I'm open to discussion of course, but I'd more a more argumentative reply.
My point is not about equity but just plain efficiency. I'm all for a more equitable recruitment - but that's not what I addressed here.
Of course reputation matters. But reputation is not provided by references - at least imo. That person is reputed in a community or not. If you are looking for a top-notch dev, her/his reputation will be apparent.
Social proof is of utter importance, hence the idea of hiring fast to see if that person fits well in your company. How is it relevant if that person did not fit well in the previous company? It may be in some cases, if you know that previous company well, like having work for them or at least with them.
If you are looking for someone who fits well anywhere, well, that can be a must for the role or you just prefer people without much personality.
Go fast, fail fast, anybody?
A human being behaves very differently in different social contexts. Your company's context is more often than not very different than the previous company's.
1 month trial is more efficient and costs less than 6 interviews + 3 references. Give people a chance and let them surprise you. Of course, that doesn't mean hiring the first resume received but if the person appears qualified and do well in 2 interviews (HR + the new boss or colleague), that's plenty enough.
Taking references should be prohibited altogether, except for specific jobs (if the job implies interaction with children).
They remind me of house employees' conditions in the "Downtown Abbey" area.
It's just a sign of employees' subjection to the always more extreme capitalism.
If an employee is leaving or has been fired, it means that things were not doing well anymore. How can one tell apart truthful feedbacks from all the biases? Most of our biases are unconscious, so the person you're talking to will be sincere but still unfair.
It's sort of weird to pretend to be able to sort feedbacks on the phone while not being able to judge if a person will fit well despite often numerous interviews by different persons in the company.
What if a woman has been sexually harassed but can't talk about it, for fear of the reach of her harasser, a respected entrepreneur, or even to be sued for false accusations?
Can you a person of color easily denounce racist biases that blocked his/her career? What if the previous boss can't stand a gay person?
Can one say plainly that one has little herd bias so one's point of view make the group uncomfortable? You may need such a person in your organization - or not. That person may not be even capable of such a diagnosis.
A reference won't add more unbiased information than several interviews. A lot of money and time is spent screening because the on-boarding process is costly. That makes sense but we could as well change the on-boarding rather than keep refining the screen.
Talent is important but how the person fits in a team and the company's culture is much more important. So give people a try with a sort of temporary status, limited responsibility and light onboard process. Of course, people may try and fake to fit in, but that can't last very long. The feedbacks of your colleagues are much more reliable because you know them and therefore you can sort them.
And what if that person has great references but for some reason, there is a clash of personality with a major person of the firm? Totally unpredictable but that happens.
I respectfully disagree on that. It"s on the contrary a decision made a few months before the elections - so that the French energy policy won't be a matter of debate on the voting day.
French citizens have never been put in a position to vote between a pronuclear candidate and an antinuclear one.
Well, of course, there are ecologists on the first round of the vote, but on the second rounds, both candidates are always pronuclear. Of course, they all started ten years to include electoral promises to balance the energy mix with more renewables but none delivered: France has recently been recognized as being at the worst country in the European Union with only 19% of renewables in our mix - despite having signed to reach 23% this year.
The left is deeply divided on the matter ; in fact, the left is divided on all ecological issues: agriculture, industry, energy ... The right is pro-big-polluting agriculture in the name of our commercial deficit (we export a.lot), anti-regulation of industry on ecological grounds because our industry is weak (which is true but not a reason), and pronuclear in the name of sovereignty - on the energy issue but also for military reasons. The fact that the nuclear energy enables France to emit far less CO2 is just a welcome argument. But if we had petrol like Norway, it would be "drill, baby, drill !".
The nuclear energy has nothing to do historically in France with ecology and the climate issue will reinforce that totally nondemocratic decision taken by the General De Gaulle in the name of our Grandeur. A policy that our technostructure follows without any true democratic supervision. Check and balances exist only on safety matters, but absolutely none of the French energy mix.
Nowadays it has become a political subject of course. But it's really just theater and will stay so for quite a while. The public opinion had been leaning on the right more and more for the last 20 years. When elected, self-called Socialists acted clearly on a center-right: really more like Manchin than Biden (in a daring transposition of very different political landscapes).
Funny detail: the French scientists had stalled in the research of the atomic bomb. That was a problem for the US in the context of the Cold War. So the US told the British to tip us in the right direction. That direction had already been deeply worked on but dismissed by the French scientists.
That was very discrete, not even officially recognized by some secret treaty. A prominent English nuclear scientist had a good friend among the French team. He visited him for lunch a Sunday. They talked physics. The UK has already its bomb, so the French noticed when his friend wondered aloud if that path come be "another way" to reach fission. But the British moved on another subject immediately. Friends don't need many words.
To thank the US, France later helped Israel - a lot - to build their own atomic bomb faster.
Then France made a 180º turn in its foreign policy and sided with the Arab countries on the Israël/Palestine issue. When Arafat and his troops were besieged in Beyruth by Tsahal, France evacuated them to Tunisia.
True. But Niger is not an exception, it just happens they had some uranium. In the other ex-colonies, it's petroleum, natural gas, wood and exotic products of all sort.
In fact, this has been such a continuum that the prefix "neo" in the expression "neocolonialism" isn't really appropriate. It's rather business as usual without having to maintain order directly. Military agreements still link France and most of its ex-colonies: the French Army has many bases and has the duty to intervene in case of coups.
Or not, depending on which side will be the most beneficial to France. In general, France helps to maintain the powers already in place, very often authoritarian regimes. Quite a few truly democratically-elected African leaders have been either bought, jailed or assassinated with direct support of France.
Things have changed though after 1991 on the political part, with a French foreign policy pushing more often towards democracy. On the business side, very little. Each country is a specific situation.
In all cases, the African "elites" of those ex-colonies are as much responsible of this continuum. Let's not be naive nor Manichean: the people of these countries have been actively betrayed by their own elites and France has cynically profited of it.
To sum it up, France behaved and still behave with its African ex-colonies very much alike the USA have and still do in Central and South America.
NB: I have both the French and the American citizenships and vote in both.
So I get a double dose of shame.
But let's not look at these countries as passive victims from bad richer countries. They have been independent since 60 years. If the local elites had been focused on improving their people's life instead of amassing tens of billions $, French cynical influence would have receded.
So it's less "neocolonialism" than converging interests between the ethically and financially corrupted elites on both sides.
In our so-called "modern democracies", American and French citizens have little influence in the foreign policy of their own country. It's rarely a matter of debate since elections mostly focus on internal issues.
Well, some of us demonstrated and petitioned regularly on obvious wrong-doings ... with just no effect. I remember demonstrating in Boston against invasion of Irak ; a few thousands people, students mostly, just to watch many Democratic officials like... Hilary Clinton voting for it.
What can we do? I still had to vote for Hilary against Trump, knowing she knew that the intel for invading Irak had been bent. Because Trump was far worse.
The French political theater is totally different, but still: the French economic and political "elites" are on both aisles implicated in dubious relations with African elites, as well as Arabic elites from Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, etc etc.
What can we do really, as citizens? Foreign policies are even further a reach that a true ecological transition. On which nothing is done despite polls showing that the matter is among the 3 priorities of French voters. Democracy as we know it is a just a show.
My point is not about equity but just plain efficiency. I'm all for a more equitable recruitment - but that's not what I addressed here.
Of course reputation matters. But reputation is not provided by references - at least imo. That person is reputed in a community or not. If you are looking for a top-notch dev, her/his reputation will be apparent.
Social proof is of utter importance, hence the idea of hiring fast to see if that person fits well in your company. How is it relevant if that person did not fit well in the previous company? It may be in some cases, if you know that previous company well, like having work for them or at least with them.
If you are looking for someone who fits well anywhere, well, that can be a must for the role or you just prefer people without much personality.
Go fast, fail fast, anybody?
A human being behaves very differently in different social contexts. Your company's context is more often than not very different than the previous company's.
1 month trial is more efficient and costs less than 6 interviews + 3 references. Give people a chance and let them surprise you. Of course, that doesn't mean hiring the first resume received but if the person appears qualified and do well in 2 interviews (HR + the new boss or colleague), that's plenty enough.