Don’t “Hire by Keyword”

Re:Don’t “Hire by Keyword” by scott_s on Monday July 25, 2016 @10:44AM (#12159016)

Looking for people who will work well with the existing team is understandable and probably a good thing. The problem is that you have to be vigilant to not allow this to become looking for people who are similar to your current people. It's quite possible for a reasonable goal (finding candidates who will work well with existing employees) to have negative consequences (finding candidates who only fit a certain racial, cultural or gender expectation).

See some related HN submissions and threads: Inside the Mirrortocracy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7930430 ; Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9789928

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don’t “Hire by Keyword” by ysavir on Monday July 25, 2016 @02:02PM (#12160378)

I totally agree. Hence why I defined it according to work ethics rather than background/knowledge/hobbies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don’t “Hire by Keyword” by r_smart on Monday July 25, 2016 @12:06PM (#12159578)

Just a heads up that your first link doesn't seem to exist anymore.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don’t “Hire by Keyword” by scott_s on Monday July 25, 2016 @12:57PM (#12159950)

The semicolon used to be a part of the URL; issue with HN's URL parsing. I fixed it a bit ago, it works for me now. Does it still not work for you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Don’t “Hire by Keyword” by r_smart on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @12:59PM (#12167047)

Looks like it's fixed now, thanks.

*Edit: Okay, I read both of the articles, and they were fairly interesting, so thanks. I do have a pet peeve / complaint though: Both of the articles purported to link to research, but neither actually did. the first article linked to a list of slide decks and the second article linked to a summary of research. I've read enough bad summaries now that I am working on becoming a primary sources junky. Do you know of any research on this issue that's been done?

[ Parent | on HN ]