5 ms·

> Ask yourself how the company founders and initial employees got their jobs. For founders this is a perk of being a founder. You are welcome to found your own

by tensor 4y ago

> Ask yourself how the company founders and initial employees got their jobs. For founders this is a perk of being a founder. You are welcome to found your own company if you wish. > Is it unethical to recruit an outside person you already know is good, and not offer an open position for everyone? Yes, it can be. Especially in larger organizations that have policies around diversity and equal opportunity, it is in fact a requirement to have a large enough and representative pool of candidates.

lapcat 4y ago
> For founders this is a perk of being a founder. Yes, but that didn't answer my question about ethics. > You are welcome to found your own company if you wish. I did! > Especially in larger organizations that have policies around diversity and equal opportunity, it is in fact a requirement to have a large enough and representative pool of candidates. How often do tech companies get a "representative" pool of candidates? But this actually goes to the other issue I raised: > there's nothing inherently ethical about any given company's uniform hiring criteria. Any given set of criteria may "discriminate" in favor of certain traits and against other traits. In particular, take-home exams that take many hours to complete tend to discriminate against certain kinds of candidates, those who don't have a lot of free time outside of work, family, etc. It's important to note that these tests are primarily used by tech companies as a screening device, not as the method for making the final hiring decision, which tends to be more subjective. They don't simply add up test scores and choose the highest scorer. Moreover, the tech industry seems to be obsessed with tests, but they're an outlier. Tons of other industries use more informal methods of hiring and don't give tests at all, much less take-home tests. Do you think they're all unethical?
- tensor 4y ago
  If you care at all about bias and diversity, you may want to learn more about how to construct interviews that reduce both. No, every set of questions and every interview technique is not equal when it comes to bias. I'd suggest the book "Becoming the Evidence-Based Manager" by Gary Latham. On the topic of hiring, a "Job Simulation" is one of the most objective measures, which is pretty close to what a practical test is. Questions about things candidates actually did is another important technique (e.g. tell me about a time you ...), and the third category of techniques that work is giving hypothetical situations that they need to explain how they would respond to. Although informal conversations are common in industry, they are some of the worst techniques. For example, if you start with a "coffee chat" research has shown that most people more or less make up their mind in that first meeting then bias the rest of the interview results to unknowingly justify their decision.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    It's not clear what any of this has to do with unethicalness, but I'll respond anyway: > If you care at all about bias and diversity, you may want to learn more about how to construct interviews that reduce both. Interviews, whether formal or informal, are a very bad way to evaluate the skills of job candidates. The best predictor of future performance is past performance; research the candidates as much as possible. But in any case, hiring is a crapshoot. Interviews are useful for getting to know each other, seeing if you want to work with each other, and asking clarificatory questions. > On the topic of hiring, a "Job Simulation" is one of the most objective measures, which is pretty close to what a practical test is. Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills. https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/07/tech-job-interviews-anxiety/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/07/tech-job-interviews-anxiety/

by tensor 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> For founders this is a perk of being a founder. Yes, but that didn't answer my question about ethics. > You are welcome to found your own company if you wish. I did! > Especially in larger organizations that have policies around diversity and equal opportunity, it is in fact a requirement to have a large enough and representative pool of candidates. How often do tech companies get a "representative" pool of candidates? But this actually goes to the other issue I raised: > there's nothing inherently ethical about any given company's uniform hiring criteria. Any given set of criteria may "discriminate" in favor of certain traits and against other traits. In particular, take-home exams that take many hours to complete tend to discriminate against certain kinds of candidates, those who don't have a lot of free time outside of work, family, etc. It's important to note that these tests are primarily used by tech companies as a screening device, not as the method for making the final hiring decision, which tends to be more subjective. They don't simply add up test scores and choose the highest scorer. Moreover, the tech industry seems to be obsessed with tests, but they're an outlier. Tons of other industries use more informal methods of hiring and don't give tests at all, much less take-home tests. Do you think they're all unethical?

tensor 4y ago
If you care at all about bias and diversity, you may want to learn more about how to construct interviews that reduce both. No, every set of questions and every interview technique is not equal when it comes to bias. I'd suggest the book "Becoming the Evidence-Based Manager" by Gary Latham. On the topic of hiring, a "Job Simulation" is one of the most objective measures, which is pretty close to what a practical test is. Questions about things candidates actually did is another important technique (e.g. tell me about a time you ...), and the third category of techniques that work is giving hypothetical situations that they need to explain how they would respond to. Although informal conversations are common in industry, they are some of the worst techniques. For example, if you start with a "coffee chat" research has shown that most people more or less make up their mind in that first meeting then bias the rest of the interview results to unknowingly justify their decision.
- lapcat 4y ago
  It's not clear what any of this has to do with unethicalness, but I'll respond anyway: > If you care at all about bias and diversity, you may want to learn more about how to construct interviews that reduce both. Interviews, whether formal or informal, are a very bad way to evaluate the skills of job candidates. The best predictor of future performance is past performance; research the candidates as much as possible. But in any case, hiring is a crapshoot. Interviews are useful for getting to know each other, seeing if you want to work with each other, and asking clarificatory questions. > On the topic of hiring, a "Job Simulation" is one of the most objective measures, which is pretty close to what a practical test is. Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills. https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/07/tech-job-interviews-anxiety/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/07/tech-job-interviews-anxiety/