3 ms·

Almost all the suggestions on hiring in this article are pretty good. The one where I would differ is: We're happy to skip over the perfect catch if we do

Almost all the suggestions on hiring in this article are pretty good. The one where I would differ is: We're happy to skip over the perfect catch if we don't have the perfect job for the person to do. If you already know the person is 'perfect' for your organization, and have the financial capacity to hire him/her, you should go for it (IMO). I would think of it as an investment that would help my business in the longer run. Right now, a company might be content with their current suite of products, but constant innovation is required in our industry to stay ahead. It could be in the existing products or coming up with completely new solutions. If people working on existing products have their plates full most of the times, they 'might' not be able to devote as much time as they would like on coming up with newer things, that could further improve the bottom line.

danudey 16y ago
I'm going to second this. If you hire mediocre people without enough work, you'll waste money, it's true, but consider Google. They hire brilliant people, and through their 20% time they end up with amazing things (I think Gmail and Maps are two examples). Now imagine what an excellent employee could do with 100% time and support from the rest of your organization.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Here's one strong possibility: noodle, get bored, then quit. Consider the adverse selection problem here. People who can do valuable things with "100% time"? They're inherently valuable. Since they usually need to be pretty smart to be that valuable, they know they're valuable. Therefore: they are probably not looking for a W2 position as a base of operations. Lots of people, many of them very smart, will salivate over the idea of a 100% self-directed R&D position. But smart or not, most of those people are not going to do well in that role, because: see last paragraph.
dannyr 16y ago
I think it's a selfish act to hire somebody just for the sake of that person being perfect for your organization. Primarily, that person would not have ownership of anything for the immediate future. Other companies may be perfect for this person and may actually have better work for him/her to do now.
inerte 16y ago
I'm in the business of writing software. I would never hire the best purse designer in the world. I think you read, hire someone at least tangentially related to your job, but I think they're actually saying do not hire someone who would become unhappy in their job. So they are saying apples, and you're saying oranges, but we all can agree that hiring the perfect person for the wrong job/company is problematic.

danudey 16y ago

I'm going to second this. If you hire mediocre people without enough work, you'll waste money, it's true, but consider Google. They hire brilliant people, and through their 20% time they end up with amazing things (I think Gmail and Maps are two examples). Now imagine what an excellent employee could do with 100% time and support from the rest of your organization.

tptacek 16y ago
Here's one strong possibility: noodle, get bored, then quit. Consider the adverse selection problem here. People who can do valuable things with "100% time"? They're inherently valuable. Since they usually need to be pretty smart to be that valuable, they know they're valuable. Therefore: they are probably not looking for a W2 position as a base of operations. Lots of people, many of them very smart, will salivate over the idea of a 100% self-directed R&D position. But smart or not, most of those people are not going to do well in that role, because: see last paragraph.

dannyr 16y ago

I think it's a selfish act to hire somebody just for the sake of that person being perfect for your organization. Primarily, that person would not have ownership of anything for the immediate future. Other companies may be perfect for this person and may actually have better work for him/her to do now.

inerte 16y ago

I'm in the business of writing software. I would never hire the best purse designer in the world. I think you read, hire someone at least tangentially related to your job, but I think they're actually saying do not hire someone who would become unhappy in their job. So they are saying apples, and you're saying oranges, but we all can agree that hiring the perfect person for the wrong job/company is problematic.