
Is Blind Hiring the Best Hiring? - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/is-blind-hiring-the-best-hiring.html
======
zenplatypus
Blind hiring is a good idea. But definitely cannot explain the bulk of the
issue. It is systemic and the article completely writes of the idea that there
is a pipeline problem - which ignores a lot of the pre-college factors that go
into whether or not a student of a minority demographic can succeed in a top
tier engineering program in particular (I mention engineering because the
article refers to Silicon Valley jobs a lot).

Below are two pieces on the demographics of engineers at Harvard and Stanford:
they show pretty clearly that the percent of Black and Hispanic students in
these programs lags significantly to the US population percentage.

[https://medium.com/@jcueto/race-and-gender-among-computer-
sc...](https://medium.com/@jcueto/race-and-gender-among-computer-science-
majors-at-stanford-3824c4062e3a#.kng7b82dw)

[https://medium.com/@winniewu/race-and-gender-among-
computer-...](https://medium.com/@winniewu/race-and-gender-among-computer-
science-concentrators-at-harvard-1c1943a20457#.5yszoxbd0)

~~~
Retric
"Stanford Computer Science majors are Asian (46.4%), followed by White (38%),
Hispanic (9.5%) and Black (6.1%)."

High school: Nationwide, black students graduated at a rate of 69 percent;
Hispanics graduated at 73 percent; whites graduated at a rate of 86 percent.

13.2% of the population is black, 17.1% Latino, 63% white.

If White = (38%) then you would expect black to be: 38% / (.63 * .86) * (13.2
* .69) = 6.39%. So if anything Standford is about right for black people, and
massively over represents Asians.

It seems like HS graduation rates are the real issue everything else just
flows from that. But, income and graduation rates are linked so it's a self
perpetuating cycle.

~~~
OJFord

        > So if anything Standford [sic] is about right for black
        > people, and massively over represents Asians.
    

That assumes only local applications though. And even then ignores demographic
prejudice in where to apply (which is probably more slight).

I would guess Asian students are a majority among international applicants to
Stanford. If we then looked at high school 'graduation' worldwide as the
baseline, that's probably an underrepresentation.

~~~
Retric
I am ignoring where people apply, just adjusting for % of population and % of
high school graduates. There are a lot of ways to play with the numbers but
that seemed like a good first approximation.

Also, international students are 8.70% of undergrads at Stanford, so they
can't really change the stats that much.

------
bko
> A new study from Harvard Business School backs up this line of reasoning. It
> found that when service-sector employers used a job test, they hired workers
> who tended to stay at the job longer — indicating that they were a better
> match. When employers overruled the test results to hire someone for more
> subjective reasons, the employees were significantly more likely to quit or
> be fired.

That's an interesting finding considering that standardized tests are often
criticized for not promoting diversity. Ive read that standardized tests were
originally intended to combat bias, and i think they are fairly successful in
that regard. It's a shame that they have fallen out of political favor in
favor of looking for "the right type" of subjective qualities of candidates.

~~~
dragonwriter
Standardized tests are rarely job tests. Non-job-specific standardized tests
may eliminate bias with regard to what they are designed to measure, but the
choice of such a test itself introduces bias to the extent that the test
favors one group over another in ways which do not reflect the job for which
it is given, _even if_ it is unbiased in what it is intended to measure. (This
is the basic reason behind the case that is often mispresented as outlawing
standardized IQ tests in hiring, which did not actually do that but instead
required that, to the extent that such tests disproportionately disqualified
members of a protected class, that there be evidence that the test was a real
measure of performance on the job for which it was used as a hiring filter.)

~~~
bko
Yes, no test is perfect but I think its better than the alternative. The best
part is that its fair in the sense that the person knows what to expect. A lot
of people feel disillusioned about processes that have a subjective element,
so much so that they don't participate. If I were told the precise steps that
all but guarantee an outcome, that person would likely find that preferable to
the alternative. It would build trust into the system, even though the
objective methods may be too rigid at times.

Businesses have all the incentive to create tests that measure real
performance. These kinds of problems are best solved in the highly competitive
market place for talent. I don't think some politician would do a better job
at determining what makes a good employee and how to hire that employee.

I've read somewhere that the push for "well-rounded" candidates in colleges
was pushed partly to stop the flow of very strong asian candidates displacing
others. That's why schools that rely primarily on tests, like the elite
Stuyvesant high school, end up with disproportionately asian students
(Stuyvesant is 72% Asian). They get criticized for some reason due to the
outcome of their selection method. Perhaps going to a school with
predominately Asians has downsides for the student, but that's really a
judgement call that should be left up to the parents. And the rationales
normally used to prove racial bias for a test doesn't really hold water since
the groups doing well are usually first or second generation immigrants. I
think rigging the system in favor of one group is pretty bad, but rigging it
just so that its harder for another group may be even worse.

------
paulddraper
I had a customer-facing programming job (something like a technical
consultant). I had to speak English understandably -- even over the phone --
and be a polished, likeable, and competent representative for the company.

It's hard to imagine how this could be done without "flawed human judgement".

Some jobs might be form-filling or widget-building in a dark basement, and you
might be able to get away with this. But a lot of jobs are not that.

~~~
lsc
The rules for sales are... different, but sales (and to a lesser extent,
consulting, at least the "make the customer feel special" part of consulting)
exists in what most of us consider to be a kind of ethical gray area. You're
trying to tell the customer "I'm one of you"

Most technical jobs are not like that. Most have pretty minimal social
requirements. If you can't work with a programmer who doesn't look like you,
I'd argue that the problem is with you, not with the person who looks
different.

Every time I argue that competency should be more important than 'cultural
fit' people bring up the example of the asshole. But the asshole isn't usually
the one rejected for 'cultural fit' \- assholes usually do fairly well during
the interview.

~~~
geofft
And there are technical ways to find the asshole. Send them some bad code for
review and see how they review it; ask them to work with the author to get it
merged. (Enough code review happens in open-source projects over email/GitHub,
over text, with pseudonyms, that having it be anonymous is entirely
realistic.)

Alternatively, keep an eye out for asshole behavior -- to any employee, not
just those on the same team -- during the first few weeks, and be willing to
fire.

------
mattedwards984
I once had an amazing experience with an organization who explained on its
website that you should remove your ''personal information'' from your resume
as they do not select based on name, gender, age or race. I did not get hired,
but to this day I still recommend that organization to my friends!

~~~
spacehome
Would you mind recommending it to us?

------
apatters
As the article notes, software engineering is an interesting discipline in
that an engineer's main responsibility is to produce a discrete body of work
which can be peer reviewed. I don't want to dismiss culture entirely, but it's
a very vague idea that gets used to justify a lot of negative hiring
practices. I think it's less important to assess "culture fit" than it is to
do a very thorough review of a candidate's prior work. The candidate can be
included in this review and even asked to explain/defend particular choices
they made while creating that work -- since sometimes external constraints
force non-ideal technical decisions and if the candidate understands that it's
a sign they're a strong engineer.

Why not hire the best engineers you can find and then let them define the
culture of the company? People who have a hand in defining the culture of
their team/company tend to be more motivated and invested in it.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Because culture does matter, even in tech.

Consider a company where social inclusion is important. That'd be a terrible
culture fit for me. When debating a technical choice, I'll say "do we all
agree to run X experiment, outcome Y => choice A, outcome Z => choice B? Then
we can all STFU and stop arguing." In the happy/social/fun environment, this
is terrible. The promoters of B might feel unhappy, harming team cohesion, and
that could be _more important_ than 10% lower latency.

On the flip side, consider the confrontational "put up or shut up" environment
I tend to prefer (and create). In this environment, "you suck at SQL" is just
a factual statement that you can choose to remedy or not. Some folks really
don't like being told "experiment failed, your idea is wrong, be smarter next
time". Even if they are technically competent, they need a form of social
interaction at work that they don't get.

There are a variety of cultural dimensions like this that matter. Another is
implicit vs explicit - whether you can navigate implicit job responsibilities
or they need to be spelled out. Much as we'd like to act like we are just
machines taking money as input and code as outputs, this stuff does matter.

~~~
tommorris
How about "the experiment failed, your idea was a good hypothesis, better luck
next time"? Instead of "you suck at SQL", how about "you should probably read
up on the difference between GIN and GIST indexes in Postgres and maybe try
out window functions - they make this problem a lot easier to solve". It seems
more productive to give people ways they can improve their skills rather than
tearing them to shreds just for entertainment.

You can have an environment that is driven by good engineering (testing
assumptions, measuring etc.) without people being outright insulting to one
another. All it requires is, oh, minimal human empathy and a willingness to
spend 10-15 minutes every so often explaining unfamiliar concepts to fellow
team members who haven't fully grasped it.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_It seems more productive to give people ways they can improve their skills
rather than tearing them to shreds just for entertainment._

That's a valid elaboration focused on a _single specific instance_.

It doesn't mean that "you suck at SQL" isn't also a valid critique. For
example, while GIN/GIST indexes will help them solve _this problem_ , what
that person may need is to actually just learn a lot more about SQL overall
(rather than just one specific trick). "You suck at SQL" isn't a thing that's
valid (read: _correct_ ) to say to someone just because they don't know about
a window function. It's a thing that is valid to say when a person repeatedly
demonstrates fundamental misunderstandings of SQL on many occasions.

It's also useful information. I've been told that I suck at UI, repeatedly. I
accept and internalize this fact. As a result, while I do sometimes think
about customer experience, I very rarely push hard for a specific UI or worry
too much about details. I'll suggest that maybe a UI is confusing and they
should hallway test it and then afterwards do nothing but insist that we abide
by the test results (whatever they were).

Based on the mood affiliation of your comment, it sounds like you dislike this
sort of interaction. You prefer something with more "empathy" and less
"tearing them to shreds". That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say
culture matters. You'd probably hate being on my team and I'd probably hate
being on yours, even if we are both highly competent devs.

~~~
aninhumer
>That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say culture matters. You'd
probably hate being on my team and I'd probably hate being on yours, even if
we are both highly competent devs.

This shouldn't be a matter of team culture. Socially mature people should be
able to adapt their communication to different people's personalities without
any difficulty. There's no reason you can't say "Hey Fred, your foo
implementation sucks." in one breath, and "Hey Bob, this bar implementation
might be a bit better if you looked into baz." in the next. And I'm not sure
why you find the latter so unpleasant.

~~~
yummyfajitas
There is also no reason why Bob can't adapt his communication to whoever is
saying "your foo implementation sucks".

 _Culture_ is a set of prevailing norms about which group of people are the
ones who should adapt. In some cultures it's Fred who adapts, in others it's
Bob.

Let me emphasize that I'm not advocating that one culture is superior.
Bridgewater is a highly successful "you suck here's why" culture, Shutterstock
is a highly successful "lets all think about feelings" culture (to name two NY
companies known for culture), and I don't think either would be improved by
making them more like the other.

I'd just be far more willing to work at Bridgewater (at least if they opened a
NYC office - who wants to go to CT) than at Shutterstock.

 _And I 'm not sure why you find the latter so unpleasant._

I find it to be an exercise which saps my mental energy and distracts me from
increasing shareholder value. The less I think about feelings, the more I'm
thinking about getting more sales for my customers.

I'm not sure why some people find open office plans so unpleasant. But I
accept that some people really don't like them and I have no problem if
companies choose private offices to appeal to those people.

~~~
aninhumer
> There is also no reason why Bob can't adapt his communication to whoever is
> saying "your foo implementation sucks".

Except that it's a lot easier to not say "your work sucks" than it is to not
feel upset when someone does. And most people will indeed adapt over time, so
it's a pretty silly reason not to hire someone.

>I find it to be an exercise which saps my mental energy and distracts me from
increasing shareholder value.

The thing is, I don't feel like I need to actively think about people's
feelings to not say "this sucks". I just do it naturally in response to
different social contexts.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's easier for you. For me the reverse is true.

One reason to avoid hiring people who don't fit the culture is to avoid
entryism. If a group allows just anyone to enter, the newcomers may gain power
and destroy the original culture. This is particularly true if a culture is
significantly outside the norm.

For example, witness Github's transformation from flat hierarchy and
meritocracy to traditional corporate hierarchical politics:
[http://danieltenner.com/2016/02/06/github-the-quiet-death-
of...](http://danieltenner.com/2016/02/06/github-the-quiet-death-of-one-mans-
dream/)

 _The thing is, I don 't feel like I need to actively think about people's
feelings to not say "this sucks". I just do it naturally in response to
different social contexts._

I don't need to actively suppress negative feelings when people give me
factual feedback. It just happens naturally. People are different.

If I'm interpreting your posts right, it sounds like you feel your personality
profile should be privileged over others and that all organizations should
adapt to suit you (leaving me unable to find a place that suits me). Perhaps
I'm wildly misreading you and interpreting differences in mood affiliation for
differences in beliefs? Could you clarify what you are advocating for?

~~~
aninhumer
>It's easier for you. For me the reverse is true.

What I mean is it's easier _for you_ not to say "sucks" than it is _for them_
not to feel upset. Speech is active, but emotions are passive.

>I don't need to actively suppress negative feelings when people give me
factual feedback.

I have no problem with merely "factual" feedback. What you're talking about
goes beyond the facts to put a negative and personal spin on it. Moreover, it
suppresses the actual facts ("this SQL is bad because...") in favour of that
negativity.

>If I'm interpreting your posts right, it sounds like you feel your
personality profile should be privileged over others and that all
organizations should adapt to suit you

I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative language"
is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is
part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much effort sounds
like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much
effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn, because it's a
widely applicable skill.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's not easy for me to actively model the mental states of others at all
times and tailor my words in order to prevent those states from entering
negative territory. I can do it, but it's not as simple as you imply.

 _Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts ( "this SQL is bad because...") in
favour of that negativity._

Or it suppresses the actual facts because I didn't feel like writing a
longwinded example. "Too few examples" and "too little detail" is a critique
people rarely make of me.

 _I think the personality trait of "upset by strongly worded negative
language" is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who
share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it's too much
effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is
too much effort. If you can't do it without thinking, you should learn,
because it's a widely applicable skill._

I have learned - anyone outside the mainstream has to. But I think you
underestimate the effort that it takes to adapt to a culture or way of
thinking alien to your own.

But that's not the question here. The question is whether it's acceptable for
a group of people with non-mainstream tastes to build and protect a culture
where their preferred modes of interaction are the default, and to prevent
others who might change that culture from entering. I get the impression you
are saying it isn't. Is my impression correct?

I believe you are probably right that 80% of people think like you and 5%
think like me. I don't believe that this implies that 100% of organizations
should cater to you. On the contrary I think if you don't like my organization
with a niche culture, it should be very easy to find a more feelings-driven
organization and shift to it.

------
waylandsmithers
Haven't we already decided that the answer is definitively no? That the
"rockstar" developer who is also a complete prick is a bad hire?

~~~
Dr_tldr
It really, really depends. If you've got a large team and a mature codebase, a
rockstar programmer who's a douche is usually worse than useless.

But if you've got a small team and are making major architecting decisions,
the competent, meticulous, anal-retentive jerk can be perfect. A good manager
knows how to get the best work out of everyone, and managing
different/difficult personalities is an important skill.

~~~
ScottBurson
That's fine as long as you're happy having only one person at that level of
competence. You're not going to get a second one to stay long.

------
chromanoid
Relevant paper: Unintended Effects of Anonymous Resumes
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp8517.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp8517.pdf)

------
paulwitte253
I am pro blind hiring. You should get hired based on your skills and
abilities, not your personal background.

