely on familiarity). I agree it's more likely, but mostly to a reasonable degree in that it helps de-risk the hire. I've also seen the opposite case, where a candidate's perceived ceiling or limited potential upside (based on outdated "familiarity" w/ their abilities) counted against them, failing to account for their growth. My point remains: do good work and don't neglect connecting w people and making good impressions; relationships w colleagues are essential to a strong career.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "are essential to a strong career." It seems we're discussing two separate things.
    - chrisweekly 4y ago
      Our discussion stemmed from your complaints about career development advice, and the OP is all about what steps to take to have a strong career. No big deal, your point about observation bias is relevant, we simply apparently disagree about how important it is.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        I was discussing how it is not a meritocracy. Whether the career advice is good or not is not the point. The point is that we are not in meritocracy.
        chrisweekly 4y ago
        Ok. You may be right about that.

giantg2 4y ago

The part you're missing is that candidate A might be just as better than and just as sociable as candidate B. But if the manager knows candidate B, candidate B will get the job. The result is that the best person did not get the job. It's observation bias.

chrisweekly 4y ago
I'm not really "missing" that part, rather I have a different PoV. In my experience on both sides of the tech hiring equation over the past 24 years, it's not a given that "B will get the job" (based solely on familiarity). I agree it's more likely, but mostly to a reasonable degree in that it helps de-risk the hire. I've also seen the opposite case, where a candidate's perceived ceiling or limited potential upside (based on outdated "familiarity" w/ their abilities) counted against them, failing to account for their growth. My point remains: do good work and don't neglect connecting w people and making good impressions; relationships w colleagues are essential to a strong career.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "are essential to a strong career." It seems we're discussing two separate things.
  - chrisweekly 4y ago
    Our discussion stemmed from your complaints about career development advice, and the OP is all about what steps to take to have a strong career. No big deal, your point about observation bias is relevant, we simply apparently disagree about how important it is.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      I was discussing how it is not a meritocracy. Whether the career advice is good or not is not the point. The point is that we are not in meritocracy.
      - chrisweekly 4y ago
        Ok. You may be right about that.