|
|
|
|
|
|
by CPLX
1512 days ago
|
|
|
This is a ridiculous argument. Reputation and social proof are basically the core concepts governing how humans interact with each other. The process should certainly be made more equitable but discarding personal recommendation as a concept entirely makes as much sense as having all humans work at night and sleep during the day. |
|
|
My point is not about equity but just plain efficiency. I'm all for a more equitable recruitment - but that's not what I addressed here.
Of course reputation matters. But reputation is not provided by references - at least imo. That person is reputed in a community or not. If you are looking for a top-notch dev, her/his reputation will be apparent.
Social proof is of utter importance, hence the idea of hiring fast to see if that person fits well in your company. How is it relevant if that person did not fit well in the previous company? It may be in some cases, if you know that previous company well, like having work for them or at least with them.
If you are looking for someone who fits well anywhere, well, that can be a must for the role or you just prefer people without much personality.
Go fast, fail fast, anybody?
A human being behaves very differently in different social contexts. Your company's context is more often than not very different than the previous company's.
1 month trial is more efficient and costs less than 6 interviews + 3 references. Give people a chance and let them surprise you. Of course, that doesn't mean hiring the first resume received but if the person appears qualified and do well in 2 interviews (HR + the new boss or colleague), that's plenty enough.