3 ms·

Zenpayroll's hands aren't clean either. I have a friend who helped build out one of their offices. There was an absurdly long courtship of literally backbreakin

Zenpayroll's hands aren't clean either. I have a friend who helped build out one of their offices. There was an absurdly long courtship of literally backbreaking labor (she was going for an administrative role) mixed with dinners with executives only to be told that she wasn't a fit. Her follow up emails to figure out what could have possibly went wrong weren't returned. Oh the irony of a HR startup treating other humans as resources (to be discarded).

tyre 10y ago
I won't argue with you there. The interview process is quite involved and oftentimes far too many cooks in the kitchen. It comes from a good place (a bad hire is much worse than missing out on a good one), but not giving feedback is inexcusable. As for the irony, I could not agree more.
- philovivero 10y ago
  Considering my viewpoint on hires being almost the opposite of that (an occasional bad hire is acceptable risk to get a good one) I'd be interested in the rationale. But then, I've never been one to beat around the bush when it comes to parting ways with an employee who's clearly not working out on the team.
  - tyre 10y ago
    The rationale is that a bad hire is very expensive. Not just salary, but emotional and temporal investment. Let's say you need to hire a salesperson and hire the wrong one. You fire them after two months and now have to context switch into hiring again. For small startups, firings have an effect on the entire company. Absolutely make the right choice and let someone go if you have to, but it still has an amplified cost across the team. I personally take responsibility for the emotional cost on the candidate. Asking someone to invest themselves in your company and then letting them go is a rough experience for the employee. It is the manager's responsibility to not churn and burn through people.
    - patrickread 10y ago
      Yea, I agree with this one as well. Hire slowly; fire fast. But, even if it's fast, firing wastes a bunch of time for a bunch of people. Missing out on a good one sucks, but in the best relationships both sides will wait for the right timing if necessary, in my experience.

tyre 10y ago

I won't argue with you there. The interview process is quite involved and oftentimes far too many cooks in the kitchen. It comes from a good place (a bad hire is much worse than missing out on a good one), but not giving feedback is inexcusable. As for the irony, I could not agree more.

philovivero 10y ago
Considering my viewpoint on hires being almost the opposite of that (an occasional bad hire is acceptable risk to get a good one) I'd be interested in the rationale. But then, I've never been one to beat around the bush when it comes to parting ways with an employee who's clearly not working out on the team.
- tyre 10y ago
  The rationale is that a bad hire is very expensive. Not just salary, but emotional and temporal investment. Let's say you need to hire a salesperson and hire the wrong one. You fire them after two months and now have to context switch into hiring again. For small startups, firings have an effect on the entire company. Absolutely make the right choice and let someone go if you have to, but it still has an amplified cost across the team. I personally take responsibility for the emotional cost on the candidate. Asking someone to invest themselves in your company and then letting them go is a rough experience for the employee. It is the manager's responsibility to not churn and burn through people.
  - patrickread 10y ago
    Yea, I agree with this one as well. Hire slowly; fire fast. But, even if it's fast, firing wastes a bunch of time for a bunch of people. Missing out on a good one sucks, but in the best relationships both sides will wait for the right timing if necessary, in my experience.