So you often hear, in connection to job hunting, that "it's not what you know, it's who you know." My contention is that that is now almost exclusively the case, and I have questions for the economists out there about the implications of this.
The last couple of years have seen my friends begin to start their honest-to-goodness careers, as opposed to jobs that were by design short-term. I'd say that among people I would call friends, a good two dozen have gotten long-term/serious jobs in the last couple years. And here's the thing: literally none of them got there jobs without some sort of "in", a personal connection that got them the job.
Now, look-- I know that this is about the worst way to assemble evidence, and I'm not trying to make any kind of scientific point here. But I do think that this is a common phenomenon, and I imagine if the average reader asked around, he or she would find something similar. I have to think that this is an error in a classic capitalist sense, and hurts the efficiency of markets under which businesses are supposed to operate. I'd like to know what a more enthusiastic capitalist than me thinks about all this.
A couple quick concessions: first, I recognize that rarely is someone hired purely out of personal connections and nepotism. That is, most people who are hooked up are also at least basically qualified for the position, and most hook-ups can't overcome problems like the lack of a college degree or a criminal record.
Secondly, I recognize that having the social skills necessary to obtain these kind of connections is in itself a marketable and important trait. In a simple sense, if you have the friends necessary to get you good jobs, you are probably someone with at least moderately developed social skills, the kind that will help you in a variety of jobs. And I can even see how this behavior makes sense for the hooker-up as well as the hooked-up: they can reasonably expect the hooked-up to help them or a loved one up in the future (if you want to get all Ayn Rand about it.)
But still, on a basic level, when someone gets hooked up for a job, both egalitarianism and efficiency are damaged. The way it's supposed to work is, if you are a superior candidate, you get the job-- and your hard work/talent are rewarded. The company is then rewarded with a more competent employee. But having an "in" jeopardizes that reciprocity.
Again, I understand that having the ability to get connections is itself related to other important skills. I also know that many jobs don't require as much talent or drive as we'd like to think and can be adequately filled by people who aren't quite as qualified as others. But look, if the system is to work the way it's classically envisioned, the best software coder will get the software coding job, not the one who has the most powerful dad (or the one who's dad plays golf with the guy who's cousin is in human resources.)
People tend to say that everyone has an in somewhere, but a) that's irrelevant to the principle, b) people's jobs should be determined by their strengths, not their relationships, and c) some people really don't. Like me.
(Of course, that may be the only reason I'm complaining at all. Would I take a job as, say, an admissions officer at a college through a personal connection? Yes. I would.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
All of your points are well taken, but your commend about efficiency is not entirely true. The problem is asymmetric information--you may be well qualified for the job, but how does the hiring manager really know that from your resume. Even references can be faked or exaggerated. It is much easier to verify this information through an already trusted source, like someone you like, respect and trust at work. In this way, "ins" actually increase the efficiency of the hiring process, not decrease it. This becomes more true when you factor in the cost of wading through 500 resumes uploaded through an online widget.
That's a great point, and well taken. Conceptually, I just have a hard time with it. I'm willing to concede that this process probably doesn't often result in incompetent people being hired, but in a very discouraging job market, it's tough to realize that many jobs are off the table before you even apply.
I am involved in hiring in various ways. Unfortunately, I also often rely on a connection of some kind. But, as bear says, it is not out of choice, but because otherwise it is too difficult to evaluate candidates. The traditional application process is just very poor at really finding the outstanding candidates.
There's a reason sociologists study social and cultural capital. What's going on here is a good explanation of why women are outperforming men in college - men know that becoming good friends with their fraternities brothers is better than getting As.
Bear you and freddie mean two different things for "efficiency." You mean getting a qualified candidate in a reasonable amount of time - a firm/hr issue. I wouldn't assume that the best person gets the job in this case (the recommender will substitute friendship/obligations for qualifications and wouldn't recommend someone much better than he himself is!).
Freddie, as far as I assume, means economic (theory) efficiency, where the person who provides the most marginal profit is hired and his wage is set at that level - a macroeconomic issue (and a social justice issues - that left alone, the job markets works like any other market, education is the key, inequality and social mobility, etc. Things someone who has to fill a job slot doesn't have time to worry about!). That wages are set along such axioms has always been problematic, at best.
It is true that using a personal connection will leave you with less than the best candidate. However, in my field, it is not so simple as someone telling me, "Hire Joe because he is my friend".
Rather, it is that I have a position that needs filled. How I do find someone? Well, I ask around, and also try to post the job notice to various mailing lists. The thing is, when I ask someone I know, I'm likely to get a more candid recommendation, so I place higher value on it.
As someone who does a lot of hiring, I think that people who let connections carry a lot of weight are doing a lazy hiring job. It's easier to just pick the person who comes recommended by someone you know, but unless that person is in your field and has an intimate understanding of what you're looking for, that sort of recommendation isn't worth very much. Sure, include the person in your candidate pool, but that should be as far as the connection gets them -- a good manager will hire based on suitability for the role, nothing else. And a good manager will have ways to predict that suitability that have nothing to do with knowing the person's parent or friend.
Don't forget the political environment that recruiting now finds itself in. It used to be that you could hire anyone you wanted, based on any criteria you liked. And you could fire them, if they failed to perform.
But there was a big problem with that, come the civil rights revolution: blacks, having lower IQs on average than whites, are generally much less desirable employees.
The progressive agenda over the past 40 years has been to attempt to get blacks jobs. This is well-meant, but given the realities of the situation, must necessarily mean obfuscating information about job seekers. IQ testing, for example, has been ruled out as discriminatory. The movement for statistical equality in employment has also meant a huge increase in state oversight of firing, since obviously you can't really enforce hiring mandate if you allow people to fire the people they didn't really want in the first place.
The upshot of all this is that employment is a whole new game. You do not want the wrong person, and you can't rely as strongly on impersonal data collected about people -- either it is off limits, as IQ tests are, or else it is allowed but watered down via affirmative action or other means. So, you go to other means of finding good people -- word of mouth.
Post a Comment