46 ms·

I agree with everything you're saying here Also, in reading your post I noticed a normal human tendency that makes me wonder if hiring by interview doesn't ine

by advael 3y ago

I agree with everything you're saying here Also, in reading your post I noticed a normal human tendency that makes me wonder if hiring by interview doesn't inevitably introduce a small but pervasive organizational tendency toward a brittle culture Notice that when describing your notion of alignment, you say you look for candidates who "do things like [you] do." I think that's insightful, true across interviewers, and from the perspective of organization-building, already a slight misalignment! I think humans tend to select for people who think more similarly to them, but the organizations I've seen that are the most creative and resilient are ones where people think as differently from each other as is possible (especially in terms of how they do things) while still being compatible (past a certain threshold I do think dissimilarity can make it impossible to agree or collaborate) I know it seems like a small thing, but in aggregate I think it does a lot to explain a few larger-scale problems

treflop 3y ago
I think humans having their own culture and ultimately worldview is just a fact of life and the best that we can do is to learn to coexist and work with each other. But we don’t have to work side by side for 40 hours a week. Why make both of us miserable? And to your scenario, I personally too believe a culture of opposing voices is the best culture, but ourselves thinking that is… itself a worldview, making us a part of a subculture. And even then, there are limitations to my acceptance. For example, I strongly believe in keeping track of credit for ideas, so people who regularly forget who suggested an idea (or who don’t care who did it first in history) bother me immensely, so even if you had similar views as me, I wouldn’t want to work with you just on that alone. You are only a little different but, to me, in a wrong and unacceptable way. But I’ll still work with you. I just don’t want to be on a team of you’s.
- advael 3y ago
  I think it's worth making a distinction between values and methods in many contexts, including here. Alignment enabling collaboration across value systems or sometimes even priorities can be much harder to achieve, and some would say undesirable depending on the context For example, I've met a whole spectrum of viewpoints framed in reaction to the severe and growing housing crisis (esp. in the SF bay area) on this very website, some of which I could see acting as a strong filter on whether I would want to collaborate with someone
unsupp0rted 3y ago
Depends on the org size and mission. Huge? You want diverse approaches. Medium? Diverse is probably better. Small? You probably want strong alignment. Tiny/Ramen-startup/doing hard things? Maybe diverse again. Maybe not.
- advael 3y ago
  I'm not sure if I agree, but this model would predict an interesting pattern where a disproportionate number of successful startups that grew went through an early phase of ideological/personality purging at the "small" phase
skellington 3y ago
You're clearly correct. If you look at almost any organization, the people that move up are the ones that are most like the people already at the top. The hiring process at most companies STRONGLY incentivizes hiring people who are near clones of the people doing the hiring. The people hiring almost always assume an air of "I am the ruler by which all things are measured" and since I represent the prototype of a perfect and desirable employee, I would expect someone I hire to have very similar properties. It's human nature. It's also why, if you don't look, behave, and share a lot of commonalities with the upper executives, you will likely never get invited to be an upper executive. And make no mistake, the upper level is a club, and they are really choosing the people they want to be in the club.

by advael 3y ago

treflop 3y ago

I think humans having their own culture and ultimately worldview is just a fact of life and the best that we can do is to learn to coexist and work with each other. But we don’t have to work side by side for 40 hours a week. Why make both of us miserable? And to your scenario, I personally too believe a culture of opposing voices is the best culture, but ourselves thinking that is… itself a worldview, making us a part of a subculture. And even then, there are limitations to my acceptance. For example, I strongly believe in keeping track of credit for ideas, so people who regularly forget who suggested an idea (or who don’t care who did it first in history) bother me immensely, so even if you had similar views as me, I wouldn’t want to work with you just on that alone. You are only a little different but, to me, in a wrong and unacceptable way. But I’ll still work with you. I just don’t want to be on a team of you’s.

advael 3y ago
I think it's worth making a distinction between values and methods in many contexts, including here. Alignment enabling collaboration across value systems or sometimes even priorities can be much harder to achieve, and some would say undesirable depending on the context For example, I've met a whole spectrum of viewpoints framed in reaction to the severe and growing housing crisis (esp. in the SF bay area) on this very website, some of which I could see acting as a strong filter on whether I would want to collaborate with someone

unsupp0rted 3y ago

Depends on the org size and mission. Huge? You want diverse approaches. Medium? Diverse is probably better. Small? You probably want strong alignment. Tiny/Ramen-startup/doing hard things? Maybe diverse again. Maybe not.

advael 3y ago
I'm not sure if I agree, but this model would predict an interesting pattern where a disproportionate number of successful startups that grew went through an early phase of ideological/personality purging at the "small" phase

skellington 3y ago

You're clearly correct. If you look at almost any organization, the people that move up are the ones that are most like the people already at the top. The hiring process at most companies STRONGLY incentivizes hiring people who are near clones of the people doing the hiring. The people hiring almost always assume an air of "I am the ruler by which all things are measured" and since I represent the prototype of a perfect and desirable employee, I would expect someone I hire to have very similar properties. It's human nature. It's also why, if you don't look, behave, and share a lot of commonalities with the upper executives, you will likely never get invited to be an upper executive. And make no mistake, the upper level is a club, and they are really choosing the people they want to be in the club.