I'm always amazed by how confidently people can propose a hiring "rule" or even guideline. The article pays lip service to the fact "There's no way to A/B test

I'm always amazed by how confidently people can propose a hiring "rule" or even guideline. The article pays lip service to the fact "There's no way to A/B test hiring decisions" but then goes on to describe a handful of rules to "build an effective organization, regardless of size or resources." The thing is, there's no evidence that these are effective and definitely none to suggest they're generalizable to organizations of every size. There's an appeal to the author's authority as an Amazon VP (admittedly a hell of a credential), but that's not evidence of effectiveness. The fact is, hiring is tough to learn. It's made especially difficult because your feedback comes at least 6 months after you make the decision. I've had the good fortune to be in an organization which grew from ~10 employees this time last year to ~80 now, so I've gotten to see how a few dozen hires panned out in a short period of time. I learned a lot through that. Even so, as a professional data geek, I couldn't say with a straight face that I "know" anything about hiring. I do my best day in and day out, but saying you've got hiring all figured out is the professional equivalent of knowing "What (wo)men want." It's a sign of confidence, but not necessarily knowledge. Don't get me wrong, in the absence of quality data, I'll take the wise words of someone who has been there and done that. But I'd much rather some empirical proof or at least some "YMMV" humility from those who purport to know.