Some of the worst hires come through word-of-mouth referrals, too. That's how you get unqualified nepotism hires. In fact, networking can be thought of as a form of nepotism or cronyism (depending on how touchy a given person is about "nepotism" being applied to the manner in which they got their position). I know I'm likely alone in viewing such hiring practices - feelings over process - as signal of an impending collapse. I think it's a sound heuristic, though, at least for previously-established companies. If you're not connected to eminently-qualified potential hires (and you're probably overestimating the quality of your network), "hire my friends" is a sure way to end up with an increasingly incompetent workforce.
I've gone back and forth on this and now am firmly in the feelings > process camp if you have competent folks making the hiring decisions and you train everyone well in avoiding unconscious bias.
The reality is that strong soft-skills are crucial to hiring the best talent and those skills cannot be "objectively" tested. Even software engineering to a large degree requires a lot of design-related traits that require subjectivity in assessment.
In that case, wouldn't that select for generally likable people? Idk sounds like evolution to me.
Of course, though, that's going to encode some existing biases in the data, but we could keep adding them to protected classes if society thinks they're worthy of inclusion.
That last part is pretty flawed today and changes slowly, I admit, but overall this system sure as heck solves more problems than I could come up with. At least, I think it converges over time.
The hiring process is basically a stochastic process with time wasting theatrical performances on both sides.
I honestly believe at some stage there should just be a random number generator making the selection. Especially if the final selection is between a couple of highly qualified candidates.
I am a big fan of both, word-of-mouthbreferalls and sttict hirijg processes, read Amazon (without leetcode, I am no dev). If youbsomeone good, get them the first invite for the phone screening or even an on-site interview. But then recuse yourself from the hiring process, don't interview, don't participate in the decision making. That way, you are not the only one influencing the hiring, ypu just made it easier for someone to get the first foot in the door.
Of course this isn't perfect, people might be biased to please higher ups or collegues by prefering those referral candidates. Or you might end up indirectly influencing thebhiring decision, intentionally or not. But still better than some AI based CV screening or pure nepotism.
Speaking of nepotism: on LinkedIn via my network, I saw a senior manager in a Bay Area company asking publicly for internships for his university age daughter.
I shook my head in amazement, then felt absolutely mortified on behalf of that poor woman.
At best, she is living in her father’s shadow. At worst, she is being denied valuable life lessons of the feeling of being allowed to fail and get back up.
At best she gets a great internship and then a great job. At worst she didn't want him to do that and won't accept a position she could have gained that way.
Without suckling on your mothers breast you would be dead. Without that 2nd grade teacher you would be dumb. Without the near infinite external inputs that have gone into each person they would not be the person they are, in the place they are. All that is before we get on to the role of plain old luck.
None of your achievements are entirely your own, we are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
Being born in America is winning the lottery in many ways. Should Americans pursue jobs in third world countries to avoid failing to succeed on their own merits?
Shoot, you'd really need to pick the worst job in the worst country as your starting point to know you really had what it takes.
Honest question, how is this meaningfully different from a recruiter?
Sounds like a recruiter with intimate knowledge of the candidate and a strong network. A biased recruiter, but aren't all? I mean a recruiter doesn't get paid unless they get someone a job (and they get more money for a hire paying).
> No recruiter I have ever worked with has done something for me because I was related to them.
This is missing the point of my question. I'm assuming that the daughter has more to her merit than just her father's connections. If she is getting a job she isn't qualified for, different story, and I think everyone agrees with your point. If she is qualified and the dad is simply helping extend her network (like a recruiter) then what is the difference?
If you only look at the surface then you've missed everything important.
> Come on man, are we really that cynical towards meritocracy that we are accepting nepotism as normal?
1) Meritocracy doesn't exist and can't exist. I have several arguments laying this out. It's worth mentioning that the article is also arguing this. The problem is that the system is noisy. Even considering perfect resumes and perfect hiring managers the problem is that merit is so convoluted that evaluation is near impossible. How do you evaluate a software engineer perfectly? Do lines of code matter? Speed in which they work? Ability to get along with the team? Does pedigree matter? Lines of code from others that utilize their lines of code? Ditto but weighted by net profit corresponding to said lines? Can that even be measured?
2) How do you even measure a potential hire where you don't have any of the above metrics? Does pedigree strongly correlate with productivity? (most people argue no. I argue correlate yes causal no) Does it correlate strongly with LeetCode/Whiteboard problems? If yes, then explain the cheater threads that are so common. So what metrics should be used to evaluate? Again, the article argues (in depth) that the process is extremely noisy, nuanced, and complicated.
3) Which nepotism are we discussing? We'll say that a candidate has 2 attributes: merit and nepo. If merit dominates, then nepo is a means to reduce noise as you get information from a trusted source about information that cannot be gathered through resumes or interviewing (this is not different from calling a previous employer, except that there's higher risk in contacting their previous employers (which is why this doesn't happen) and previous employers are not a trusted source). On the other hand, if nepo dominates then no one disagrees with you and we've all been explicitly clear about this. Nepotism is only useful as a means of filtering through already (statistically) equally qualified candidates.
> are accepting nepotism as normal?
Accepting that it is normal doesn't mean you have to like it, it just means that you are recognizing that this is fairly status quo. Should we put in efforts to reduce nepotism and increase our ability to judge a candidate (and current employee) based on their merits? Hell yeah. But it is a fool who believes we have such tools today. And even a bigger fool who perpetuates the system of noisy evaluations. I'd personally love to have a system that is purely meritocratic. But the truth is that Goodhart always wins and if we don't recognize such flaws we are only creating a worse system that is masking as meritocracy. Few people even ask themselves why Goodhart always wins, and doing so also perpetuates this tomfoolery. I've even answered why Goodhart wins, and let's be honest, how many people caught it?
