The giant companies who whiteboard are full of people who have a strong incentive to reach the conclusion that the process that selected themselves over other people is a good one.
These companies are also full of Directors and VPs whose very jobs, and their millions of dollars in salary, and their image as successful managers, rely on successful hiring choices.
It's definitely not hard to imagine such people being biased toward whiteboard. It's also not hard to imagine them hiring outside firms to conduct studies and collect data.
Speaking of bias, there's a lot of it around here toward the idea that whiteboarding is ineffective.
"it's not hard to imagine that A" does not mean that A is happening. It doesn't even mean that P(A) is high.
Your first paragraph also goes directly against what you are trying to prove. If their success relies on good hiring, then they would pick the best methods. If they haven't, they wouldn't be successful and would be replaced.
If you can find where I have said that anyting proves anything else, then I will certainly retract it. The only people talking about proof are those setting up unreachable goalposts.
If their success relies on good hiring, then they would pick the best methods. If they haven't, they wouldn't be successful and would be replaced.
That's faulty reasoning. Successful hiring choices do not necessarily depend on having used the most ideal hiring practice. Past success does not mean things cannot be made better.
What a load of twaddle
I know this topic makes people emotional, but how about we keep it civil?
I do apologise. For a moment I thought I was talking to Alasdair. Having now checked your name properly, everything you wrote previously is seen in a new light and my post is the twaddle in this instance.
Unconcious bias is a tough thing to control for.