I agree in part, but they are failing if their system is imitated by everyone else.
Every time there is a thread on HN where people are debating the right way to filter applicants, the premise that goes unexamined is that there is one optimum, whether it's Google's procedures or something else.
But it's not just Google that can't hire everyone qualified. It's every employer.
Say, for simplicity, that any employer is only able to hire 1% of their applicants.
If they all used some optimal procedure, then they will all be fighting over the same 1% and the other 99% will be unhireable and start a revolution or something.
This is inescapable, I think, no matter what the so-called optimum is. It's like...a Doomsday Schelling Point.
Each company can disregard the fate of those filtered out, but only if their methods are sufficiently diverse.
Comments
I agree in part, but they are failing if their system is imitated by everyone else.
Every time there is a thread on HN where people are debating the right way to filter applicants, the premise that goes unexamined is that there is one optimum, whether it's Google's procedures or something else.
But it's not just Google that can't hire everyone qualified. It's every employer.
Say, for simplicity, that any employer is only able to hire 1% of their applicants.
If they all used some optimal procedure, then they will all be fighting over the same 1% and the other 99% will be unhireable and start a revolution or something.
This is inescapable, I think, no matter what the so-called optimum is. It's like...a Doomsday Schelling Point.
Each company can disregard the fate of those filtered out, but only if their methods are sufficiently diverse.