I am not saying hiring from network is flawless but often less riskier if you know the person well or comes via trusted referral. But in any case every hiring team must make the decision for themselves. Waiting for the best candidate is often not an option.
I think it's a very conditional choice. I would dread a world in which being part of a network was a requirement. That would be almost evil. And there are cases where that's either the explicit or de-facto reality, and it's not good. We call that nepotism when the network is exceptionally narrow and the other standards low.
But as one tool in a recruiter's toolbox, it's a respectable one. If used right you can get some good information and some good signal, and also utilize it as an end-run around some other issues where filters fail. It'd be better if the filters didn't fail though, because for every one person who gets past the filters using a network, there must be many others that are missing that option, but in the end equally capable and deserving of an opportunity.
In the US, with a few exceptions, I think nepotism is a low-enough concern that this is basically fine to encourage individual companies to adopt as it fits them. I think there are a lot of places in the world where that's less true, and if anything you'd want to either really build up the alternatives, discourage the practice, or at the least, not encourage any more of it than is already the case.
The best fix is to apply and hire via your network of school mates, colleagues, friends etc. which is already the case. The adverts you see are merely results of HR policies or compliance, very often a person has already been identified as the potential candidate. So a lot of so called adversarial effects are actually results of those same compliance mechanisms that force a job advertisement on a public board and wastes the candidates' time.
That's not so much a fix as an alternative you might recommend to an individual. One might argue that a system that's entirely based on networks would be flawed. Actually, I'll just plain say it is. Not only is it exclusive, excluding anyone without such a network, which would hurt many people, but it's usually not going to get you the best candidate. Of course, it's doubly flawed if that's the reality, and then a fake post is made to make it appear as if that's not the reality.
I am not saying hiring from network is flawless but often less riskier if you know the person well or comes via trusted referral. But in any case every hiring team must make the decision for themselves. Waiting for the best candidate is often not an option.
I think it's a very conditional choice. I would dread a world in which being part of a network was a requirement. That would be almost evil. And there are cases where that's either the explicit or de-facto reality, and it's not good. We call that nepotism when the network is exceptionally narrow and the other standards low.
But as one tool in a recruiter's toolbox, it's a respectable one. If used right you can get some good information and some good signal, and also utilize it as an end-run around some other issues where filters fail. It'd be better if the filters didn't fail though, because for every one person who gets past the filters using a network, there must be many others that are missing that option, but in the end equally capable and deserving of an opportunity.
In the US, with a few exceptions, I think nepotism is a low-enough concern that this is basically fine to encourage individual companies to adopt as it fits them. I think there are a lot of places in the world where that's less true, and if anything you'd want to either really build up the alternatives, discourage the practice, or at the least, not encourage any more of it than is already the case.
The best fix is to apply and hire via your network of school mates, colleagues, friends etc. which is already the case. The adverts you see are merely results of HR policies or compliance, very often a person has already been identified as the potential candidate. So a lot of so called adversarial effects are actually results of those same compliance mechanisms that force a job advertisement on a public board and wastes the candidates' time.
That's not so much a fix as an alternative you might recommend to an individual. One might argue that a system that's entirely based on networks would be flawed. Actually, I'll just plain say it is. Not only is it exclusive, excluding anyone without such a network, which would hurt many people, but it's usually not going to get you the best candidate. Of course, it's doubly flawed if that's the reality, and then a fake post is made to make it appear as if that's not the reality.