|
mugrim posted:But it's 100% true? Networking is inherently about gaining access to people in your field, and for many people that is a huge barrier for a variety of reasons including race and gender. Like, the requirement of 'networking' is literally one of the most important reasons to have affirmative action. The more white, male, and straight you are the better access you have to management. Well ya, I can definitly see it being a problem in regard to race/gender discrimination even if its only the sort of accidental "I'm more likely to have people like me in my social circle and people like me are the ones that have a disproportionate number of the good jobs" type. I was responding the the notion that networking is only for Yale grads or some nonsense
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Countblanc posted:I literally just pointed to a book which shows that black people's social networks are generally less profitable and useful for getting positions with any sort of advancement potential. All groups have social networks, but not all social networks are inherently equal, don't draw false equivalencies. The value of your network has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not getting a job through networking is "fair" or is "nepotism." There will always be someone that has a less valuable network than you. If the Yale or Harvard grad getting a job through a network over a person from State-U is a bad thing, wouldn't a member of a black church getting a job through his or her church-based network over a non-churchgoer also be a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Branman posted:While we're saying that networking at your university is inherently unjust and is nepotism, can we also shout down poor black people networking through their churches as nepotism and unjust? That's literally the definition of nepotism. Not a very severe case but still nepotism. If you're OK with that fine, I'm not going to pretend that that's something we can, or even want to, completely get rid of, but call it what it is. Finding jobs through networking is actually a bad thing if you consider an anonymous meritocracy to be a good thing. I guess acknowledging that middle/upper middle class white society runs on connections more than merit is some sort of existential threat to you, to the point where you felt compelled to burst in here and complain about people attacking that system (they weren't even really doing that though?) Black people doing that would also technically be a bad thing, although obviously black people aren't exactly living large off nepotism, which I thought need not be mentioned but I'm starting to have my doubts. Branman posted:The value of your network has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not getting a job through networking is "fair" or is "nepotism." There will always be someone that has a less valuable network than you. ahahahahahaha holy poo poo, you sure are mad about those loving black people doing the exact same thing you're defending huh? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That's literally the definition of nepotism. Not a very severe case but still nepotism. If you're OK with that fine, I'm not going to pretend that that's something we can, or even want to, completely get rid of, but call it what it is. Finding jobs through networking is actually a bad thing if you consider an anonymous meritocracy to be a good thing. I guess acknowledging that upper middle class white society runs on connections more than merit is some sort of existential threat to you, to the point where you felt compelled to burst in here and complain about people attacking that system (they weren't even really doing that though?) Nope. I'm saying that they should be doing it. That's how you find a job. I'm trying to call out that this happens on all levels of society and cannot be ignored. Seriously, poor black people utilizing social captial through their churches is a good thing. So my belief is the opposite of what you think my belief is. My belief is that we should acknowledge that all levels of society run on connections which are more important than merit. Saying that this is a bad thing is (EDIT) ignoring reality. Also, that isn't nepotism. Nepotism is defined as staying within a family. Branman fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Branman posted:
This is a bad thing, because it reinforces that whole 'levels' thing. Obviously, nowhere is going to be able to do a perfectly objective measure of merit, but there's a lot of legitimate reason to call in-networks that promote because of who your daddy is or what prep school you went to are harmful, both to the organization they're part of and society as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Branman posted:Nope. I'm saying that they should be doing it. That's how you find a job. I'm trying to call out that this happens on all levels of society and cannot be ignored. Seriously, poor black people utilizing social captial through their churches is a good thing. So my belief is the opposite of what you think my belief is. I think most people ITT and most people in general are of the opinion that the ideal society is a meritocracy. Obviously there are very big problems with achieving that and defining 'objective merit' but to come out and literally say "we shouldn't be a meritocracy, success should be determined by who you know, not what you know" seems like a very strange position to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
mugrim posted:If you're in the US military, you can know all of your coworkers pay down to the Penny (unless you're a moron), and somehow there aren't massive riots over it. Same thing for the vast majority of public workers. Isn't military pay strictly tied to a highly-defined payscale where two people in the same service and division with the same rank, job, and responsibilities are always paid the same? The reason the military doesn't have a pay discrimination problem isn't because of pay transparency, it's because there's a solidly defined pay structure and commanders don't get to deviate from it and pay people different amounts based on how much they like them. The problem with eliminating pay discrimination in the private job market is the same as the problem with eliminating discrimination from hiring and firing - employers can pay anyone more or less for any reason (up to and including "because I felt like it") except discrimination, so just showing that female workers are paid less than male workers isn't incontrovertible proof of pay discrimination - if the company isn't stupid, they'll come up with an excuse and present (or fake) the evidence to back it up. While this doesn't always work, it works often enough outside of the most blatant cases, as long as no one was dumb enough to openly admit the discrimination (many people do, which suggests that existing discrimination law isn't much deterrent). Relying on the victims to individually sue isn't going to eliminate the wage gap, just as individual lawsuits for abuses aren't going to be enough to eliminate racism from the criminal justice system. Branman posted:While we're saying that networking at your university is inherently unjust and is nepotism, can we also shout down poor black people networking through their churches as nepotism and unjust? Poor black people networking through their local churches are mostly going to be networking with poor black people, while rich white men networking at Harvard are going to be networking with other rich white men. It just reinforces the class divisions that already exist and segregates opportunities by demographic. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is a bad thing, because it reinforces that whole 'levels' thing. Obviously, nowhere is going to be able to do a perfectly objective measure of merit, but there's a lot of legitimate reason to call in-networks that promote because of who your daddy is or what prep school you went to are harmful, both to the organization they're part of and society as a whole. The problem is that this is a strawman. Yes, hiring someone because of their dad's connections is most likely a bad thing for both the organization and society. That's nepotism. My point is that conflating professional networking with this type of neoptism and saying that "finding jobs through networks is a bad thing" ignores reality. icantfindaname posted:I think most people ITT and most people in general are of the opinion that the ideal society is a meritocracy. Obviously there are very big problems with achieving that and defining 'objective merit' but to come out and literally say "we shouldn't be a meritocracy, success should be determined by who you know, not what you know" seems like a very strange position to me. My position is more nuanced than that. It's not a binary meritocracy or nepotism. Connections can be a very good way of finding talent simply because it allows you to weed out less-talented applicants. Hiring through networks can be a more efficient way of producing a meritocracy. From an employer perspective, knowing that a potential applicant is a useful worker through a recommendation by a trusted 3rd party dramatically decreases the risk of hiring a new worker. For some reason everyone assumes that networks are based off of your parents' connections as opposed to people you've met through a career.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is a bad thing, because it reinforces that whole 'levels' thing. Obviously, nowhere is going to be able to do a perfectly objective measure of merit, but there's a lot of legitimate reason to call in-networks that promote because of who your daddy is or what prep school you went to are harmful, both to the organization they're part of and society as a whole. Except networking isn't really "getting a job because who your daddy is" that's more like straight nepotism. Networking is more along the lines or getting a new job after you get laid off because joe smith who you used to work with knows one of his clients has an opening for the same position so he offers to introduce you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Branman posted:The problem is that this is a strawman. Yes, hiring someone because of their dad's connections is most likely a bad thing for both the organization and society. That's nepotism. My point is that conflating professional networking with this type of neoptism and saying that "finding jobs through networks is a bad thing" ignores reality. Really, saying 'this ignores reality' isn't a very good substitute for an argument. Professional networking often propagates exclusion of people from lower classes and the non-dominant race. Even though the reality is that a lot of people get jobs through their networks, it doesn't follow that this is therefore fine. There is a big difference between being vouched for as "Yes, I know him, he did a wonderful job and he'll be a great employee," and "Yes, I know him, we were in the same frat, he's our kind of people." The latter is, indeed, bad, and is also common. The previous isn't in and of itself bad, but it can be in that it excludes people who didn't get the chances to prove themselves in the first place. For example, getting internships (the real ones, not the 'make 'em do the photocopying' type) can be a significant foot in the door, can help with grad school applications, etc., precisely because someone can then legitimately vouch for you. But if the way that the internships are awarded is itself tainted by the second kind of 'networking', then a lot of people never got the chance to prove themselves. The two types of networking are highly intertwined and hard to tease out, precisely because of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The problem with eliminating pay discrimination in the private job market is the same as the problem with eliminating discrimination from hiring and firing - employers can pay anyone more or less for any reason (up to and including "because I felt like it") except discrimination, so just showing that female workers are paid less than male workers isn't incontrovertible proof of pay discrimination - if the company isn't stupid, they'll come up with an excuse and present (or fake) the evidence to back it up. While this doesn't always work, it works often enough outside of the most blatant cases, as long as no one was dumb enough to openly admit the discrimination (many people do, which suggests that existing discrimination law isn't much deterrent). Relying on the victims to individually sue isn't going to eliminate the wage gap, just as individual lawsuits for abuses aren't going to be enough to eliminate racism from the criminal justice system. Giving everyone a peek at the payroll system tomorrow isn't going to correct bad practices on their own. But when employers need to justify to their workers who are making less than their peers, why they are making less, employers are going to be a lot more accountable for it. Whether they don't want to be pestered, or they want to retain their valuable talent, or they just want to avoid lawsuits, employers aren't going to be able to stonewall their employees for long. Just because you haven't gathered legal proof of discrimination doesn't mean you (as an employee who is being slighted) can't effect a change in your own situation without getting the law involved. Obdicut posted:Really, saying 'this ignores reality' isn't a very good substitute for an argument. Nepotism (where someone unqualified gets a job because of connections) isn't even remotely the same thing as a qualified person getting a foot in the door because he's previously proved himself somewhere along the line to someone who can vouch for him. Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Isn't military pay strictly tied to a highly-defined payscale where two people in the same service and division with the same rank, job, and responsibilities are always paid the same? The reason the military doesn't have a pay discrimination problem isn't because of pay transparency, it's because there's a solidly defined pay structure and commanders don't get to deviate from it and pay people different amounts based on how much they like them. Military, Federal LEO's, parole officers, cops, some utilities workers, TSA, pretty much anyone in a really large public sector job has a similar structure where there is a COLA bump yearly. My point with the example is that somehow, no one flips their poo poo because they're doing XX% more work than someone else despite getting the same pay. The idea that people can not handle knowing how much their coworkers get paid is clearly false as there are millions of jobs that are open about it. Main Paineframe posted:The problem with eliminating pay discrimination in the private job market is the same as the problem with eliminating discrimination from hiring and firing - employers can pay anyone more or less for any reason (up to and including "because I felt like it") except discrimination, so just showing that female workers are paid less than male workers isn't incontrovertible proof of pay discrimination - if the company isn't stupid, they'll come up with an excuse and present (or fake) the evidence to back it up. Right, but the first step of a lawsuit is being able to demonstrate what your coworkers make. As of right now, Jenny could be getting paid 40% less than all her male coworkers and she would have zero clue. Main Paineframe posted:While this doesn't always work, it works often enough outside of the most blatant cases, as long as no one was dumb enough to openly admit the discrimination (many people do, which suggests that existing discrimination law isn't much deterrent). The easiest way to demonstrate discrimination is to have access to your coworkers pay so that you can demonstrate that despite the same performance, you are getting paid significantly less. Main Paineframe posted:Relying on the victims to individually sue isn't going to eliminate the wage gap, just as individual lawsuits for abuses aren't going to be enough to eliminate racism from the criminal justice system. Companies get scared shitless by labor lawsuits that have standing, especially once quantifiable amounts get involved. This is why they try to fire you when they hear you're talking about wages instead of waiting until you begin organizing a union. Most labor lawyers will take your case for a cut of future earnings from the case if you have proof. Nothing would cause a larger spike in labor law suits than access to pay. Honestly, getting employers to look at people's performance so they can justify a bump/promotion instead of who is 'a team player' and 'feels right for your gut' would be a HUGE step forward. Jarmak posted:Except networking isn't really "getting a job because who your daddy is" that's more like straight nepotism. Networking is more along the lines or getting a new job after you get laid off because joe smith who you used to work with knows one of his clients has an opening for the same position so he offers to introduce you. That's circular reasoning, at some point you need to break through. Also if you limit your definition of networking to people you actually worked with side by side, you're probably doing it wrong in real life. Most people network with friends, people they know from tertiary experiences that they met in work situations, etc. By definition, if you worked with them, they're already in your network. Networking is about meeting new people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Really, saying 'this ignores reality' isn't a very good substitute for an argument. One of the biggest things an employer is looking at during an interview is whether they think you'll fit in with the culture of the business, having someone vouch for that fact can almost be as important as vouching for hard skills. Human's are social animals, the ability to get along socially and work well with your peers is actually a part of your value. Yes, this is dangerous and you can replace "culture" with "is he white/male/etc and it can get very ugly very quickly. You've never going to divorce "do I like this person" from being a major part of a hiring decision though, which is why affirmative action programs which ideally had diversity to the pool of people making hiring decisions and blunt the institutional momentum of favoring white males simply by nature of the upper echelons are dominated by white males. edit: quote:Also if you limit your definition of networking to people you actually worked with side by side, you're probably doing it wrong in real life. Most people network with friends, people they know from tertiary experiences that they met in work situations, etc. I was just making an example, also maybe I'm incorrect but I was under the impression the term "networking" could be used to refer to both the act of growing your network by meeting new people, or the act of making use of said network Jarmak fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, this is dangerous and you can replace "culture" with "is he white/male/etc and it can get very ugly very quickly. You've never going to divorce "do I like this person" from being a major part of a hiring decision though, which is why affirmative action programs which ideally had diversity to the pool of people making hiring decisions and blunt the institutional momentum of favoring white males simply by nature of the upper echelons are dominated by white males. Explain what culture is in this sense, other than 'shared experiences' which would largely be predicated on being white, male, and straight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:
I didn't say 'networking is so destructive'. I said there's an aspect to one form of networking that is destructive. quote:There isn't a magic spell that employers can use to find suitable employees for job openings, just like there isn't a magic spell that employees can use to find open jobs. Job sites like Monster.com are bullshit, newspapers are dying, is there a solution besides "hire the first warm body who really wants a chance?" It's extremely complicated, but that doesn't mean you should just throw up your hands and despair. Even if it's nothing more than keeping in mind that the black guy who grew up in a lovely neighborhood in Oakland and graduated from a good school conquered tougher obstacles than the kid who went to Choate and then who went to that good school. Like most social problems, it's a cultural problem, and you seem kind of close to saying we can't possibly change our culture. quote:Nepotism (where someone unqualified gets a job because of connections) isn't even remotely the same thing as a qualified person getting a foot in the door because he's previously proved himself somewhere along the line to someone who can vouch for him. Nepotism can also be the qualified person getting the job over other qualified people because of who he is, yes. I'm not sure why you think the definition excludes that. Jarmak posted:One of the biggest things an employer is looking at during an interview is whether they think you'll fit in with the culture of the business, having someone vouch for that fact can almost be as important as vouching for hard skills. Human's are social animals, the ability to get along socially and work well with your peers is actually a part of your value. THis undervalues people who can affect or change the system, though. This is predicated on an idea that your system and culture as they are currently is superior and doesn't need to be changed. A lot of good employers, especially when looking for candidates for top positions, actually actively look for people who can shake up and change the culture, so what you're saying isn't even strictly true. There's also the difference between the actual working culture, and the socialization of workers outside work. It is almost certain to get really lovely if you're not only considering if the guy will do his job right but also if he'll hang for beers with you after and if you'll feel comfortable with him then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Goons. Man. Show me an objective method that I can implement that will reliably sort the most productive people from a pool of candidates based only on what I can observe before employment and I will never again hire on the basis of a recommendation. I am 100% on board with getting the best possible people to work for me. Resumes and interviews are of limited use because while people who say the right things may be honestly awesome, they may also just be honestly awesome at saying the right things. So what am I to do as an employer? In the absence of a method I'm ok with giving a person I know something about through a trusted third party more consideration than someone I know nothing about. Maybe that's unfair. I'm open to a better way but I don't know what that way would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:THis undervalues people who can affect or change the system, though. This is predicated on an idea that your system and culture as they are currently is superior and doesn't need to be changed. A lot of good employers, especially when looking for candidates for top positions, actually actively look for people who can shake up and change the culture, so what you're saying isn't even strictly true. While I'm having a hard time figuring out where the daylight is between "the culture of the business" and "having the same basic profile of the people who do the hiring/run the business," there is something to be said for social fit. It's not just a matter of "will he do his job right," but "will I want to summarily execute him after 60 straight hours in the office trying to get something out the door on a tight deadline."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Goons. Man. They can be created if there is a desire for them to exist. There isn't. There's generalized tests, like the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, but there are also more specific tests designed to handle aptitude at a specific task, like the Hi-level Language Aptitude Battery. The way you design a test is you narrow in on the specific aptitudes required to perform a job well and you come up with some tasks that also require those aptitudes which can be done in a preliminary test. quote:Scientists who study second language acquisition have long been fascinated by the difficulty that adults have in becoming native-like in a language they begin learning after puberty. Most adults have no problem picking up modest amounts of vocabulary and grammar, assuming they’re motivated to put in sustained effort. But to become highly skilled in a second language, simply devoting the 10,000 hours of practice that Malcolm Gladwell made famous in Outliers isn’t enough. It turns out that a person needs high-performing cognitive hardware, too. You can really break pretty much any task out into similar sub-tasks, and if you get rid of the language-specific stuff then simply re-using this test would probably work well on a large variety of high-skilled tasks. For example working memory is one of the foundations of most creative tasks (including technical-creative engineering tasks) The thing is there aren't many aptitudes required to flip a burger (or any low-skilled job, which now dominate our economy). The thing employers base their decisions on is therefore things like "how much of a team player you are" (i.e. how much they can dick you over with low pay and still have you show up when they schedule you with 30 minutes notice). So you can construct all the tests you want, but a lot of jobs aren't selected on aptitude anyway. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Goons. Man. This is a serious question and be honest. Do you ask specifically why the person is being recommended? Like beyond the exact same bullshit you'd hear in an interview of "working hard" or "team player" or whatever? Have you ever had specifics from a recommendation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:They can be created if there is a desire for them to exist. There isn't. Dude, there is a lot of desire. I'm being honest with you. A lot of employers are in the same boat. I have to imagine (though I couldn't say) that there is work being done because occupational psyche and such are things, but I also imagine it's a lot harder than it sounds. Paul MaudDib posted:A practical example of the way you can select people based on task aptitude is the Hi-level Language Aptitude Battery. The way you design a test is you narrow in on the specific aptitudes required to perform a job well and you come up with some tasks that also require those aptitudes which can be done in a preliminary test. That's pretty cool. I don't have resources to fund a group of scientists to research and devise testing for my small business, so maybe someone has implemented this in a modular form that employers can use to test for relatively similar categories of jobs? Paul MaudDib posted:The thing is there aren't many aptitudes required to flip a burger (or any low-skilled job, which now dominate our economy). The thing employers base their decisions on is therefore things like "how much of a team player you are" (i.e. how much they can dick you over with low pay and still have you show up when they schedule you with 30 minutes notice). So you can construct all the tests you want, but a lot of jobs aren't selected on aptitude anyway. How can you base hiring decisions on something like "how much of a team player" someone is? You can't observe that until after you hire them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:While I'm having a hard time figuring out where the daylight is between "the culture of the business" and "having the same basic profile of the people who do the hiring/run the business," there is something to be said for social fit. It's not just a matter of "will he do his job right," but "will I want to summarily execute him after 60 straight hours in the office trying to get something out the door on a tight deadline." I think things like this tend to be incredibly hard to predict, though, and hard to communicate, too. There's people that will be great workers as long as they're managed well, others who need a hands-off style, some who'll be great as long as you don't have to do overtime, others who are kinda slackers but really pick it up during crunch, etc. I really don't think this kind of poo poo is suss-out-able in an interview process, nor do I think that it's something that people can easily predict through recommendation. Really, despite the amount of research, there's very little good data on hiring practices and outcomes, because the variables are so hard to track. If you're comparing a guy who wasn't referred to a guy who was, the second guy may also receive more support, have been given more complete information about the job, and so comparing their performance is difficult because they may not be on an even playing field. There's also a big difference between worker-recommended and manager-recommended practices. The former tend to be a lot more generally successful; however, again, this 'success' may be explained by post-hire treatment rather than anything about the actual candidate. Manager-recommended hires have a host of problems associated with them, and it's often how you get an entire department of useless fuckups. This article, for example, is a sociological study of a call center that tracked post-hire performance, and showed that 'referred' hires initially outperformed non-referred, but eventually their performance matched. The performance of the 'referred' tended to normalize faster if their referrer left the company. http://www.jstor.org.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/stable/10.1086/427319 A good article on culture hiring in a non-stupid way, meaning not 'the culture of the immediate group of people doing the hiring' but the actual organizational work culture, is here: http://www.jstor.org.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/stable/4165035 There's also a great paper I don't have a link for called "On Hiring Lemons", which shows that in companies with competitive promotion/hiring, that there's a vested interest to hire 'lemons', and that this fits in with another hiring practice that's problematic for manager-recommended hiring, which is managers hiring people that they can dominate and who will not challenge them, or be able to replace them. It's a really, really complex area, but since we don't actually have any reason to believe that recommendation works, it shouldn't be assumed as the gold standard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
mugrim posted:This is a serious question and be honest. Do you ask specifically why the person is being recommended? Like beyond the exact same bullshit you'd hear in an interview of "working hard" or "team player" or whatever? Have you ever had specifics from a recommendation? Yes to the first and it depends on the second. When I hire from clients (happens sometimes) I get as much information as I can about what the person did and how they performed if I have that kind of relationship with the person I'm talking to. There's a degree of sorting through bullshit there too, of course. Sometimes it's just "I know so and so, he's ok, hard worker, always on time, etc" and that's about as much as I'm going to get either because the person I'm talking to knows the candidate but not professionally, or I'm not in a position where I can ask sensitive questions. But I try to get the low down when I can and everyone goes through the same process of sending a CV / going through an interview regardless of how they came to my attention. The only thing a recommendation guarantees for sure is that even if I have a stack of 100 CVs in front of me I'm going to take a look at the person recommended. Sometimes (depends on the source of the recommendation) it gives a candidate a bump, because the recommender and I have a relationship and I know they're not going to send me someone awful. I hire people through the formal channels, too. It's not a great system and if someone could show me a better way, like I said, I would do it. I just don't know what that way would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Interestingly in the past companies used a lot more psychometric testing when it came to hiring people:quote:By the end of World War II, however, American corporations were facing severe talent shortages. Their senior executives were growing old, and a dearth of hiring from the Depression through the war had resulted in a shortfall of able, well-trained managers. Finding people who had the potential to rise quickly through the ranks became an overriding preoccupation of American businesses. They began to devise a formal hiring-and-management system based in part on new studies of human behavior, and in part on military techniques developed during both world wars, when huge mobilization efforts and mass casualties created the need to get the right people into the right roles as efficiently as possible. By the 1950s, it was not unusual for companies to spend days with young applicants for professional jobs, conducting a battery of tests, all with an eye toward corner-office potential. “P&G picks its executive crop right out of college,” BusinessWeek noted in 1950, in the unmistakable patter of an age besotted with technocratic possibility. IQ tests, math tests, vocabulary tests, professional-aptitude tests, vocational-interest questionnaires, Rorschach tests, a host of other personality assessments, and even medical exams (who, after all, would want to hire a man who might die before the company’s investment in him was fully realized?)—all were used regularly by large companies in their quest to make the right hire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Heh, I suspect people advocating psychometric testing as some sort of panacea for the hiring process have never been involved in recruiting. My previous firm used to use psychometric tests as a first cut to filter candidates after CV vetting. Based on my personal experience, the tests were only useful to weed out the chaff. There were still a large number of candidates who "passed" the tests (i.e., >95 percentile) that failed the rest of the interview process. And in terms of "nepotism"/referrals, they only got to skip the CV vetting step and still had to go through the rest of the process. Aptitude tests might work for low end work like call center work or coding but I can't imagine a professional would want to work at a place that used such tests as the primary means of hiring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Interestingly in the past companies used a lot more psychometric testing when it came to hiring people: From the same article: quote:The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which exposed companies to legal liability for discriminatory hiring practices, has made HR departments wary of any broadly applied and clearly scored test that might later be shown to be systematically biased. Instead, companies came to favor the more informal qualitative hiring practices that are still largely in place today. If you come up with a good hiring method that gives you politically incorrect results, expect a lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Except per Griggs (though obviously in light of Ricci, who the gently caress even knows where the law is on this issue now, thanks Roberts Court), you can still implement a test if the test actually pertains to the ability to do the job in question. You just can't implement a test with disparate results for the fun of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Except per Griggs (though obviously in light of Ricci, who the gently caress even knows where the law is on this issue now, thanks Roberts Court), you can still implement a test if the test actually pertains to the ability to do the job in question. You just can't implement a test with disparate results for the fun of it. Was about to post that. Also, this still does not affect the need for transparent pay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Except per Griggs (though obviously in light of Ricci, who the gently caress even knows where the law is on this issue now, thanks Roberts Court), you can still implement a test if the test actually pertains to the ability to do the job in question. You just can't implement a test with disparate results for the fun of it. You can't use a general aptitude test, which would seem like a pretty good test for a lot of white-collar jobs. The law is really broken when you can't legally say "I want to hire the smartest workers with no criminal record" because both of those conditions create a disparate impact on minorities according to federal court rulings. on the left fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
on the left posted:You can't use a general aptitude test, which would seem like a pretty good test for a lot of white-collar jobs. The problem is that "seems like a pretty good test" is not "is a pretty good test." For example, a 1991 article from the NYT discusses how the well-known General Aptitude Test Battery not only disproportionately screened out minorities, but actually tended to underpredict minority job performance and overpredict white job performance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
It's interesting how minority hiring impacts the workplace. I used to work in a foreign jurisdiction with a large expat (read white) community with a native black majority. There was a "soft" quota of local blacks that foreign companies had to hire as a proportion of total employee headcount. Companies that didn't toe the line suddenly found work permits issuances or renewals for expats being delayed for months. Anyway, in a lot of cases, the companies hired the quota and pretty much siloed the locals in non-productive roles because they could never fire them either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
How would "meritocracy" solve any problems of race or class representation when the fact that higher socioeconomic class provides access to higher quality education, better nutrition (nutrition has a huge effect on academic performance), more involved parenting etc. means that in many cases the more privileged are objectively better candidates than the underprivileged. If we instituted a perfect blind meritocratic system today you'd end up with a lot of the same people on top. e: Expounding because I'm concerned somebody might read an unspoken "...and rightly so" into this post that I didn't intend. The idea is that you can't just enforce merit-based hiring practices and call the problem fixed when there are a thousand different ways for low socioeconomic status, particularly during childhood, to produce a person of objectively lower "merit". Torka fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's interesting how minority hiring impacts the workplace. Wait, what does that have to do with minority hiring in the US?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's interesting how minority hiring impacts the workplace. The way the US is going, these sorts of racial patronage systems will probably become much more common than they already are. Already in many cities you will experience pushback on your business license if you are the wrong race, or if you are a larger company, don't agree to hire a certain number/percentage of locals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
mugrim posted:The easiest way to demonstrate discrimination is to have access to your coworkers pay so that you can demonstrate that despite the same performance, you are getting paid significantly less. To demonstrate this, you don't just need pay data, you also need performance data, and it needs to be accurate, nonbiased performance data - which often doesn't exist. An unspoken policy to make sure the tone of performance reviews lines up with how much more/less someone is getting paid than the baseline would basically be a license of immunity from discrimination lawsuits, pay data or no pay data, though most companies aren't quite that savvy yet. mugrim posted:Honestly, getting employers to look at people's performance so they can justify a bump/promotion instead of who is 'a team player' and 'feels right for your gut' would be a HUGE step forward. I agree...unfortunately, I don't think anything can do that short of banning employers from using the latter, and even then they'll try to game any evaluation method not totally and exclusively dependent on hard numbers. Hell, they'll even try to game the hard numbers, but they have a lot less leeway there and it's a lot easier to catch than pure unmitigated bullshit is. wateroverfire posted:Goons. Man. Looking at previous experience, I guess? It's a tough question because humans aren't beep boop robots whose productivity is the same at all times and at all tasks. I personally don't think there is a way to sort the best worker out of a candidate pool. No one's been able to find a decent way; Google's been collecting the factors used in interview judgement and comparing them to employee performance down the road and finding that basically nothing in the hiring process has any correlation at all to employee performance. However, what you're asking is somewhat of a trick question, because a third-party recommendation doesn't help you find the most productive person in a pool of candidates. It just guarantees that the person being recommended (or one of their friends, or one of their family members) isn't so much of an rear end in a top hat that people will refuse to do them favors. Even if the recommender has actually worked with the person they recommended or seen their completed work (they often haven't), that still doesn't guarantee they're better than all of the other applicants. That aside, sometimes doing what's best or easiest for employers isn't necessarily what's best for society. Many employers feel that having a blanket policy of excluding convicted felons will help get the objectively best workers, but the way things are going, that's probably going to end up being illegal within a few years. on the left posted:You can't use a general aptitude test, which would seem like a pretty good test for a lot of white-collar jobs. If a general aptitude test is consistently having racially disparate results, then either some races just consistently have higher aptitude at everything than others (and if you honestly believe that's true, get the gently caress out) or there's a problem with the test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If a general aptitude test is consistently having racially disparate results, then either some races just consistently have higher aptitude at everything than others (and if you honestly believe that's true, get the gently caress out) or there's a problem with the test. This probably is true though, and doesn't rely on any genetic argument that any race is inferior to others. You can't simply complain that a test is wrong if it creates results that reflect societal divides.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
on the left posted:This probably is true though, and doesn't rely on any genetic argument that any race is inferior to others. You can't simply complain that a test is wrong if it creates results that reflect societal divides. I notice that in your usual quest to defend white supremacy you ignored this point by The Warszawa. The Warszawa posted:The problem is that "seems like a pretty good test" is not "is a pretty good test." For example, a 1991 article from the NYT discusses how the well-known General Aptitude Test Battery not only disproportionately screened out minorities, but actually tended to underpredict minority job performance and overpredict white job performance. Any thoughts on that, or are you just going to ignore it and drive ahead with your circular logic about the Divine Justice that success borne of white privilege is a self-justification for white privilege? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:To demonstrate this, you don't just need pay data, you also need performance data, and it needs to be accurate, nonbiased performance data - which often doesn't exist. An unspoken policy to make sure the tone of performance reviews lines up with how much more/less someone is getting paid than the baseline would basically be a license of immunity from discrimination lawsuits, pay data or no pay data, though most companies aren't quite that savvy yet. Yes, but pay is step one because you probably already have a decent idea of other employees competence if you work with them. Sure your perception could be off and probably is, but you would still need to convince a lawyer to take the case which would require an ounce of credibility or something to make them believe that you have standing (and since they typically get a cut of the rewards, they're not interested in lovely cases). I've personally seen boys club cases. For example, I remember one where a man lost an entire persons yearly salary of company money in a non profit yet magically got the largest bonus in the department (as people found out later), without bringing in anywhere near enough money to justify both not firing him immediately for losing 30+k for writing a check without a contract as well as bringing in enough money to justify a 35ish% raise. People found out this huge increase well after it happened. There were a lot of people who wanted to sue as female staffers in general never got the raises men did and men were being comped for tuxedo rentals for events while women did not get a dime, but they lacked the information on pay to do as well. They had tons of evidence about all the other poo poo going on, they just needed numbers on pay. Most of the employees just left, unable to sue. That's just one organization, but I've seen it all over, including two social justice programs I worked who should have known better. One of those programs I started off making roughly 20% more than my girlfriend who had been working it for three years already during summers and had graduated at a much better school than I. This was brought to their attention immediately and luckily they bumped her pay, which is exactly what you would want to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I notice that in your usual quest to defend white supremacy you ignored this point by The Warszawa. A 20+ year old aptitude test doesn't really say much about the idea of aptitude testing in general. Companies use lots of measures that are proxies for aptitude testing (going to a selective college, grades, major), but if you explicitly use aptitude tests, you enter a legal minefield for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
I doubt that comp disclosure + litigation would work. Any employee with the temerity to sue for pay is likely to be blackballed not just by his present employer but future employers. We've seen that happen in a couple cases with unpaid interns who sued but basically couldn't find a job after that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:I doubt that comp disclosure + litigation would work. Any employee with the temerity to sue for pay is likely to be blackballed not just by his present employer but future employers. So because businesses would illegally retaliate against workers who fight for their rights, it's better if we just keep the workers from having evidence that they're being screwed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 02:31
|
|
