

Ask HN: Why does most hiring happen through referrals? - BadCode

I have seen advised often how good skills are only half the work. To land great opportunities, knowing the right people and having the right connections is equally necessary.<p>Why is it that companies prioritize candidates that have come through referrals?
======
janbernhart
The scientific (though old) answer is that 1) referred candidates stay longer
2) referred candidates are better informed and so more likely to succeed at
the interviews, which means less time waste for the employer 3) referring
employees stay longer for they feel 'responsible' for the referred candidate
for some time

(source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Granovetter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Granovetter))

Adding the cost aspect, it's clear why companies like referral programs

------
davismwfl
Trust and cost. Referrals even if the company pays $1-5k to the referrer are
fair less expensive then paying 15-30% of the first years salary to an agency.
And the trust: if the referral is coming from an inside person that has
knowledge of the systems etc, they are referring someone that they feel will
work well in that environment and that will fit in with the team. Team fit is
almost more important than having all the skills day 1 most of the time.

For new grads, this means using your friends and connections (professors etc)
from school to help land a job. In the absence of that ability, get out and
meet people and show employers you are awesome. For developers, creating a
public git repository is an awesome way to let them see your skills.

------
seren
It is almost impossible to assess someone efficiently in a few hours through
multiple interviews. So if someone you trust tells you someone is good (or
bad) based on a long period of work in common, this is much more
representative of how the candidate will work in the long term.

------
johan_larson
People are (mostly) more reluctant to refer unqualified candidates they know
personally than unqualified candidates are to apply to jobs. Hence the ones
with insider references tend to be more qualified.

Also, judging skill through interviews or whatever is hard at best. Insiders
know the people they are referring much better than the company does, even
after interviews.

My guesses, anyway.

------
JSeymourATL
Basic sales premise, people buy from people they know and like. The same is
true in recruiting talent. Getting referred into a job opportunity, implies
the stamp of social proof and reciprocity.

Recommend reading Influence by Robert Cialdini >
[http://www.amazon.com/Robert-B.-Cialdini/e/B000AP9KKG](http://www.amazon.com/Robert-B.-Cialdini/e/B000AP9KKG)

------
csmdev
It's the evil you know vs taking a chance on the unknown. Plus the short-term
thinking that plagues most people.

This is why most companies fail eventually. Hiring and promoting based on
relationships instead of skills. You can grow a relationship. But a bad
employee will never get any better. Especially if you bump him up to
management.

~~~
redspark
Actually I would bet hiring on skill rather than personality, relationship
with an employee and culture fit are responsible for more company kills than
vice versa.

------
mooism2
If you have connections, you can land the job before it is advertised
publicly; therefore the job won't be advertised publicly.

If you don't have connections, you can't land a job that isn't advertised
publicly.

Publicly advertising a job is tedious.

~~~
BadCode
That makes sense. Considering the resources required to shortlist candidates
and interview them, companies would any day prefer to avoid it. Is there any
relevant data, how many such jobs may exist that are not 'advertised'?

~~~
mooism2
There is relevant data, but I don't know where it is, sorry.

I am under the impression that this sort of under-the-radar hiring occurs
enough to be a significant cause of institutional racism in hiring. (If your
existing employees are disproportionately white, and their friends and
acquaintances are disproportionately white, then new employees who fill a
position before it is publicly advertised will be disproportionately white;
and this is without anyone being overtly or consciously racist, and without
non-whites being discouraged in any way from applying.)

~~~
joeclark77
If no one is being racist, then it's not racism.

~~~
mooism2
If you're disadvantaged because of your race, then it's racism.

It's important to be clear: the outcome is racist even when no individual is
being racist. You can't be reductionist about this, you can't decompose the
company into its individual employees and give any of them individually the
blame for racist hiring outcomes. It's an emergent phenomenon: it is the
company as a whole that is racist and the company as a whole that is at fault.

~~~
joeclark77
This is politically-correct/Marxist protelariat/bourgeoisie nonsense. The
human race is composed of individuals, not "classes" at war with one another.

~~~
mooism2
No, this is not about classes.

This is about organisations exhibiting qualities that none of the individuals
who make up those organisations exhibit.

~~~
joeclark77
What qualities? You have said that no one there acts in a racist way. No
"person of color" who applies for a job is treated unfairly. Thus no racism
occurs.

You can only imagine racism there if you see the races as "classes" (i.e. in
the sense of Marxist class warfare) and feel that each _class_ (not the
individuals within it) has a right to a "share" of the company (i.e. a quota
of jobs -- regardless of whether anyone in a particular class ever actually
applied for a job and was treated unfairly). I know this is what the leftist
professors in schools of "grievance studies" are peddling, but they have
tenure requirements to meet. What's your excuse?

------
garysvpa
Candidates referred by employees also tend to be of higher quality because the
employee's reputation is somewhat on the line with every person he or she
refers to the company.

