> The process is so broken right now that we're 100% back to nepotism

Just want to comment on this, because I think think favoring unknown candidates is a mistake we make too often, and in fact the "normal" process is a disaster on both sides for this reason. Nepotism or Cronyism is granting resources, patronage, jobs to someone you know instead of a qualified candidate. In many industries this is how they function because qualifications and skill provide little to no differentiation (Think knowing Microsoft word and having a comms degree with no work experience).

In high skill industries where experience is hard fought... people know the who the "people" are because they stick out like sore thumbs. If your hiring process at work is throw up a job on indeed and see what resumes come through, your company likely isn't worth working at anyway because the best candidates aren't randos.

Think of it this way if you were putting together the Manhattan project again would you recruit the people with a stellar reputation in physics, engineering, manufacturing, etc OR would you throw up a job on a job board or your corporate site and see what comes back? The difference is active vs passive, good reputation vs no reputation (or a bad reputation).

Not trying to make a big semantic argument... I just want to say that things like reputation and network matter... and thats not really "nepotism"

▲

Bukhmanizer 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think you’re just arguing for nepotism in a roundabout way.

My senior staff engineer can’t code at all. He got hired because he was friends with our engineering manager. You might say “well that’s nepotism then since he’s under qualified”, but I’m sure he would make the argument that he got the job because of his “stellar reputation and extensive network”.

It’s an abhorrent situation to be in. Everyone knows he can’t code but because he got hired at such a senior level he’s making high level decisions that make no sense. Give me a qualified rando any time of the day.

▲

tompark 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I agree, some of the worst employees I've seen were hired that way.

I haven't hired anyone recently but btwn 10-20 years ago I did hire a lot. Of course we reached out via our network of connections but that gets tapped out fast, so you have to rely on job postings. It was always hundreds of applicants per opening. Back then it wasn't 1000's but it might as well have been because I didn't have enough time to sift through them all. That's ok, you can just approach it like "the dowry problem" (also known as the secretary problem [1]).

But the job market and hiring is way worse now, and it's pretty horrible for job seekers atm.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

▲

hn_throwaway_99 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This situation is very weird to me. In my experience, referrals got your foot in the door, but you still always had to pass the same hiring screen/interview process as everyone else.

I recommended an engineer once who I thought was great - he was a total "get shit done" kind of guy. But he did poorly in the interviews (I won't say they were leetcode-type problems, but you did have to have some algorithmic skills - I warned him beforehand to brush up on some of those types of programs.) As much as I liked the working with the guy, we couldn't hire him because he was a pretty solid "no" from the other interviewers.

I've never worked in a company that hired people based on the referral of one person, and honestly that sounds like a pretty f'd up company.

▲

Bukhmanizer 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes we have the same interview process. This is something that no one knows about as I don’t know who interviewed him but my cynical guess is that if someone has enough power in the org and happens to sit on the hiring committee, it doesn’t really matter how well they do.

	▲	Bukhmanizer 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		In another much better incident, we once hired someone that did poorly in some interviews because I happened to present a project they made the week before. He turned out great, and he was doing some really cool stuff, just didn’t do coding interviews well.

▲

apwell23 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> My senior staff engineer can’t code at all. He got hired because he was friends with our engineering manager.

Well thats how it works everywhere. You have to suck up and pretent to be 'friends' with person with the power to get promoted too.

	▲	hackable_sand 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You don't have to pretend. You didn't even have to be friends. You can even be mortal enemies with the powerful person. Faking it is pathetic behavior.

▲

hnfong 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you're projecting your negative past experiences and trying very hard not to understand the GP's point.

It doesn't matter what the person hired thinks. The important part is whether those making hiring decisions are hiring people with "stellar reputation".

In your case, "everyone knows he can't code", so he doesn't have stellar reputation. If we apply this scenario to what the GP said, no company would have hired a person where "everyone knows he can't code".

You said "He got hired because he was friends with our engineering manager." That's nepotism.

GP says hire somebody with stellar reputation. That's a totally different situation.

▲

Bukhmanizer 4 days ago | parent [-]

I understand just fine. There is no objective descriptor of a person. The engineering manager probably thinks he’s a perfect candidate.

> In your case, "everyone knows he can't code", so he doesn't have stellar reputation

Yes that’s what we figured out after he got hired. He obviously didn’t have a reputation within our org before he got hired. All we had to go off was the engineering managers opinion.

Are you guys really shocked that given the freedom to, people would rather hire their friends and people they know would do them favours rather than the “objectively best candidate for the job”?

By overweighting network and reputation all you are doing is turning every career into a political game.

	▲	hnfong 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> > In your case, "everyone knows he can't code", so he doesn't have stellar reputation > Yes that’s what we figured out after he got hired. He obviously didn’t have a reputation within our org before he got hired. All we had to go off was the engineering managers opinion. Right, he doesn't have stellar reputation, and he got hired. The comment you replied to said "hire people with stellar reputation". I'm still not sure what you're missing here or why you think this is an applicable scenario. > Are you guys really shocked that given the freedom to, people would rather hire their friends and people they know would do them favours rather than the “objectively best candidate for the job”? I wouldn't be shocked, but I also don't think that what the "GP" advocated for. You might say this would lead to people using it as an excuse for nepotism, but if the engineering manager is the kind of person who has poor or malicious judgment and can't make a correct hiring decision by himself, then you're cooked no matter what.

▲

hn_throwaway_99 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I just want to say that things like reputation and network matter... and thats not really "nepotism"

I strongly agree with this, and I'm glad you put it so clearly. If you've been in your industry say 10 years or more, you should have built a reputation by that point that makes people say "I want to work with that person again, or I'd recommend that person to a friend who has a job opening". (Important thing to clarify, though, I'm not denigrating anyone who has been out of work a long time. I've seen many categories of jobs in the tech industry where there are simply a lot fewer jobs to go around - it's musical chairs and a lot of chairs got taken away all at once).

I would put in an important caveat, though, and that's for people who are early in their careers. The hiring process really is truly shitty for people just entering the workforce and for people with only one or two jobs under their belt.

▲

em-bee 4 days ago | parent [-]

building that reputation is harder than it sounds. you don't always work in positions where you have contact to other people that could build up your reputation. i was a contractor for a small company for 10 years. i had little contact with the employees in that company, only working with the boss. the boss was nice but he had no useful contacts into the industry. the employees that i did have contact with were to low in the hierarchy that they could provide meaningful connections even after they changed jobs.

how am i supposed to build up a reputation with that?

	▲	nathan_douglas 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I worked at a tiny company (<10 employees total) for five years, then was in a small company with a tiny dev team (3 engineers and 1 PM at peak) for almost five years. Now I've been at a government contractor for five years, so I have a ton of contacts now... but they tend to remain in the civic tech space, and I'd like to move into research. Where I know absolutely nobody. I feel ya.