3 ms·
The desire for a 'good candidate' and the paranoia about making a mistake is sounding increasingly utopian. There is a certain nervousness and even a hint of hy
by throw2016 9y ago
The desire for a 'good candidate' and the paranoia about making a mistake is sounding increasingly utopian. There is a certain nervousness and even a hint of hysteria about it.
A bad hire is not the end of the world, and is easily corrected and one can't help feeling there is some magnification going on somewhere about hiring mistakes. There is near constant evaluation and feedback loops in most organizations. A 'bad hire' simply won't survive this.
No ones hires a person not suited to the job in terms of technical requirements, that's a given, but there are other things at play to make the final decision, that are less easily obvious in the interview process so mistakes will be made. Better to make them and move on rather than manufacture this increasing hysterical narrative about the 'perfect hire'.
- nolemurs 9y ago> The desire for a 'good candidate' and the paranoia about making a mistake is sounding increasingly utopian. I don't know where you're getting your 'perfect hire narrative' idea from; this is simple cost/benefit analysis. If making a bad hire is a lot more expensive than failing to make a good hire (and I'm pretty sure it is by a factor of at least several times - failing to make a good hire is really cheap), then you choose to make the cheap mistake of not hiring instead of the expensive mistake. This is about as far from utopianism or looking for the 'perfect hire' as you can get. It's all about finding enough 'good enough' hires, while avoiding expensive mistakes.
- Apocryphon 9y agoWhat makes a bad hire? Couldn't a 60-70% hire be trained up, rather than expecting all of the candidates to be 90%?
- vt100 9y agoIf you aim for 90%, and a few 60-70%s slip through, you can maybe train them up or fire them. If you aim for 60%-70% and end up with a 20-30%, then you have to fire them.