4 ms·
I don't think it's actually a good indicator because performance is affected by so many important factors—including things like the direct manager and the rest
by tikhonj 11y ago
I don't think it's actually a good indicator because performance is affected by so many important factors—including things like the direct manager and the rest of the team.
What it is, rather, is the IBM effect in reverse. Regardless of how good a predictor it really is, common knowledge is that it really matters. If you add a random new worker to the team and it doesn't work out, well, these things happen. If you have someone with a classic "red flag" (most of which are either highly exaggerated or complete bullshit) and it doesn't work out, it's all your fault.
Of course, in reality, the same factors dominate in both cases—things don't always work out, but that's only to be expected. But woe if you can be blamed for it!
- paulojreis 11y agoI agree with you. But the "question" of the parent post was "I have no idea why this doesn't happen more often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company", and I was just trying to give a possible answer. While it's really not a good indicator, there'll eventually be some correlation. Bottom line is: I'd totally understand a manager not accepting a guy that failed elsewhere in the same company; he would possibly be wrong in doing so, but - really - what would you do? I'd eventually try to interview the guy but, in the end, if I got two "final" candidates and one of them already failed in the company, I'd go for the other.