Talent-spotting, luck and equality, por Chris Dillow:
So, could it be that the old adage is right: “the one thing rarer than ability is the ability to spot ability”? Certainly, many managers believe that lots of hiring decisions were mistaken.
And could it be that what often look like successful hires are in fact sheepskin effects? If we treat someone as if they very able, they will act as if they are - and even if they don’t groupthink will stop doubters pointing out that the emperor has no clothes: this was the theme of the film Trading Places.
I ask all this not merely because it is relevant for political and business decision-making, but because it also matters for egalitarians.
If many hiring and rejection decisions are mistaken, then it’s hard to argue that inequalities in income are closely related to ability or “merit”*. Instead, they have a large arbitrary element; I, for example, can easily imagine that, with different luck, I would be ten times as rich or poor as I am now. In which case, perhaps the moral (as distinct from economic) case for redistribution becomes stronger.
Um aparte - eu suspeito que um bom exemplo de erro nas decisões de contratação foram as dezenas de entrevistas para empregos a que fui entre 1995 e 1999 (o erro gritante, claro, foi terem-me rejeitado em todas). Ou será que há aqui alguma parcialidade da minha parte?
1 comment:
as entrevistas sao importantes e há imensos factores que podem influenciar o resultado dem uma entrevista, passando pelo entrevistado até ao entrevistador.
se um estiver mal disposto, se alguma coisa tragica aconteceu momentos antes, etc...
mas há uma coisa que me ensinaram e que nunca esquecerei... usar sempre camisa e aos quadrados, mas que nao seja uma toalha de mesa.
eu que detesto camisas estou condenado.
Post a Comment