3 ms·

Consider 2 candidates with github profiles: - A has a created small number of functional and elegant projects - B has created a large number of functional but

Consider 2 candidates with github profiles: - A has a created small number of functional and elegant projects - B has created a large number of functional but sloppy projects Which is objectively better? The candidate who is more productive, or the candidate whose products have higher quality? One may be a better fit for your organization, based on your group's needs and existing makeup, but that doesn't mean they are objectively "better" than the other candidate. Do you believe one of these candidates has more "merit" than the other? Some people who believe a person has objective merit (as opposed to suitability for a particular organization or role) are actually expressing an aesthetic preference (selecting for tidy code, or work ethic, etc) while claiming/believing that their preference is "objective" truth. People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Wait, I can go one better. Candidate A) has a large number of elegant projects. Candidate B) is a ninja with a large number of high profile assassinations under his belt. Obviously the question of "objectively better" comes with an implicit "for the role in question". People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams. That sounds pretty but it's totally vacuous - it doesn't give me any information on how the decision process would be altered.
Karunamon 12y ago
>People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance This sentence is an oxymoron. An objective hiring process is one that looks at facts, more specifically those related to job performance and past performance with related tasks. Those are, IMO, quite literally the only things that should factor into the process since at the end of the day they're the only things that matter. Coincidentally, this is described as a meritocracy. A process where you're judged solely on what you do, not what you are.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Wait, I can go one better. Candidate A) has a large number of elegant projects. Candidate B) is a ninja with a large number of high profile assassinations under his belt. Obviously the question of "objectively better" comes with an implicit "for the role in question". People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams. That sounds pretty but it's totally vacuous - it doesn't give me any information on how the decision process would be altered.

Karunamon 12y ago

>People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance This sentence is an oxymoron. An objective hiring process is one that looks at facts, more specifically those related to job performance and past performance with related tasks. Those are, IMO, quite literally the only things that should factor into the process since at the end of the day they're the only things that matter. Coincidentally, this is described as a meritocracy. A process where you're judged solely on what you do, not what you are.