[kxrm]

My first job during and out of college back in 2003, we were entirely remote. We hired exclusively over the phone which resulted in a mix of people that were completely diverse in their backgrounds and at the same time truly qualified to do the work.

The company went on to grow quite successfully until it was acquired 6 years later. I feel that zoom and video conferencing allows some of that "appearance" factor back in. Based on my experience though, if I had my way, job interviews would be exclusively audio only.

[torginus]

I think most 'attractive' people put effort into their appearances, which might appeal to management types who evaluate work performance. Also, imo the best way to get a management position in my experience isn't to work hard, or be knowledgeable, but to be the least objectionable pick.

This varies with country/company, with Euros usually being appearance focused, but in US companies, it's dudes in crumpled T-shirts all the way to the top (in engineering).

Seriously, it's so entertaining to sit in on an important meeting with a US vendor which looks like a college dorm party with an impeccably dressed guy or lady (from sales and/or management) who sticks out like a sore thumb.

[mikkupikku]

Best way to get a manager position is to be a few inches taller than everybody else. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but pay attention to how often the boss is taller than everybody else on the team. Not always, but far more often than random chance can account for.

(Incidentally, the best boss I ever had was barely 5 feet.)

[bombcar]

This reminds me that SkyMall (RIP) always had those advertisements for height increasing shoes.

Now that I think of it, the inflight magazines still have those ...

Amusingly enough the best CEO and best salesman I ever knew (two different people) were below average height.

[neilv]

It could be that height says nothing about competence as a CEO, or it could be that the people who attain CEO and succeed despite height bias need to have an exceptionally strong mix of merit/will/effort.

I've heard the latter theory at least a couple times about US Navy SEALs.

The first time, it was a retired SEAL I knew (well over 6', and a brick wall) who one day out of the blue said something like, "You shouldn't feel bad about being short. The best SEAL I knew was a short guy, and he could kick my ass."

Later, I heard a similar anecdote in a speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70&t=440s

[bombcar]

As famously quoted by Darth Vader: https://youtu.be/6A0rwG39Jzkt=349

I've heard a number of times that you want to be worried about the guy who looks out of place because he's there through pure grit, skill, and determination.

[mikkupikku]

Reminds me of Mike Vining in his dress shirt: https://primegazette.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/mike-vin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Vining

[mikkupikku]

I've heard that special forces guys tend to be smaller, but I'm not sure that's true. It seems like there could be a few tactical advantages to being shorter, less likely to bump your head maybe, but who knows.

[Ostrogoth]

Spec ops tend to be more averaged sized, with denser builds (as opposed to bulkier muscle mass)(1). Although, quick caveat, take a look at old photos of Vietnam War era special forces vs modern late GWOT; the difference in average muscle mass is rather stark.

Historically, military selection emphasized calisthenics and load carrying capacity (body armor/weapons/rucks) + endurance. Although modern assessments have somewhat shifted towards weightlifting components, calisthenics/rucking are still a major focus. There is generally a disadvantage with height, where longer limb length creates more leverage to overcome, which is a disadvantage in both calisthenics and moving external weight around.

Average size is ~5’10” @ 180lbs at selection

(1) https://sofprepcoach.com/special-forces-selection-body-compo...

[yencabulator]

I've heard the expression "gazelle build" used there. Think more long distance runner than weight lifter. Long legs, short back. Strong sure but even more than that, high endurance.

[Obscurity4340]

Putin and DeSantis all wear them

[ecshafer]

IIRC CEOs have a very high average height, and height can account for a very large portion of the female vs male management disparity.

[Ifkaluva]

I think the full factoid is that CEOs who were promoted to the job are taller than average, but founders are average or slightly below.

Zuck is like 5’11”, Satya Nadella is a giant.

[Jensson]

> and height can account for a very large portion of the female vs male management disparity.

Actually it accounts for more than the difference, controlled for height men are discriminated against for leadership positions since there are barely any short male leaders and there are plenty of tall female leaders.

[someguynamedq]

Makes sense that the best boss would be shorter since they have to be better to compensate for the bias against them

[torginus]

Cool observation, might be more to it than I would like to admit. Interestingly, most of the CEOs of the biggest tech companies are not particularly tall (with the notable exception of Musk and late Steve Jobs) were exceptionally tall.

I wonder if this reflects on organizational culture, with firms being led by 'alpha males' being more authoritarian, and prone to these personality cults, where the boss has this aura of ineffable leader.

I have worked at these places, and there's no wonder nerds hate these. Since nerds tend to be on the less assertive, more thoughtful side (even if physically speaking they wouldn't need to be), and they're the only ones who can figure out hard problems, the ones behaving assertively, as well as being invested in politics and status games tend to come out on top.

Which makes technical work be seen as an inherently 'low status' thing, where the 'beta' works and the 'alpha' swoops in to claim the prize. This attitude alienates nerds, as they feel rightly exploited and unrewarded, and they move on to somewhere else, and suddenly these domineering people find themselves without anyone competent to do the actual work.

Which usually sets these orgs on a path to slow decline, which can go on forever. I feel like most orgs are like this.

Considering many orgs understand this on a deep level, they try to prevent technical folks being sidelined, by oversized egos, which, while good in intent, often lead to these same alphas use these new tools they're given, and hide behind doublespeak, and process, democratic gerrymandering, shutting down nerds complaining about tech debt by accusing them of 'not being team players' or quietly turning the less invested, but politically savvy members of the team against the nerd arguing for a good solution, by accusing him of going against group consensus to feed his own ego.

[jimbokun]

I think this only applies to men?

[ghaff]

That is far less common outside of tech. Even within tech, I did throw on a blazer and tie when I interviewed for my last job. Totally unnecessary but any company for which that’s actually a problem it’s a red flag. I did start dressing down a bit for most of the developer-oriented conferences I attend for the reason you say.

[Aurornis]

> if I had my way, job interviews would be exclusively audio only.

Unfortunately, cheating is becoming rampant in remote interviews, especially for early career roles right now. I think companies are moving toward having final interview rounds in person because it’s such an effective tactic to discourage interview cheating.

[Spivak]

Forget cheating, we get entirely fake people applying for our positions.

[jimbokun]

Someone needs to right a novel about an LLM that gets hired through phone interviews, becomes a star employee, and rises through the ranks to CEO , always coming up with excuses to not show up in person.

Like a 21st century Office Space.

Add in a remote only office romance to give it a romcom vibe.

[red-iron-pine]

we get real people who are likely fronts for other people.

can't prove where or what -- could be lazy devs in Alabama, or North Koreans -- but it's happened enough that it's notable

[ghaff]

Screens were voice calls for a long time. I’m a big fan of what’s normally the day of interviews be in person even if you take AI cheating out of the picture. I realize not everyone agrees. Zoom interviewing is mostly a COVID outcome.

[Aurornis]

I think screens will continue to be phone or videoconference.

When candidates know the final interview will be in person they give up on cheating. No point in wasting time on cheating through the screens if you’re just going to bomb in person without ChatGPT showing the answers.

Though I have heard some stories of candidates desperately trying every excuse they can think of to avoid coming on site for the final interview (Getting COVID is the first-line excuse 90% of the time). When you explain you can delay and reschedule they give up.

[ghaff]

Hadn’t even thought of that angle. But you also get a more human connection in an in-person interview much less going out for a meal. And I know there’s going to be a contingent on here who says they don’t have time for that of thing. <shrug> Plenty of fish in the sea.

[inemesitaffia]

You can just tell the person the final interview will be in person, then don't bother to do it.

[hirvi74]

If one can cheat in an interview, then I am not certain the interviewers are asking the appropriate and necessary questions.

[snarf21]

The best hiring advice is this: Take half of the resumes you receive and just throw them in the trash. You don't want to hire unlucky people!

[HPsquared]

Napoleon: "I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?"

[xeyownt]

Best comment of the day :-DDDD

[JR1427]

> if I had my way, job interviews would be exclusively audio only.

The problem just shifts. People with attractive voices would then have an advantage.

[nemomarx]

At least voice coaching / training is relatively accessible? A lot easier than some physical features imo.

And you could argue having a clear easy to understand voice is a job skill for most positions, I think.

[lonelyasacloud]

Indeed, but more tractable for a person to address.

[Spooky23]

> job interviews would be exclusively audio only.

Have fun. If you do it in volume, you'll get scammed pretty badly. Both by luck of the draw, and scammers who will actively target you.

[speedgoose]

Audio interviews are currently broken. People can use AI and many will do. Not necessarily for speech generation but to know what to say.

For research studies, we slowly revert to on premise physical interviews at work. If we want the ChatGPT answers, we don’t need another human in the loop.

[mikkupikku]

HR loves video interviews for precisely this reason. They understand their role in the company to use their social expertise to suss out bad vibes, and it turns into something like Mean Girls.

[Spooky23]

> job interviews would be exclusively audio only.

Have fun. If you do it in volume, you'll get scammed pretty badly. Both by luck of the draw, and scammers actively targeting you.