3 ms·

Priors and bias is exactly why you want MORE interviewers though.

by zippox 2y ago

glumreaper 2y ago
Addressed directly in TFA: "Drawing out the interview process is a thinly veiled attempt to launder this bias with a "neutral" process that they will likely disregard/overrule if it contradicts their personal preference. That doesn't mean that I think this sort of interviewing bias is good or acceptable, but I also don't think drawing out the interviewing process corrects for this bias either."
- s17n 2y ago
  Yeah this part didn't make any sense to me - is he claiming that later interviewers will be heavily biased by talking to previous interviewers? If so, I think that's probably not as strong an effect as he's claiming, and its also easily correctable by just having interviewers not talk to each other. I do agree about the "you only need 15 minutes" part, but the solution there would seem to be replacing four hour long interviews with four 15 minute interviews, rather than with 1 hour long interview.
  - AstralStorm 2y ago
    No, the latter interviewers share the same biases already. Where do you get the varied interviewers really? Is it from the same biased hiring process?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - yablak 2y ago
    She
zooq_ai 2y ago
Exactly! Google famously did 8-10 interviews during their startup stage and they absolutely hired rock stars who helped them lay the foundation for Google's $2T company. People who haven't build sustainable, profitable organizations typically have no clue about hiring. Sure, they may be able to hire well for their little project. But, if you care about the culture of the company and how you want to shape it, you almost want all of your current members to have a say in the new member
- outop 2y ago
  They hired rockstars because back then, all the rockstars wanted to work for them. The only focus of their hiring process was how to reject the 'B' candidates. They knew they would get enough 'A's applying that they couldn't avoid hiring a bunch. For most companies, including Google as a more mature company, the dynamics are different. You might be quite happy to hire candidates who weren't top of their class but who are going to be easy to work with and get stuff done. And you want to make very sure you don't either reject or turn off the (maybe small number of) outstanding performers who want to work for you. Google IMHO completely fail at the latter these days. A solid A student who knows how to present themself and really wants to work at Google will be hired. A genius with an unconventional educational background probably won't be.

Priors and bias is exactly why you want MORE interviewers though.

by zippox 2y ago

Priors and bias is exactly why you want MORE interviewers though.

Addressed directly in TFA: "Drawing out the interview process is a thinly veiled attempt to launder this bias with a "neutral" process that they will likely disregard/overrule if it contradicts their personal preference. That doesn't mean that I think this sort of interviewing bias is good or acceptable, but I also don't think drawing out the interviewing process corrects for this bias either."

s17n 2y ago
Yeah this part didn't make any sense to me - is he claiming that later interviewers will be heavily biased by talking to previous interviewers? If so, I think that's probably not as strong an effect as he's claiming, and its also easily correctable by just having interviewers not talk to each other. I do agree about the "you only need 15 minutes" part, but the solution there would seem to be replacing four hour long interviews with four 15 minute interviews, rather than with 1 hour long interview.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  No, the latter interviewers share the same biases already. Where do you get the varied interviewers really? Is it from the same biased hiring process?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- yablak 2y ago
  She

zooq_ai 2y ago

Exactly! Google famously did 8-10 interviews during their startup stage and they absolutely hired rock stars who helped them lay the foundation for Google's $2T company. People who haven't build sustainable, profitable organizations typically have no clue about hiring. Sure, they may be able to hire well for their little project. But, if you care about the culture of the company and how you want to shape it, you almost want all of your current members to have a say in the new member

outop 2y ago
They hired rockstars because back then, all the rockstars wanted to work for them. The only focus of their hiring process was how to reject the 'B' candidates. They knew they would get enough 'A's applying that they couldn't avoid hiring a bunch. For most companies, including Google as a more mature company, the dynamics are different. You might be quite happy to hire candidates who weren't top of their class but who are going to be easy to work with and get stuff done. And you want to make very sure you don't either reject or turn off the (maybe small number of) outstanding performers who want to work for you. Google IMHO completely fail at the latter these days. A solid A student who knows how to present themself and really wants to work at Google will be hired. A genius with an unconventional educational background probably won't be.