The rubric presented "hire above the company mean" doesn't align with the dogma in the wired article "always hire people better than you, don't compromise". It's the latter I question.
Also the assertion that "it's pretty unlikely that a bozo would appear better than half the people you know" sounds just full of assumptions that may not be valid.
Just thinking from a non-Google point of view, not every wants to work at new_untested_startup or boring_postIPO_company. It seems unrealistic to a) set hiring targets and b) keep raising the bar unless you have incredible cachet and a large pool of candidates to work with.
So what does the rest of the industry who don't have that luxury do?
Also the assertion that "it's pretty unlikely that a bozo would appear better than half the people you know" sounds just full of assumptions that may not be valid.
Just thinking from a non-Google point of view, not every wants to work at new_untested_startup or boring_postIPO_company. It seems unrealistic to a) set hiring targets and b) keep raising the bar unless you have incredible cachet and a large pool of candidates to work with.
So what does the rest of the industry who don't have that luxury do?