1332

submitted 5 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

202 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago

Completely ignoring qualification altogether in favor of nepotistic back scratching is actually not just being a member of society. IMO, HR should hide the identifying information of candidates from people making the hiring decisions so all they've got is the qualifications on the resume to judge them by.

[-] subtext@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

That’s just not how the world works though… you will have to work with at least 1 person at a job (your boss), so you should be able to work well with at least 1 person. That doesn’t come through with just a resume.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

So get a written interview in or a voice call if you really have to "like...get their vibe man!" But who you know hiring has to fucking stop. It is intentionally making worse decisions because you don't like someone as much as someone else.

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

But who you know hiring has to fucking stop. It is intentionally making worse decisions because you don’t like someone as much as someone else.

As someone who has spent years and years in a position of authority, I can safely say that 90% of ALL disruptive work issues have originated from people rubbing someone else wrong, or someone being massively entitled and unable to listen to others or respect those over them. A massive part of your responsibility as a manager is to make decisions based only on vibes, about who you think is going to mesh with others.

I know it sounds really unfair, your merit should stand on its own, but if my paycheck and my team's paychecks and thus all of our survival depends on the team getting along to do the damn job, then you HAVE to understand the challenge and set your ego aside to make a good impression and maintain that persona. It's shitty but so are a lot of challenges in life.

[-] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz -1 points 5 months ago

I'd rather hire someone I know is a decent, stand up guy that is easy to work with even if they are not as qualified as a rando, as long as they're qualified enough. I'm sure this is not always the case, like maybe I need a specialist for a single thing or a consultant or whatnot. But I put a lot of value on personality in general.

Though I guess it also depends how easy it is to fire someone if they're not what you wanted.

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You're getting downvoted because a large number of people who spend their weekdays voting on internet comments are not working.

Working is easy. Maintaining a predictable and comfortable work environment for a team of people also trying to get through their day while meeting larger goals for the company is very, very hard. The interview process is where the actual decisions are made by managers like myself, because I am responsible for a dozen people's lives and workdays, I have to make sure anyone I add to their daily necessary interactions isn't going to be a massive piece of shit who will disrupt everything.

I will always choose lower qualified people with better attitudes than people with sparkling resumes who seem "off" or like they're going to be a problem.

I fully expect to also get reamed in the voting process here, but if you feel the need to attack this basic fact of life that the needs of the existing and working team outweigh your unique personality and identity, you're exactly the kind of person I screen out at hiring interviews.

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

so all they’ve got is the qualifications on the resume to judge them by.

This sounds good on paper, but the actual hiring decision is almost always based on interview vibes, sorry to say.

I have spent years in a professional environment, I can safely say that 90% of all the serious, disruptive issues we have on teams come from people who have unusual personalities or strong sense of entitlement and have to have things on their own time-frame expectations. or people who rub other team members wrong and this is where a manager who is perceptive and emotionally intelligent is critical, and why having those social skills puts you in a favorable position for advancement.

I would actually rather have someone with lacking qualifications who can learn to do the job and makes everyone else comfortable, than someone who irritates everyone but doesn't need much help with the work. One is far more detrimental to productivity and meeting goals than the other. I can train you to enter data. I can't train you to stop being a freak around women or to understand that you can't expect schedules to revolve around your rent checks or the latest fight you had with your SO. I will always do my best to help everyone but if one person is dragging everyone down, they're the first to go.

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago

IMO, HR should hide the identifying information of candidates from people making the hiring decisions

That would shift towards another metric of whose resumes look the best. That might be an improvement, but we'd still be talking about how much bullshit there is in making your resume perfectly tailored to a particular opportunity. And at that point we're still talking about the skills that go into a grant application or a submission of a paper to a conference. That's the soft skills that make science possible, even if submissions are anonymized.