Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
bnoopy.typepad.com
Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#2I take one issue to the Google policy outlined here - There is danger, if you disallow candidates who don't have full consensus of the hiring board, of creating groups and rooms full of people who have the same skills, the same values, and the same thinking. Mitch Kapor put it well at startup school - mirror-tocracy instead of meritocracy.
Hiring diversity (of thought) is as important as hiring quality.
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#3In my opinion, it seems this hiring process might actually encourage mediocrity. You might be in danger of hiring "ok at everything" employees over those that are "extraordinary at a few things."
The mediocre employees wouldn't get any negative votes, while the extraordinary ones would.
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#4In my opinion, it seems this hiring process might actually encourage mediocrity. You might be in danger of hiring "ok at everything" employees over those that are "extraordinary at a few things." The mediocre employees wouldn't get any negative votes, while the extraordinary ones would.
Agreed. Especially if you "need" 100 employees and everyone else is saying yes, there's pressure for consensus, if they are "good enough".
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#5One important issue that seems to be missing from these discussions is that a lot of hiring is about internal team dynamics. The big fear I have is of people who don't want to hire employees that are smarter(broadest sense) than they are. One of the biggest benefits of working is the opportunity to work next to people you respect or enjoy.
For ambitious, smart people also known as 'A Players', it's not easy to provide them with an environment where they will feel challenged and inspired by their team members. But doing so greatly increases the likelihood of winning those hires. Why do so many 'A Players' want to work for Google? I believe that it's because there's a sense that other smart people work there. You get a network effect happening in the HR side of things. Think of reasons for attending Stanford and Harvard, it's not really about the quality of what will be taught but the assumed quality of the others in attendance.
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#6I take one issue to the Google policy outlined here - There is danger, if you disallow candidates who don't have full consensus of the hiring board, of creating groups and rooms full of people who have the same skills, the same values, and the same thinking. Mitch Kapor put it well at startup school - mirror-tocracy instead of meritocracy. Hiring diversity (of thought) is as important as hiring quality.
I'd rather have a room full of really smart people with the same values and the same thinking than risk hiring even a quarter of a room of people who are just a little behind.
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#7I take one issue to the Google policy outlined here - There is danger, if you disallow candidates who don't have full consensus of the hiring board, of creating groups and rooms full of people who have the same skills, the same values, and the same thinking. Mitch Kapor put it well at startup school - mirror-tocracy instead of meritocracy. Hiring diversity (of thought) is as important as hiring quality.
I'd rather have a room full of really smart people with the same values and the same thinking than risk hiring even a quarter of a room of people who are just a little behind.
A room full of people that are really smart in exactly the same way isn't much smarter than just a few of those same people. A room full of pretty smart people with diverse experience and knowledge is WAY smarter than any smaller group. Read Surowiecki's Wisdom of Crowds.
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#8Hmm... if A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and C players hire losers, how could B players ever get hired?
Do the people who think up these simplistic axioms ever bother to think them through?
Far33d's comment about the "echo chamber" effect is well-stated. Look into why IBM missed the minicomputer boom, and why DEC missed the microcomputer boom.
Sam_Odio also has a valid point. Selecting the choice that offends the fewest people is what gives us so many buildings with walls and carpet that are a bland beige/white/gray color.
The real issue here is distinguishing between Joe 1, who's controversial because he's a bloody genius, and Joe 2, who's controversial because he's an asshole. This is further complicated by the fact that legitimate geniuses aren't always the easiest people with whom to get along. If you take this guy's advice, you'll wind up with Joe 3, who may be a good worker bee, but probably isn't ever going to do anything great.
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#9This sounds like a band meeting. Unanimous voting is the only way to fly when you're tiny, but I have a hard time believing companies like Google only hire A talent now that they're much larger; and I know from people that have worked there that it's not true at Microsoft.
Here's a quote from someone (who became a millionaire from his other ventures) about his time at Microsoft: "I went there because that's where the money was, right? Biggest bunch of idiots I've ever seen in my life!"
Re: Joe Kraus: Hiring. No False Positives
#10Hmm... if A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and C players hire losers, how could B players ever get hired? Do the people who think up these simplistic axioms ever bother to think them through? Far33d's comment about the "echo chamber" effect is well-stated. Look into why IBM missed the minicomputer boom, and why DEC missed the microcomputer boom. Sam_Odio also has a valid point. Selecting the choice…
> Hmm... if A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and C players hire losers, how could B players ever get hired?
For the win!
You've just uncovered the investor version of "you can't handle the truth!"
"Colonel, I have just one more question before I call Airman O'Malley and Airman Perez: If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would he be in danger, why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?"
...
"No sir. You made it clear just a moment ago that your men never take matters into their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn't have been in any danger at all, should he have, Colonel?"