4 ms·
It's an interesting idea. I wonder how it would work in the case of jobs where there's a strong interpersonal component. You could get someone who looks great o
by theorique 13y ago
It's an interesting idea. I wonder how it would work in the case of jobs where there's a strong interpersonal component. You could get someone who looks great on paper but who is a bad communicator or doesn't interact well with other people.
On the one hand, face-to-face does allow all these preconceptions and prejudices to happen. On the other, it allows the team to assess those things that actually matter in meetings, presentations, and other face-to-face venues.
Perhaps for a purely distributed company, this wouldn't matter. But in many existing cases, the face-to-face is still a factor.
- s-phi-nl 13y agoI know that professional orchestras (a job with a strong interpersonal component) do "blind" auditions behind a screen until the final round and then meet with the auditioners to evaluate the interpersonal component. As far as I know it works fairly well.
- cottonseed 13y agoI think Gladwell wrote about this in one of his books. And what happened? Orchestras started hiring more women. And, I'm guessing, better overall musicians.
- cottonseed 13y agoYou have to be careful what you're measuring. How well someone works in on a job is different from the first face-to-face meeting/interview. A better predictor of how well someone communicates and interacts in a team is probably (1) how well they communicate in the application process and (2) how well their previous employers said they communicate. A blind interview could still have text correspondence, programming interview questions, etc. I still think you're not learning what you think you're learning from face-to-face. I don't have data on that, but then again, I'm guessing you don't either.