The problem is more a scientific approach to creating a feedback loop to the employee life cycle.
Initially you'd want to hire randomly to seed your 'gene' pool and then fire those who are unfit. This will provide feedback as to which measures best predict the outcomes the business wants to optimize for. And would take into account the fact that different businesses require different hiring practices and need to optimize for different outcomes.
This is just another idea for hiring that provides no information as to whether it's a better approach and completely ignores the rest of the employee life cycle.
The article talks about confirmation bias but provides no indication as to how hiring by interest changes anything about confirmation bias in the hiring process.
Seriously the product 'you all want to make' is a piece of shit that is essentially design by committee. There will be vocal people who DON'T want to make that product because by the nature of the process it has become bland and unimaginative.
My personal and completely unscientific approach to hiring is towards interesting people rather than people interested in the particular problem we're currently solving. I have no idea whether this is better / worse that credentials or hiring based on interest.
That's not the problem, that's an alternative and possibly complementary solution. The problem, as we both broadly define it, is hiring people that will help the business achieve its goals. Yes, I did not apply this method over the entire employee life cycle in this one post.
The method of frequent firing as feedback is far from optimal and not even feasible in smaller organizations. That is the context in which I'm operating and thinking about this problem.
With respect to the particular element of confirmation bias referenced in the first sentence, and repeating the second, hiring based on interest is a method that will seek to truthfully answer the question, "is this person going to solve the problem we want to solve?" rather than effectively allowing an employer to avoid a costly mistake.
Your comments about product development are not addressing anything in the post and could be delivered to a wall with similar effect.
Hiring based on interest will answer the question, "does this person want to solve the problem we want to solve". A good recruit is both willing and able. So, hire based on interest, but don't disregard credentials either. Focusing too much on interest risks getting showmen and excitable stupid people.
Showmen (a/k/a Charlatans) are to be avoided. And excitable talented people are gold!
But an excitable person can learn. Or be directed into another role. How does one motivate a disinterested but competent person? I fear that motivation is a harder problem to solve than lack of talent.
by giving them freedom. in my experience, what makes a job suck isn't that the problem lacks "excitement", but that you aren't given the freedom to do a good job. you can take pride in work for even simple tasks, if you own them. on the other hand, you can be in the most exciting field in the world, but have a crappy boss and a shit life.
and almost any technical job can become complex enough to be intellectually interesting, if you have the freedom to use tools to automate the boring bits. what kills is being forced to do tedious rote work because you are restricted in your process. working on a production line is boring; building a production line is fascinating. the line between the two is clear in factory, but not in software development.
"exciting" is for non-technical marketing people with an attention span of 2 seconds before they see the next shiny object. absorbing, empowering work hasn't got much to do with excitement. it's about expressing and developing something of your own. it doesn't have to be different, or exciting, or ground-breaking. it just has to be yours, to develop in the way you see fit, to meet the requirements you are given.
i didn't know this when i started; i imagine selling "exciting" work will get you people with little experience. but i'm wiser now.
Initially you'd want to hire randomly to seed your 'gene' pool and then fire those who are unfit. This will provide feedback as to which measures best predict the outcomes the business wants to optimize for. And would take into account the fact that different businesses require different hiring practices and need to optimize for different outcomes.
This is just another idea for hiring that provides no information as to whether it's a better approach and completely ignores the rest of the employee life cycle.
The article talks about confirmation bias but provides no indication as to how hiring by interest changes anything about confirmation bias in the hiring process.
Seriously the product 'you all want to make' is a piece of shit that is essentially design by committee. There will be vocal people who DON'T want to make that product because by the nature of the process it has become bland and unimaginative.
My personal and completely unscientific approach to hiring is towards interesting people rather than people interested in the particular problem we're currently solving. I have no idea whether this is better / worse that credentials or hiring based on interest.