My last comment wasn't about genders of people you hire. One person was male and one female. My point is about team and company dynamics. If someone seems off enough to their potential teawhy take that chance? There are plenty of good candidates out there and the cost of getting rid of a bad employee far exceeds the cost of deleting finding a good one. I don't care about a candidate's gender, race or whatever else. I…
Well, there's this data: http://som.yale.edu/news/2017/04/in-new-york-times-prof-jaso... but it doesn't seem to be reaching the right ears. The thing is that a staggering lack of every kind of diversity persists within the tech sector. It is a much bigger problem than the occasional "wrong hire". There will always be some error... some bad hire that slips through any process as we perfect our hiring systems. The data…
So I read that article and the nytimes one it links to. It seems like both your symphony analogy and this study focus on individual performance. That's not how most software teams I've worked in are collaborative. People like Linus aren't suited for most teams, but they could probably get high GPAs.
I do think that measuring individual competence is important for software too. Gauging collaborative ability is still important though.
Certifications and licenses certainly exist, but proof of their effectiveness often does not. You, after all, do need to hire the people who failed to find out if it works, which tends to be unpopular. If you can produce a demonstratably effective test for filtering out incompetent or low productivity employees, people will bury you in cash at you without hesitation.
That is so far outside of reality. Nobody hires a law student who fails the state bar exam to qualify its effectiveness.
Probably because that would be illegal.
They do hire plenty of people without law degrees for support roles that don't require it, so presumably they've already decided it's not a useful discriminator for those roles.
Well, there's this data: http://som.yale.edu/news/2017/04/in-new-york-times-prof-jaso... but it doesn't seem to be reaching the right ears. The thing is that a staggering lack of every kind of diversity persists within the tech sector. It is a much bigger problem than the occasional "wrong hire". There will always be some error... some bad hire that slips through any process as we perfect our hiring systems. The data…
So I read that article and the nytimes one it links to. It seems like both your symphony analogy and this study focus on individual performance. That's not how most software teams I've worked in are collaborative. People like Linus aren't suited for most teams, but they could probably get high GPAs. I do think that measuring individual competence is important for software too. Gauging collaborative ability is still i…
Actually, the probation period I mentioned that all major professional orchestras require of audition winners regardless of their accumulated fame or lack thereof, deals very thoroughly in the mysician's ability to collaborate. They are paid the standard salary and benefits for this period, just like every other player. Obviously, they can't rehearse or perform from within a Faraday cage, so this period is not "blind".It is the "at will" part of the orchestral contract- but a committee decides if they have collaborated well- a committee made up of the conductor, their section leader, section members and players of other instruments and administration. They get canned if they aren't consumate collaborative professionals. Like I said, they do get canned... it just happens very rarely. This period can last for six months to a year depending on the position and the orchestra. So it isn't part of the blind part, but unlike in engineering, if they pass this period, they have a solid contract. It then necomes much more difficult to fire them,although it still happens when there is good reason. As for the software interview-- man is that just kind of squishy and often poorly structured (not to the job- more like a hazing situation). And not blind, not usually inclusive, and downright structurally discriminatory in many cases. Why not structure these with the job in mind, toss the whiteboard in favor of their actual laptop and IDE (musicians audition on their own instruments, not on soundless replicas, and not with just any example of music from the entire repitoire- an set of excerpts and sightreading that directly apply to the job they will do)-keep it blind and pay them the usual salary for a probation period during which everyone on the team makes the effort to build a great collaborative relationship. Why not? Having been a pro orchestral musician and now software craftsperson, I can tell you these two gigs have a lot in common. The diversity people in music finally revolted back in the late 60s and got some positive change, just as diversity people are finally aiming to do battle with tech's ironically inflexible hiring culture and its general culture right now. It would be most helpful if more people got hip to diversity and inclusion being a more productive, stronger, and fulfilling way to go. Bit it needs to be met with eager interest rather than skepticism and pushback on experimental efforts to help it flourish.