Why they’re wrong about the future of tech work

Sorry I couldn’t think of a better title. I know I should be constructive and say that “I have a difference” to the ideas I’ve encountered this week but I’m so depressed at it all and what they’re proposing, so I’m just going to be blunt. They’re wrong.

Recruit the young and the brave

This week a couple of inputs have coincided around tech and the world of work.

Firstly I saw this post on How To Hire by Hardik Pandya, a former Design Lead at Google, and it’s an example of a depressing and prevalent vision of the tech employment future. It argues that tech companies should hire young people who - by virtue of their (assumed) freshness and (assumed) lack of constraints - are so much better than older, experienced folk.

It argues that these free and creative youngsters aren’t shackled by nuance, society and the “plateaued” mindset that old-timers have. 

“They have fewer external obligations… They bring perspectives unencumbered by conventional thinking.”

Secondly I spotted this recruitment ad doing the rounds from Palantir. Yes, the company that makes tech for the US military and others, and (allegedly) tech for predictive policing.

It's a recruitment ad appealing to young people, placed outside select colleges, championing "national purpose", and how they aim “to dominate” in the sectors of manufacturing, hospitals and the military. Oh how testosterone-filled it is. Coincidentally, Hardik also praises Palantir's hiring practices in his post.

So. What’s wrong with this vision?

I’m not going to waste my time on the author's proposed violation of laws that prevent age-based discrimination in recruitment. That battle has been fought and won in both the US and UK. 

Nor am I going to spend much time on the hugely inconvenient fact that the author ignores: everyone is unconsciously bound by social constraints - this is known and amply researched and it forms a critical part of systems thinking. Rather than being free of constraints young people live in society too and can be even more bound by the exact same social constraints, whilst having the potential to be far less aware of them.

No. What I’m going to focus on is the disturbing, underlying belief in this article’s position: that technically literate people are entitled to be in charge of finding solutions to the world’s woes. 

Technocrats only at the table

It’s part of a technocratic view that learned experts and experience should be ignored. It makes the claim that only those who understand the latest, freshest technologies should be involved in finding solutions to problems.

Oh you don’t know how to code? Then your opinion is not valid and you're not welcome here. And for that matter, why are you even at the table looking for solutions to problems when you can’t build a thing? Don’t you know this is a do-ocracy? Let’s leave the world's problems to the technologists. 

Extractive recruitment

Then there's the issue that attitudes like these encourage companies to scout younger people who are unaware of their rights and bypass the years of work that have gone into protecting people from exploitation.

It also degrades social mobility.

After a competitive process (which naturally engages only those who are already privileged enough to be able to work unpaid), oh lucky young person, you might get a fellowship. Then maybe an internship. Then maybe at some point you’ll get a proper contract and the rights and protections of an actual worker.

But let's be clear that this is only for the benefit of the hiring company, not for you, young talent. In this supposed utopia world of work there's an underlying fear, as the author himself hints at:

“They’re often unsure if they deserve the seat they’ve been given. That sense of being slightly underqualified, of needing to prove themselves, pushes them to bring their best work every day. This kind of productive insecurity drives excellence… and a team that doesn’t take their seat at the table for granted.”

And let’s not forget Palantir's claims:

"We build tech to dominate. Join us."

Hey, in this new reality you’ll be dominated by your Palantir overlords as well, but at least you'll be part of a team that’s crapping on others more.

Don't ignore experience and don't break the law; improve your design practice instead

To end on a positive note, I want to offer something a bit more constructive. Again, let's look at a line from the blog post:

“Established talent presents problems. They come with fixed ideas.”

This is finding fault in the wrong place. Effective, experienced designers should know to use processes that widely explore the problem space, and they should work in codesign with those they're aiming to serve.

I suggest that if anyone's design teams (old or young) are presenting "fixed" ideas, then it’s because they’re responding to an overly constrained project scope. No space is given to them for codesign nor to challenge wider, embedded systems that are impacting on people and causing the problems in the first place.

This is an issue with how projects are being framed. And this a company culture problem, not an age/experience one.