2 ms·
Apparently this is where I will disagree with Tom, because I think the costs of a bad hire are often overstated. Part of it is loss aversion, and part of it is
by vonmoltke 11y ago
Apparently this is where I will disagree with Tom, because I think the costs of a bad hire are often overstated. Part of it is loss aversion, and part of it is inability to quantify risk. In fact, it seems like the industry is at a point right now where they would rather repeat this mantra than put effort into understanding the scope of the problem.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoThe costs of a bad hire are overstated. The cost of systemic bad hiring may grow geometrically. If that estimation is correct (bad hires result in more bad hires) then no price is too much to avoid a bad hire. And consider the US Air Force. They have an unlimited number of young people willing to learn to fly jets. Qualified candidates even. So they can filter any way they like, and still not run out of applicants. So their filters seem capricious, because they sometimes are. And it doesn't matter. Is Silicon Valley in that position? Depends upon who you are. I don't think Google for instance is running out of candidates.