Editor’s Note: This post was originally published on Seattle 2.0, and imported to GeekWire as part of our acquisition of Seattle 2.0 and its archival content. For more background, see this post.
By Alyssa Royse
We all know that we can’t hire or fire someone because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or a physical disability unless it means they cannot perform the duties of the job. That’s pretty clear-cut. But we all have a slew of unconscious biases in our heads that stem from our life experiences, and what we do with those biases is a little less clear. But it’s something I think about often, because if a startup is going to succeed, it needs a great team. Not just a team of smart people, but a team of smart people who work well together.
Let’s start, each and every one of us, by admitting that we all have biases. The first step to dealing with those biases is admitting them.
I sent out an email to the Seattle Tech Startup list and asked people to tell me their biases in hiring and firing. This being Seattle, the most politically correct city on earth, I did get a lot of threats and tongue-lashings. But I got many more thoughtful responses.
The most obvious through line is that building a team means finding a group of people who have good chemistry – who have enough in common that their energy is generative, not disruptive. It’s not unlike dating, really, and that means connecting people on levels that are not necessarily covered in their resumes. Biases are, to some extent, one ingredient in what many of us would call “judgment.” It seems legitimate, to me, to say to yourself, “These guys are both qualified, but I know that guy B is a religious fundamentalist and that half of my team are neo-hippies who are living together in a polyamorous relationship, so the religious guy is not a good a fit.”
Alright, let’s look at some biases that we all accept. It is a widely held bias that people with a college education are smart and are achievers. That, I assume, is why we all put “education” on our resumes, right? (I laugh as I write this, because one of the most successful entrepreneurs I know in Seattle didn’t graduate from high school.) But is that always true?
One respondent mirrored experiences that many of us have had in saying:
“I’ve seen (and made) some disastrous hiring decisions attributable to favorable assumptions about education, ethnicity, and the positive correlation between eloquence and competence.”
Which was echoed in someone else’s sentiment:
“Formal education is a business, and the only real requirement for getting a degree is patience and money. And it’s usually a helluva lot less interesting/challenging than real work. I am suspicious of over-educated folks unless they did degrees part time. Some of the best geeks I know are high school dropouts.”
On the subject of religion, I got some interesting answers:
“While I am all for religious freedom, I tend to worry about anyone who is susceptible to ‘group think’ because I want innovators, not followers.”
To contradict that:
“I find that people who identify themselves strongly with a religion tend to be focused and dependable.”
Different strokes, I guess. Though those last two disagree, they are certainly evidence that our life experiences cause us to form biases that we use to assess the wisdom of our decisions.
In all of my thinking and asking about the issue if biases, the only thing that is clear to me is that there are no clear-cut answers. We are all biased, and if building a team is dependant on gut-level chemical reactions, it seems wise to me that we would “judge” our hiring decisions on more than just what is on a piece of paper.
For what it’s worth, I know there are things that I prefer. I prefer creative thinkers, people who express their opinions, people who have traveled a lot, people with interesting hobbies outside of work, and people have a certain energy for life that I can’t quantify. When building a team, I do look for those things. And for some inexplicable reason, I am quite biased against people who wear clothing with the name of their alma mater – or anything name brandy and blingy, for that matter.
Ending with a bit of reason, someone on the STS list pointed out:
“bottom line, you have to see who will fit into your office/business culture yet be productive. Yet, you have to put on the blindfold concerning looks. (If they smell, they’re outa there.) The mom to be might be the live wire the office needs, the ‘Old Dude’ might be the thoughtful, productive person you need. And the obese person might be the one everyone will turn to in a crisis. I find performance history is obvious, but references tell more. Check them out.”
Now wait, let’s end with humor. This response cracked me up:
1. Asks during the interview if I have children ( = wrong focus)
2. Has been a practicing lawyer for more than 10 years ( = might not be able to type)
3. Glowingly quotes Bush, Norquist, or Reagan during the interview ( = might not be reality-based )
4. Has multiple PhDs ( = warped, like Golem by the ring)
5. Worked in their previous company for more than seven years ( = months of painful-all-’round retraining )6. Is British, male, and heavily experienced in middle management ( = all of the above)
