3 ms·
It's not just those costs. The real cost is the phenomenal candidate you do miss. If engineering talent follows a power distribution, as I believe it does, then
by xiaoma 10y ago
It's not just those costs. The real cost is the phenomenal candidate you do miss. If engineering talent follows a power distribution, as I believe it does, then a single mistaken "no hire" can mean more productivity than the all the rest of your engineering hiring for the quarter.
Perhaps this is why Ben Horrowitz made such a strong case that for key roles you should, "Hire on strength, not on a lack of weaknesses."
- ramblinjan 10y agoA phenomenal candidate can leave pretty easily, too. But when I'm taking about not being afraid to make a "no hire" call, I'm not talking about the incredibly strong candidates. They tend to shine pretty well if you don't have a hiring process that is difficult for the sake of being difficult (e.g. brain teasers and whiteboarding). When I talk about not being afraid to dismiss someone, I'm talking about the (perhaps admirable) human urge to give an underwhelming candidate another shot.