Ask HN: Why does most hiring happen through referrals? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why does most hiring happen through referrals?

4 pointsBadCode17 comments

I have seen advised often how good skills are only half the work. To land great opportunities, knowing the right people and having the right connections is equally necessary.

Why is it that companies prioritize candidates that have come through referrals?

View on HN

The scientific (though old) answer is that 1) referred candidates stay longer 2) referred candidates are better informed and so more likely to succeed at the interviews, which means less time waste for the employer 3) referring employees stay longer for they feel 'responsible' for the referred candidate for some time

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Granovetter)

Adding the cost aspect, it's clear why companies like referral programs

Trust and cost. Referrals even if the company pays $1-5k to the referrer are fair less expensive then paying 15-30% of the first years salary to an agency. And the trust: if the referral is coming from an inside person that has knowledge of the systems etc, they are referring someone that they feel will work well in that environment and that will fit in with the team. Team fit is almost more important than having all the skills day 1 most of the time.

For new grads, this means using your friends and connections (professors etc) from school to help land a job. In the absence of that ability, get out and meet people and show employers you are awesome. For developers, creating a public git repository is an awesome way to let them see your skills.

It is almost impossible to assess someone efficiently in a few hours through multiple interviews. So if someone you trust tells you someone is good (or bad) based on a long period of work in common, this is much more representative of how the candidate will work in the long term.

People are (mostly) more reluctant to refer unqualified candidates they know personally than unqualified candidates are to apply to jobs. Hence the ones with insider references tend to be more qualified.

Also, judging skill through interviews or whatever is hard at best. Insiders know the people they are referring much better than the company does, even after interviews.

My guesses, anyway.

Basic sales premise, people buy from people they know and like. The same is true in recruiting talent. Getting referred into a job opportunity, implies the stamp of social proof and reciprocity.

Recommend reading Influence by Robert Cialdini > http://www.amazon.com/Robert-B.-Cialdini/e/B000AP9KKG

It's the evil you know vs taking a chance on the unknown. Plus the short-term thinking that plagues most people.

This is why most companies fail eventually. Hiring and promoting based on relationships instead of skills. You can grow a relationship. But a bad employee will never get any better. Especially if you bump him up to management.

Actually I would bet hiring on skill rather than personality, relationship with an employee and culture fit are responsible for more company kills than vice versa.

Who says a bad employee will never get any better?

If you have connections, you can land the job before it is advertised publicly; therefore the job won't be advertised publicly.

If you don't have connections, you can't land a job that isn't advertised publicly.

Publicly advertising a job is tedious.

That makes sense. Considering the resources required to shortlist candidates and interview them, companies would any day prefer to avoid it. Is there any relevant data, how many such jobs may exist that are not 'advertised'?

There is relevant data, but I don't know where it is, sorry.

I am under the impression that this sort of under-the-radar hiring occurs enough to be a significant cause of institutional racism in hiring. (If your existing employees are disproportionately white, and their friends and acquaintances are disproportionately white, then new employees who fill a position before it is publicly advertised will be disproportionately white; and this is without anyone being overtly or consciously racist, and without non-whites being discouraged in any way from applying.)

If no one is being racist, then it's not racism.

If you're disadvantaged because of your race, then it's racism.

It's important to be clear: the outcome is racist even when no individual is being racist. You can't be reductionist about this, you can't decompose the company into its individual employees and give any of them individually the blame for racist hiring outcomes. It's an emergent phenomenon: it is the company as a whole that is racist and the company as a whole that is at fault.

This is politically-correct/Marxist protelariat/bourgeoisie nonsense. The human race is composed of individuals, not "classes" at war with one another.

No, this is not about classes.

This is about organisations exhibiting qualities that none of the individuals who make up those organisations exhibit.

What qualities? You have said that no one there acts in a racist way. No "person of color" who applies for a job is treated unfairly. Thus no racism occurs.

You can only imagine racism there if you see the races as "classes" (i.e. in the sense of Marxist class warfare) and feel that each class (not the individuals within it) has a right to a "share" of the company (i.e. a quota of jobs -- regardless of whether anyone in a particular class ever actually applied for a job and was treated unfairly). I know this is what the leftist professors in schools of "grievance studies" are peddling, but they have tenure requirements to meet. What's your excuse?

Candidates referred by employees also tend to be of higher quality because the employee's reputation is somewhat on the line with every person he or she refers to the company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com