Today we’ve formalized an important hiring policy at Scale. We hire for MEI: merit, excellence, and intelligence: MERITOCRACY AT SCALE In the wake of our fundraise, I’ve been getting a lot of questions about talent. All of our external success—powering breakthroughs in L4 autonomy, partnering with OpenAI on RLHF going back to GPT-2, supporting the DoD and every major AI lab, and the recent $1bn financing transaction—all of it is downstream from us hiring the best people for the job. Talent is our #1 input metric. Because of this, I spend a lot of my time on recruiting. I either personally interview every hire or sign off on every candidate packet. It’s the thing I spend the plurality of my time on, easily. But everyone can and should contribute to this effort. There are almost a thousand of us now, and it takes a lot to hire quickly while maintaining, and continuing to raise, our bar for quality. That’s why this is the time to codify a hiring principle that I consider crucial to our success: Scale is a meritocracy, and we must always remain one. Hiring on merit will be a permanent policy at Scale. It’s a big deal whenever we invite someone to join our mission, and those decisions have never been swayed by orthodoxy or virtue signaling or whatever the current thing is. I think of our guiding principle as MEI: merit, excellence, and intelligence. That means we hire only the best person for the job, we seek out and demand excellence, and we unapologetically prefer people who are very smart. We treat everyone as an individual. We do not unfairly stereotype, tokenize, or otherwise treat anyone as a member of a demographic group rather than as an individual. We believe that people should be judged by the content of their character — and, as colleagues, be additionally judged by their talent, skills, and work ethic. There is a mistaken belief that meritocracy somehow conflicts with diversity. I strongly disagree. No group has a monopoly on excellence. A hiring process based on merit will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. Achieving this requires casting a wide net for talent and then objectively selecting the best, without bias in any direction. We will not pick winners and losers based on someone being the “right” or “wrong” race, gender, and so on. It should be needless to say, and yet it needs saying: doing so would be racist and sexist, not to mention illegal. Upholding meritocracy is good for business and is the right thing to do. This approach not only results in the strongest possible team, but also ensures we’re treating our colleagues with fairness and respect. As a result, everyone who joins Scale can be confident that they were chosen for their outstanding talent, not any other reasons. MEI has gotten us to where we are today. And it’s the same thing that’ll get us where we’re going, as we embark on our next chapter focusing on data abundance and frontier data.
I support the move to MEI, as a HR professional I've seen how DEI has affected the hiring process for companies I've worked in. Whilst the initial intention of DEI or EDI (what we call it here in the UK) was good, I've seen companies hire applicants just to meet quotas and some of those hires weren't qualified for the role. I've seen in the comments people saying that MEI Is 'subjective' well is DEI not subjective aswell or more biased towards minority groupings? I don't see the issue with this, and fully support the move to MEI, hope more companies support this. 🌟
Well said
Strongly suggest you give “meritocracy paradox” a Google
This sounds a lot like excuse making for casting off DEI principles. Looking at investors in Scale AI, I think there are some who would love to have Scale AI distance itself from DEI initiatives. For one thing, how does one hire an external candidate under a meritocracy framework if they have not had the chance to demonstrate their merit at your organization? I don't think you can. Meritorious work at a prior stop is a good indicator of future performance, but not dispositive. I fear the approach will produce a 90% cis gendered white and asian male workforce (mostly white). Is that bad on its own? No. No one should be blamed for their ethnic origin. But you may lose something. I think about my days at a short term rental startup. There was a meeting of product, engineering, legal and ops. All attendees were white male, including myself (I'm half white, but still). We discussed the night time check in process. We made a decision. Afterwards a female colleague asked about the meeting and mentioned that our decision would likely lead to female guests not feeling safe. She was right. We adjusted the stakeholders and adjusted our approach. I imagine with AI, diverse voices would ultimately help the product.
“we unapologetically prefer people who are very smart" is already leading to bias. What is the definition of “smart” in this case? Is it based on educational attainment? Ability to speak well about one’s skills? These types of esoteric definitions are precisely what lead to exclusion of individuals. I appreciate the desire to find the best, it’s difficult for any team. But the idea that it can be boiled down to a science is unrealistic.
Curious to see how hiring processes can effectively (and objectively) measure one’s “merit”, “excellence”, and “intelligence”, all of which are very subjective terms. We see time and time again how meritocratic principles are ideal in theory, but difficult to uphold in practice—our current societal structures inherently result in those from less privileged backgrounds having more obstacles in demonstrating these aforementioned characteristics than others. The reason DEI practices exist is to provide those who come from such a background a chance for social mobility, which is especially effective when these individuals were afforded less opportunities to demonstrate “MEI” than other candidates. By focusing on these traits, you will certainly form an academically/professionally accomplished team, but I hesitate to agree with whether this will form the “strongest” team.
When Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, you know, the law that made it virtually impossible for people like your parents (and me) to migrate to the US, it was done in the name of “keeping American stock up to the highest standard”. It’s almost as if the stated purpose of a policy matters far less than the actual effect it produces… I applaud you for considering each applicant as an individual, and striving for excellence, as we all should. But if that’s what ScaleAI has been doing all along, what’s pressuring you to make this statement now? It’s impossible not to see this as a dog whistle.
"there is a mistaken belief that meritocracy somehow conflicts with diversity. I strongly disagree," and yet you're setting them up as a dichotomy here by co-opting and riffing on the DEI acronym, notably displacing the D which stands for diversity with an M which stands for meritocracy. Maybe it's not your intent, but that makes it a poor choice or thoughtless at best Good luck, in any case!
I'm curious about this - how do you ensure that true work merit is selected for in hiring? I.e., how do you unbias the selection process so that traditionally bias-riddled selection methods (e.g., someone being a "good fit", or "gut feeling", or asking off-the-cuff interview questions which differ depending on the person's demographic) do not impact your ability to properly identify merit? How do you measure merit, and merit alone, when merit is often confounded with characteristics certain groups may have an advantage in, such as the ability to speak up confidently in meetings, or the ability to network better with other members of the same dominant demographic, or the ability to put in extra hours at work due to not having the same responsibilities at home or health care issues as other members of the organization?
founder CEO at Scale AI
6moWe’re growing quickly and seeking top talent to join our mission. As the data foundry for AI, Scale has played a key role in major AI milestones over the past 7 years. Our work only becomes more important as we overcome the data wall, create data abundance, and approach AGI by partnering with the leading labs in the industry. If you’re the best at what you do, and our mission and culture appeal to you, please reach out! https://scale.com/blog/meritocracy-at-scale