| Recruiting only the top 1% nobility is a peculiar power mismatch unless your company really is one of the top 1% nobility of all employers. What I'm getting at is if you're a bottom 10% marketing experiment startup, demanding to recruit top 1% talent, you're going to get some self selected weirdos. You better check their references and backgrounds to make sure, and its foolish to assume anything about their demographics is going to be normal. There's probably a reason a claimed top 1% applies to a bottom 10% employer and its probably not good. Best case scenario is addiction to extreme risk taking. Worst case, well, its pretty bad, closet full of skeletons or outright fabrication of background or worse. (edited to add, my example is unfortunately too extreme, but the general rule holds that the wider the mismatch the weirder the applicants are going to be... top 1% vs bottom 10% will as I propose be really weird, yet still, demanding top 1% at a "mere" top 10% employer is still going to be all messed up. Also by "worse" I mean stuff like fired for cause because of sexual harassment and stuff like that, and this explains a lot about the stereotypical bro) On the other hand, if you want to work at a pretty boring median fortune 500 type company, we have plenty of women and minorities. Unsurprisingly if you demand normal people for normal work you get a normal-ISH distribution of gender and race. Maybe not perfect but not some absolutely laughable 3% stat. Pro athletic teams demand weird non-median employees... not the median walmart shopper. Unsurprisingly their demographics tend toward the bizarre compared to the general population. Google for NBA racial demographics, its truly weird compared to the general population, as an example. |