Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephg | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how normal stories like this are. Was this just one bad manager in one company, which you remember because of how surprising it was? If so, maybe the core claim that software is a meritocracy holds.

Or are stories like this common and everywhere?

View on HN

Or are stories like this common and everywhere?

Very much so. Bad management is afraid of competence, because good performance cannot be argued away. I've seen this.

They simply play safe. If you hire someone with PhD it's very unlikely that anyone will ever blame you for not taking that other random smart dude instead. The other way around you might get into a trouble for your choice. It's just how bureaucracy works, protecting your butt first, and everything else comes 2nd.

I find the key factor the be company size.

When I worked for a Fortune 500, credentials mattered. Possibly more than competence.

I'm working for a much smaller company now and it's significantly closer to a meritocracy (or a "who will generate the most obvious value - even if it means working 90 hours per week" ocracy).

This is the HR version of “Nobody ever got fired for bringing in IBM”.

It’s true till it’s not.

In a previous workplace we had a very capable part-time instructor. This fellow was never converted to a full-time position (eventually they got fed up and left); instead management kept recruiting externally for the full-time instructor position. They went through 3 or 4 people in as many years because the new recruits were glaringly incompetent. They were, however, innocuous and unthreatening. So far, no consequences for the departmental chair.

Not a genius but had something similar happen. Was literally doing the work already and successfully. My coworkers and boss all vouched for me but the company had a policy. There are probably other companies where a similar policy that effects single person that works there.

HR: no sorry, it’s policy

Worker: but you set the policy, it can be whatever you want it to

HR: ...

Saying “policy” must be a cover for a real reason that the company wants kept secret

So many times policy goes out the door if a Director or VP wants a specific person for whatever reason.

Super common. More common than the opposite.

In fact a version of the above story has happened in the last two companies I worked for.

Right but, are most hiring decisions like this? If most hiring / firing decisions are based on ability (which is the case everywhere I've ever worked) then its a meritocracy with flaws. That is to say, if these stories surprise and disappoint you then the overall philosophy is that its a meritocracy and you're disappointed that its flawed for not being meritocratic enough.

As far as I can tell, even obsessing over credentials happens because its a proxy for merit[1], and we care about merit. Its often a lousy proxy, but our industry as a whole didn't care about merit, why would anyone care to look at a candidate's credentials?

[1] "Nobody gets fired for choosing IBM" -> "No recruiter gets fired for hiring a PhD"

Seriously, yes. This happens all the time. I recently finished a Masters in CS with a focus on data science and machine learning from DePaul University, and I built predictive models that saved my previous employer hundreds of thousands of dollars every month. They had multiple machine learning positions open, but they told me they wanted Ph.D.s from University of Chicago level schools.

Now I lead a team of analysts and junior data scientists at the University of Chicago.

That company is still making money hand over fist.

By the way, the point of the concept of meritocracy is that it depends on performance, not on some proxy variable.

Worth noting that the person who coined the term "meritocracy" did it to criticize the use of just those proxy values, particularly education, rather than actual performance:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

So I have something of a different experience, not exactly with DePaul or U of C students per se, but let's say, A and B respectively, where A=practical and B=theoretical.

A or B students could generally get the job done, but B students tend to be able to go deeper because of their greater theoretical horsepower. I could assign them tasks of greater difficulty and they will figure it out on their own and deliver.

If the organization only requires A-level talent, then let's be honest, there's no difference between A or B students. The majority of enterprises out there really only require A-level talent.

But if your organization has the kind of challenges that require B-level talent (a minority of organizations, to be sure), I think you might struggle with A-level talent. I faced this first hand when I learned that I couldn't scale because I was limited with the A-level talent that I had and was spending an inordinate amount of my time training and guiding them that I barely had time to do my work.

In general you are correct, but in some very specific situations, my experience has been there's value in identifying the right kind of talent that fits the problems you are trying to solve.

It's not uncommon.

But there is sometimes more going on than meets the eye. If it's an A.I/M.L startup, the number of PhDs is a significant factor in fund raising. Being able to say "we have 6 PhDs on staff" will open doors.

Just ignore the fact they're not in the field of CS or mathematics. ;)

Recruiters/managers are very picky about the Masters/PhD requirements, even if the corresponding day-to-day work does not necessarily warrant it.

It's normal in my experience. It's not necessarily that these managers are stupid: they're just working in what they perceive to be their own best interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com