Hacker News Reader

I think people jump into "nepotism" too quickly and usually I find people who jump to that - to be not to be really negative but still - <losers>.

Building and keeping relationship *is work* even with your wife or kids it is not given. Building and keeping business relationship is even more work when you have to convince someone you don't know that you are worth something.

I call out nepotism only if you can clearly see someone is hired and does nothing or has no experience or skills for what they were hired for.

I got my friends/people I know hired to the company I work for, it was not walk in the park, I had to convince my friends that company is good place to work as they were highly skilled, which took me months ... guess what ... I had to spend also quite some time convincing managers that guy I propose will fit and then they still had to go through interviews and probation period.

From the outside or other employees perspective it might have looked like "X got Y into the company because they know each other and X is on good terms with management", they did not see how much work it was to "get good terms with management", they did not see how much legwork and checking up on my friends if they are available took.

This comment reads like a classic "X-ism doesn't exist because Y people have it hard too!"

No one is saying that Y does not have it hard. The claim about X-ism is that people with X never even had the chance that Y did. In your case, sure, someone worked hard to convince their boss to hire their friend, but the people who don't have those connection (i.e. because they are from marginalized backgrounds/different country) just don't have a single chance of being hired, regardless of how qualified they are.

> In your case, sure, someone worked hard to convince their boss to hire their friend, but the people who don't have those connection (i.e. because they are from marginalized backgrounds/different country) just don't have a single chance of being hired, regardless of how qualified they are.

This requires that every hire the boss ever made was based on an employee recommendation. That seems unlikely.

Relax the hyperbole (e.g. s/don't have a single chance/have a much smaller chance/), and it no longer requires that.

> This comment reads like a classic "X-ism doesn't exist because Y people have it hard too!"

The claim was not "nepotism doesn't exist". The claim was that "It isn't nepotism if the person hired through personal connections can actually do the job".

Yes, people without personal connections have it harder, but the mere inequality exists does not mean the situation is unjust.

It’s really all opinion. I would say the system here is unjust. (Life’s not fair.)I wouldn’t say that the relationship-hires are morally wrong (if the person hired is qualified).

I think it’s interesting you emphasized “losers”, and even chose that word at all.

What motivates you to disparage an entire group of people, because they (correctly, as you admit) point out that success doesn’t depend on the relevant talent but on socializing?

The 'loser' comment wasn't the best choice, true.

It's also interesting that you separated 'relevant talent' from 'socializing', as if socializing is ever not relevant. People do have to at least know about you, and that indeed is a skill on its own.

I point out that success requires talent - I don't know how you read that differently.

Most of the time losers claim that "if they would know the right people..." or point "he/she got a job only because they knew someone", well NO because knowing right people is only part of the work, one still needs to deliver and still needs to have relevant skills/talents.

Knowing the wrong people doesn’t make you a loser. You should rethink your wording or qualify loser with “losing the chance to get hired at a certain place”.

Not knowing ozim and not getting hired at their company doesn’t make you a loser.

i dont think this person is stating that knowing the wrong people makes you a loser. it's that complaining about others getting jobs or opportunities centered around "they only got that because they knew someone" is generally a sentiment shared by losers. its a strong take, and i don't know if i agree/disagree, but there does seem to be a general trend of people who are always complaining about external forces are the ones that don't tend to ever gain any success or move up.

Yes - exactly that is what I mean in my way of thinking.

It is not about people who didn't get specific job but it is about people complaining. "Normal people" even if they don't get some job are not complaining like that.

> there does seem to be a general trend of people who are always complaining about external forces are the ones that don't tend to ever gain any success or move up

This is true but on the flip side it also seems that some people who end up in privileged positions attribute 100% of success to themselves, and 0% to circumstances and external factors, which is just as bad

take this with a grain of salt, but i've listened to a lot of the "how i've built this" podcasts and i think 99% of the founders all believe that their success came with some level of luck. but then again, maybe thats just selection bias and the types that think they're god's gift to earth wouldnt be on the podcast to begin with

> Knowing the wrong people doesn’t make you a loser. You should rethink your wording or qualify loser with “losing the chance to get hired at a certain place”.

You are misreading ozim.

The claim is not that people without connections are losers. The claim is that people who often make the accusation of nepotism generally are losers.

In other words, untalented people will make the accusation of nepotism as ego defense to avoid confronting their own lack of skill.

its funny how mostly true this is if you take the converse. i have very rarely seen smart/successful people complain about others. they focus on themselves

Knowing the "wrong people" (or not knowing the "right people") doesn't make one a loser. But discounting other people's skills just because they associated with the "right people" (in addition to having the skills) does.

You’re calling people with the right skills/talent “losers” because they’re frustrated serendipity wasnt in their favor and they don’t also know the “right” people.

The people you’re disparaging know that skills/talent are also part of the work, but they’ve done that part — the part under their control. They’re commenting on the part of it which isn’t… and as far as I can tell, you’re disparaging them because you’re lucky and they aren’t.

Looks like that person build their company on nepotism - and it hurts them. Thus the projection that others are "losers".

You’re trying not to be negative but they’re losers? If you’re going to start a comment like that everything better be bang on. Unfortunately, you seem to be saying that nepotism is wrong..unless you do it then it’s somehow fine because you’re “special”.

What a low quality comment made even worse by the insult in the beginning.

He has a point. People that are always calling out nepotism, or good looks, etc... typically also have an axe to grind and have some festering sour grapes.

The situation outlined is true. It can take time to convince outsiders (friends), and time to convince insiders (the company, manager) that X and Y are a good fit.

Hiring is not easy. Getting hired is not easy.

Agreed, yeah.

I don't want to start a flamewar with this controversial hot-button topic, but imo it is kind of similar to the whole incel culture. The kind of takes where they believe that women aren't interested in them because they are 5'9 or because of them not having a square jawline or because of some perceived "chad" gatekeeping them, and totally not because of their own attitudes and behaviors.

This is just missing forest for the trees. I am not saying that looks don't matter at all. But the sad part is that the heavy majority of those people look totally fine, and it is just their hyperfocus on their perceived deficiencies (and associated behaviors) that drives people away.

Same here. No one denies that nepotism exists. But 9 times out of 10 when I hear someone complaining about it, it boils down to "how dare they hire someone that they had any prior personal experience with and who they know for a fact is a great specialist due to the shared track record".

People get upset because companies boast about being a meritocracy and then take the (pragmatic?) road of hiring people they already know, and promoting those people they enjoy hanging out with.

The game being somewhat rigged would be a lot easier to accept if you haven’t been told all your life that if you work hard and be a good person everything will automatically fall into place.

The logic of being upset that somebody who got worse grades in school now has a better career and how unfair that feels is the same logic as being mad that somebody with a criminal record who has no house or car can get dates easily but the “nice boy who played by the rules” cannot.

Exactly. There are 'kind' and 'un-kind' readings of this situation.

For many years I swallowed the story that companies are a 'meritocracy', and got very upset when they were not (nepotism, hiring people that under-perform).

But then realized, maybe sometimes it is 'pragmatic'. It is more like 'moneyball', they are not hiring the 'best', but maybe they are hiring the 'known quantity'.

Sure, there is some cases where you can be mad at nepotism. But I tend to think people are generally good and trying to do the right thing. Sometimes the story goes "I don't know much about programming, but I'm going to hire my nephew because he seems smart", is innocent.

My experienced is that people whom are hesitant to call out nepotism are usually direct or indirect beneficiaries of it.

I can understand why both your friends and the company struggled to respect your choices and required so much more legwork than normal, because man oh man you are quite bad with words!

Tech is culturally obsessed with those Moneyball edge cases where the metrics totally contradict intuition, where someone is objectively brilliant but overlooked. And with their complements, incompetent but charismatic frauds. Those cases are certainly interesting, but I think it kind of elides the much more boring reality: relationships and reputations are earned, the most common way to be respected is to actually be good, and the vouching of other professionals who’ve seen your competence and character in a variety of situations over time is a much stronger signal than a few hours of systematized interviewing or testing.

It’s still an unjust system, and it’s worthwhile to aspire to a system that is truly fair.

Technological advancement is ultimately the only way to achieve a fair system where “systematized interview or testing” works as well as a relationship.

This is a great post. I never thought of describing "HN exceptionalism" like "Moneyball-ism". People love a good story over some cold, hard "facts".

Sir, have you met a management consultant? Or an MBA? May I introduce you to my very respectable friends at Softbank?

> I got my friends/people I know hired to the company I work for, it was not walk in the park, I had to convince my friends that company is good place to work as they were highly skilled, which took me months ... guess what ... I had to spend also quite some time convincing managers that guy I propose will fit and then they still had to go through interviews and probation period.

That sounds very far away from nepotism. Nepotism is giving relatives or friends the job without any qualifications and/or treating them different.

That is why I replied to parent poster. He wrote like it would be that getting business from someone you know is already sign of nepotism but there is more to it.

I worked in a bootstrapped startup for 10 years.

When I left, my network was very narrow (industry focused).

I did a hard reset and ended up first working at a YC company and then another SV VC backed startup.

When this second startup pivoted they asked if I wanted to stay on or accelerate my vesting. I left because there was something else I wanted to build.

But now being connected to this network, the founders of the company I left opened up 8-10 VC calls.

Nothing changed about me, my capabilities, my skills, my knowledge. But being plugged in to this network definitely has benefits.

The bias is obvious in the tech industry. Lots of companies get funded that aren't true VC scale businesses. I spoke with another YC founder that ended up folding his startup doing an open source product. I asked about his pitch to YC and how he framed his business model and he said he basically didn't have one.

As much as we think tech is a meritocracy, there's a lot of bias, nepotism, and favoritism.

Deeper question: Does this mean that SV VC needs to work harder to find people without networking connections?

No; I think they are generally incapable of it.

A lot of this ultimately comes down to trust. Unless they want to do a lot more due diligence (FTX anyone?), trust is the shortcut. Trust in institutions (Stanford, MIT, Harvard, ex-FAANG, ex-McKinsey, etc), trust in people (connections), trust in the individual (serial/repeat).

This. I was one of the founders in a software development co-op and the unfortunate truth was that almost all of our work came from connections one of us previously had. The good news is that if you do good work, and we did, that web of connections grows exponentially. But yeah, it's hard to tell somebody just getting into it that it's all who you know, but it's true.

I think what ozim is trying to get across and I agree with, is that "it's who you know" does not imply that its just a good ol boys network for it's own sake. Working with people you know and trust is normal. There is no way you can suss out in an interview loop or a client meeting what you can from a recommendation from someone who has with direct knowledge through experience with that business partner or employee. Managing relationships is part of the job and part of career building. For the career part, I have found that just being competent and nice goes a long way, without having to do aggressive networking.

> The problem with this advice is that it's not any advice

It sounds like very good advice, or rather, information. If I believe this, a few decisions I might make are: (1) spend more time networking, and following up with people I've met, whether at conferences or local events, even if they are outside (2) recognize I have a handicap if I am not a social butterfly and think about ways to counteract it (or realize this as another factor working against me and decide not to start a business)

I don't think you need to be a social butterfly to have a large network. I think you just have to show up to a lot of things. Which might feel like wasted time if you don't frame it this way.

> The fact is someone with capital to spend can deploy it to anyone, so why should they deploy it to you?

Observation 1: A corporation isn't a single entity, it's a stack of humans in a trench coat.

Observation 2: Humans choose what's familiar and what's worked for them in the past.

Observation 3: Humans usually get promoted based on their choices.

Corollary: Make the people who engaged you look good, and they'll keep sending money your way.

> ... Met at a mixer? ... Saying business is about nepotism is unattractive and doesn't really help you

I think it's unhelpful to consider this level of socialization "nepotism". A word often associated with a rich parent giving their child with no experience a directorship at a big company. Not only is the energy different, but it misleads people into believing business could be anything but social.

Business deals largely run on trust that the other party will do what they say, and hopefully do it in good faith (many people believe this isn't so because of the legal contracts we sign, in fact the need to use a contract in court is a failure of a business relationship). The only way you can build that trust is by entering someone's network of trust - you can do that through word of mouth or by talking to them, but you have to do one of them.

A 30 minute chat at a mixer is great way to give signal that you're at least not obviously a fraud and perhaps worth talking to.

> The fact is someone with capital to spend can deploy it to anyone, so why should they deploy it to you?

By that logic, people have big families, they have lots of friends. Why choose one family member or friend over another?

> I have been doing some Data Science consulting

I'm not trying to "gatekeep" here. Consulting is, for the most part, an ordinary employment relationship.

That sounds like a narrow idea of what kind of businesses a person can start. If you target the general public with your offers, there is no nepotism or relationships involved. That's the beauty of an open society.

All businesses started as small businesses, we tend to forget that.