It's not a discrimination anybody cares about because it happens to everyone, minus the unfortunate few.
There is also something to be said about the difference between young and old developers. I personally think the right ratio is about a 3:1 split, respectively. Young developers are usually faster, care more, and actively engaged in the frontier technologies. Old developers are usually tired, jaded, but often more methodical and good to have on board security reasons and structure.
Come back in 15 years and say that nobody cares. Unless it is fixed before that time, you'll care then. Spend a couple of decades building, and leading teams to build, great software that creates $millions in value (sales or savings for your co), and get so you really know your way around both the tech and business side of things. Then, when you are really ready to sink your teeth into a new challenge, start to look around ... and discover that because one glance at the experience on your resume reveals that you are fourty-something, you can't even get an interview.
Your attitude about "the right ratio" is actually a great example of the discriminatory attitude. I've seen young developers right out of college that are more tired and cynical than any oldster, and I've seen old that care more than some junior and are building the new tech. I've seen up close a company make dozens of hires -mostly friends- and make less progress over the following years than the team of <10 had made in the previous two, and then the funds run out. I'm sure if you thought about it, you'd also find fine counter-examples to your own text.
The ENTIRE POINT of not discriminating is to focus on building a team that actually gets work done, not on creating some ephemeral "culture" -- the point is to discover the ACTUAL characteristics of each INDIVIDUAL that you hire, rather than making ASSUMPTIONS about characteristics based on a generic, immutable, and un-predictive characteristic.
Culture is an emergent phenomenon. It is not a primary capability to be deliberately managed at the cost of primary capabilities (sure, if culture-related items can be managed to measurably benefit primary capabilities, then definitely do it, but don't have the tail wag the dog).
But, if you're just there to grab a bunch of VC money to squander on an extended frat party and do favors for all your bros, and the VCs are stupid enough to toss the funds your way and also think 'culture' is more important than skills, then by all means, party on!
I think the idea is that nobody cares because it is not an unfairly applied discrimination - it is a discrimination everyone will suffer except for those who die ("the unfortunate few") that said once you suffer from it, yes you will care.
OK, so just because it is universally applied, that makes it fair, or smart, and nobody should care?
Candidates who are demonstrably better in every dimension related to the productive goals of the company (and probably even better at beer pong and foosball) are denied opportunities for work and income on the basis that they don't look 'like a bro' when going out for a beer?
Apply the same to any similar category - blacks, Asians, women, LGBT, etc., etc. If you universally apply the discrimination without fail, it is fair, or smart?
What is frightening is this apparent scale of this willful ignorance, based on broad observations that "nobody cares", in a whole generation of supposedly educated and intelligent people. Those that do not know history are condemned to repeat it, and it is evident that basically nobody in this generation paid much attention, especially to history.
More importantly, this is demonstrably STUPID, and any VC worth the title should be managing it mercilessly if they want a return, especially considering how many top HN discussions are about how to hire right.
Yet, everyone is happy to ignore the fact that the talent pool is being artificially restricted to a small set of marginally-skilled young white frat guys because the so-called "leaders" of these organizations are more comfortable drinking a beer with them -- i.e., "culture"?
Meanwhile, entire categories of available talent are left by the wayside. It is pretty clear that all this talk and angst about finding the best talent is bullshit.
Since it is so critical to find the right talent, it is no wonder that so many VC funds have returns lower than mutual funds, when they don't even bother to monitor this critical metric of whether their companies are hiring the best bros or the best actual talent.
5 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 25.1 ms ] threadThere is also something to be said about the difference between young and old developers. I personally think the right ratio is about a 3:1 split, respectively. Young developers are usually faster, care more, and actively engaged in the frontier technologies. Old developers are usually tired, jaded, but often more methodical and good to have on board security reasons and structure.
Your attitude about "the right ratio" is actually a great example of the discriminatory attitude. I've seen young developers right out of college that are more tired and cynical than any oldster, and I've seen old that care more than some junior and are building the new tech. I've seen up close a company make dozens of hires -mostly friends- and make less progress over the following years than the team of <10 had made in the previous two, and then the funds run out. I'm sure if you thought about it, you'd also find fine counter-examples to your own text.
The ENTIRE POINT of not discriminating is to focus on building a team that actually gets work done, not on creating some ephemeral "culture" -- the point is to discover the ACTUAL characteristics of each INDIVIDUAL that you hire, rather than making ASSUMPTIONS about characteristics based on a generic, immutable, and un-predictive characteristic.
Culture is an emergent phenomenon. It is not a primary capability to be deliberately managed at the cost of primary capabilities (sure, if culture-related items can be managed to measurably benefit primary capabilities, then definitely do it, but don't have the tail wag the dog).
But, if you're just there to grab a bunch of VC money to squander on an extended frat party and do favors for all your bros, and the VCs are stupid enough to toss the funds your way and also think 'culture' is more important than skills, then by all means, party on!
Candidates who are demonstrably better in every dimension related to the productive goals of the company (and probably even better at beer pong and foosball) are denied opportunities for work and income on the basis that they don't look 'like a bro' when going out for a beer?
Apply the same to any similar category - blacks, Asians, women, LGBT, etc., etc. If you universally apply the discrimination without fail, it is fair, or smart?
What is frightening is this apparent scale of this willful ignorance, based on broad observations that "nobody cares", in a whole generation of supposedly educated and intelligent people. Those that do not know history are condemned to repeat it, and it is evident that basically nobody in this generation paid much attention, especially to history.
More importantly, this is demonstrably STUPID, and any VC worth the title should be managing it mercilessly if they want a return, especially considering how many top HN discussions are about how to hire right.
Yet, everyone is happy to ignore the fact that the talent pool is being artificially restricted to a small set of marginally-skilled young white frat guys because the so-called "leaders" of these organizations are more comfortable drinking a beer with them -- i.e., "culture"?
Meanwhile, entire categories of available talent are left by the wayside. It is pretty clear that all this talk and angst about finding the best talent is bullshit.
Since it is so critical to find the right talent, it is no wonder that so many VC funds have returns lower than mutual funds, when they don't even bother to monitor this critical metric of whether their companies are hiring the best bros or the best actual talent.