Still useful

Some of this is really scary and will be used incorrectly as people in general use data and stats to reinforce their own biases, but Iโ€™ve complained a lot lately so Iโ€™ll point out these interesting bits that is actually pretty obvious if you are, like, awake ever.

Max Simkoff, Evolvโ€™s co-founder and CEO, told me that his companyโ€™s big-data crunching had revealed a stream of intriguing, contrarian results. For example, โ€œpeople with a criminal background stay longer on the job and perform better at entry-level hourly jobs,โ€ he said. Having โ€œrelevant experienceโ€ for a job didnโ€™t track with later productivity. Indeed, the relative quality of a manager or supervisor was more important in influencing worker attrition and productivity than the background of the individual workers. Other useful insights โ€” as reported by the Atlanticโ€™s Don Peck in a comprehensive recent feature story, โ€œTheyโ€™re Watching You At Workโ€ โ€“ include the nugget that educational attainment is not as big a factor in job success as the conventional wisdom believes.

Anyone who is not beset and afflicted by an MBA would know this already. Iโ€™ve found that in the workplace (and Iโ€™ve hired a lot of people) that education means almost nothing, and in some areas within IT at least it is actively harmful. Experience does matter, but intelligence matters more. After the first 3-6 months of experience benefit, smarter people always always always do better without exception.

How to measure intelligence, though, and personality suitability? Itโ€™s very hard. Iโ€™ve not found any way to do it successfully. No one has, I guess, or we wouldnโ€™t keep reading articles ad infinitum that discuss it.