Because hiring doesn’t have to be this adversarial process. And work doesn’t have to be this dehumanizing race to the bottom that excludes qualified people who are being excluded by bad metrics.

bad metrics ? maybe according to you but I doubt it according to the person who do the hiring.

The people who do the hiring get to the decide what the metrics is and what they considered good/qualified.

Not according to me, according to many in this thread, in dozens of articles posted on this site, and many more across the industry. There are all sorts of management principles and truisms people take for granted, and this is one of them that’s being called into question.

>Not according to me, according to many in this thread, in dozens of articles posted on this site, and many more across the industry.

Yes, that what said, but I doubt according to the people who do the hiring.

It doesn't matter if you think you are right candidate according to you or other people. Ultimately its the people who going to hire you who is going to judge you according to his/her subjective criteria.

Right, but this entire discussion is predicated upon questioning if perhaps the hirers are wrong. Are their interviewing practices serving their organization? A lot of the employers themselves have expressed difficulty at hiring and dissatisfaction with the process. Are they screening for the optimal qualities? There's no shortage of engineering projects that have gone bad. Could that be because the candidates being hired with current practices are suboptimal?

Hiring is still an on-going debate. Google SVP of People Ops Laszlo Bock has admitted previously that internal studies revealed that the interviewing practices at the time didn't really correlate to employee success:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17196974

We're having a debate here. You can claim the current practices are best, that's fine. But you can't just state it and take it for granted without providing evidence.

That article is missleading, the actual statement is this:

> Four meticulously orchestrated Google interviews could identify successful hires with 86 percent confidence, and nobody at the company—no matter how long they had been at the company or how many candidates they had interviewed—could do any better than the aggregated wisdom of four interviewers.

So it isn't that interviews have zero correlation, it is that they fond no case of a single interviewer being better than the aggregate of four algorithm interviews. And as you see, four algorithm interviews combined have a very high success rate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-sci...

At a certain scale, intent stops mattering. You need to take responsibility for the incentives in the systems you create. To do otherwise is just negligence.

Families are kind of important. They're usually a large part of the reason people have a job to begin with. To callously disregard the impact of a system on families is exceptionally appalling. You should not do that.

I didn't say families are not important, to some people they are important but you can't use that as an excuse.