4 ms·
Having tatoos and being in software development doesn't automagically make someone "best candidate." There is still risk that person who wear tatoos is trying
by hippich 13y ago
Having tatoos and being in software development doesn't automagically make someone "best candidate."
There is still risk that person who wear tatoos is trying to get against system. Just like girls would be expected to be less technical, just like foreigners would be expected to be hard
communicate with.
Startups and other frugal types of businesses can afford that. Big corps - not really. The whole point of big corporations is to standardize everything and run as few expenses (including time of CTO to interview "non standard" candidate) as possible.
Again, simplifying a lot, HR have either hire someone wearing tatoos, or tell "well, for salary we have in budget we don't have anyone." So why they should risk?
- InclinedPlane 13y agoIf you reduce your talent pool intentionally and then you find you have problems filling roles, you have only yourself to blame. At large companies it may not be as obvious that they aren't getting the same level of talent they could have but usually the end result is a diminished capacity to execute successfully. Why should they risk? For two reasons. The best people are often not "normal". Look at some of the best coders or hardware hackers out there. Imagine if Netscape didn't hire Jamie Zawinski, would they have been as successful? When Jobs and Wozniak started Apple their previous most successful business venture was phone phreaking, selling illegal "blue boxes" that allowed people to hack the telephone network (and make free calls, incidentally). If you only want boring people then you will quickly remove some of the most talented people from consideration.