> Why do they even have a job themselves if they're so incapable of evaluating correctly?
The only way for this to not be the case is if the first person you hired is the most competent that exists, and can do everything already, and therefor accurately measure the anyone in front of them. And, that goes on down the hiring chain.
In reality, you'll eventually need an expert in an area you are not an expert in, which means you won't necessarily have the insight on the best candidate. Maybe AI can do that someday, but definitely not today.
I also think this is what causes large orgs slowly fail: it's not only difficult for a person to gauge when another is smarter/more capable than them, but a smarter person can look less competent to someone hiring, because their answers/approach is outside of the known solution space of the interviewer. So, you end up with a slow net decrease in competence over time.
I've seen it in every org I've been a part of, from startups to corporate, including myself. Trying to judge a person, within small time slot is hard. The alternatives (like take home, temp to hire, etc) are also talent repellent. I think the most revealing method can be the Jim Keller method, where you let them nerd out on some potentially unrelated problem, but the results of that are hard to write down/justify.
The only way for this to not be the case is if the first person you hired is the most competent that exists, and can do everything already, and therefor accurately measure the anyone in front of them. And, that goes on down the hiring chain.
In reality, you'll eventually need an expert in an area you are not an expert in, which means you won't necessarily have the insight on the best candidate. Maybe AI can do that someday, but definitely not today.
I also think this is what causes large orgs slowly fail: it's not only difficult for a person to gauge when another is smarter/more capable than them, but a smarter person can look less competent to someone hiring, because their answers/approach is outside of the known solution space of the interviewer. So, you end up with a slow net decrease in competence over time.
I've seen it in every org I've been a part of, from startups to corporate, including myself. Trying to judge a person, within small time slot is hard. The alternatives (like take home, temp to hire, etc) are also talent repellent. I think the most revealing method can be the Jim Keller method, where you let them nerd out on some potentially unrelated problem, but the results of that are hard to write down/justify.