Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

blog.alinelerner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#11

Post by cp9 »

drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

>Maybe hire people with at least some demonstrated aptitude and invest in them instead

how do you demonstrate this?

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#12

Post by ionforce »

drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

> simple indicators of future success just might not exist

No one wants to admit this. We want to have control of the future! And prediction is one way to do that.

I once read in an agile book somewhere that certain factors don't necessarily predict success but merely the maximum possible value.

As in, if you don't do X, you cannot be successful. But if you DO do X, you have a probability of being successful, but you can still suck.

So the possibility of sucking is ever present, but the maximum ceiling of possibility is controlled by the number of best practices you implement.

So maybe there's something like that. Our factors aren't predictive, but they open up the landscape to find great people.

Sucky people are evergreen.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#13

Post by Swizec »

cp9 wrote: post #11
drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

>Maybe hire people with at least some demonstrated aptitude and invest in them instead how do you demonstrate this?

The old mantra has been: released projects.

Someone who can show their own past work, either open-source, side-project, launched projects, or work at somebody else's company ... well there is a high chance that they can at least code their way out of a wet paper bag. Probably more than that too.

Another, perhaps better, approach is to just hire a few of the most promising candidates for a couple of days. Give them a small project. See if there's a fit.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#14

Post by madcaptenor »

WaxProlix wrote: post #9
verteu wrote: post #5

The article is true -- large companies often hire through non-technical recruiters, who aren't qualified to judge applicants. But I find it disingenuous to single out tech, which is one of the most meritocratic industries. What does the screening process look like in finance? Academia? Journalism? Real estate?

Nobody has an image of finance, academia, journalism, or real estate that is bound up in the concept of 'meritocracy', though, so publishing this sort of takedown on any of those industries (and for the less illusioned, in ours as well) would induce a lot of 'no shit, Sherlock' moments.

Academia certainly likes to consider itself a meritocracy. (Like software, it's not.)

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#15

Post by Swizec »

leeny wrote: post #7
iamthepieman wrote: post #3

I don't understand the author's problem with "look good on paper" This is paper that the applicant has full control over. The applicant can put whatever they want on their resume and cover letter. Sure this is a writing challenge that doesn't correlate directly with engineering ability but being able to communicate the value of your ideas and explain technical ideas and methods to people with different backgrounds an…

Author here. The issue is that, much of the time, people reading the paper just look at proxies (for speed reasons and because they're disincentivized to select wild cards). You can do a fantastic job of explaining your projects, but if you don't have pedigree, the reader's eyeballs may never go far enough down the page. It's a matter of how these things are weighed, and the weight assigned to credentialing >>> the w…

> but if you don't have pedigree, the reader's eyeballs may never go far enough down the page

Solution: put your pedigree at the bottom of the page. Someone looking at my CV needs to get through all my projects and past successes before they get to the bullet point that says "5 years college, no degree".

Why on earth would you put your weaknesses first?

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#17

Post by bkjelden »

drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

As an engineer on the other side of the table - I would much rather this be the case too.

I would much rather join a company, devote myself to a problem, a team, and a product, and have the company reward me as such.

Instead, engineers who are willing to jump are generally able to attain much higher compensation than those who stay put - so we're incentivized to do so, rather than investing ourselves in a company and having the company invest in us.

As a result, engineers are forced to maintain two skillsets: one for interviewing, and one for actually building & shipping products.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#18

Post by sown »

drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

> Maybe hire people with at least some demonstrated aptitude and invest in them instead.

This is all a loser like me has. I can't whiteboard too well, I cant talk so great some times (other times I'm great at it). I can work hard, though, and for longer hours.

I'm currently doing temp work at a startup now but it feels like they are constantly thinking of letting me go.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#19

Post by Zigurd »

cp9 wrote: post #11
drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

>Maybe hire people with at least some demonstrated aptitude and invest in them instead how do you demonstrate this?

I ask potential hires to bring samples of their work and have them discuss it in depth.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#20

Post by leeny »

Swizec wrote: post #15
leeny wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. The issue is that, much of the time, people reading the paper just look at proxies (for speed reasons and because they're disincentivized to select wild cards). You can do a fantastic job of explaining your projects, but if you don't have pedigree, the reader's eyeballs may never go far enough down the page. It's a matter of how these things are weighed, and the weight assigned to credentialing >>> the w…

> but if you don't have pedigree, the reader's eyeballs may never go far enough down the page Solution: put your pedigree at the bottom of the page. Someone looking at my CV needs to get through all my projects and past successes before they get to the bullet point that says "5 years college, no degree". Why on earth would you put your weaknesses first?

Recruiters are good at quickly scanning for pedigree before incurring the cognitive load required to grok projects. So, I don't think placement/layout matters that much. And pedigree doesn't just refer to your degree -- it's also the brand name factor of where you've worked.

Not saying this is OK, for the record.

Post reply on HN