4 ms·

Being a hard ass CEO isn't sexy, but it's what so many successful CEO's are. > Often, it is like a Russian nesting doll of contractor, subcontractor, sub-subco

Being a hard ass CEO isn't sexy, but it's what so many successful CEO's are. > Often, it is like a Russian nesting doll of contractor, subcontractor, sub-subcontractor, etc. before you finally find someone doing actual work. I'd also argue that these multi-level contractor setups are a major security concern. Ideally they should make it policy to have no more than one additional level between Tesla and the contractor performing the work. Aggregate contracting will make assigning liability a difficult task and it's likely the person working for you is being underpaid as each layer takes their cut. Meanwhile you get 100% of the shit-storm from any media backlash about worker salary/conditions.

solarkraft 8y ago
It really makes me wonder: Isn't using contractors super inefficient? Why do companies, when they could do it in house, use them?
- querulous 8y ago
  it's a lot easier to have a contracting shop send over 500 people than it is to hire 500 people
- icanhackit 8y ago
  It's not inefficient if your metric is quickly getting workers in the door as contracting firms are built for this purpose. But you could argue that it will result in a poorer selection of high-quality candidates. I'd say this is because when hiring non-technical workers they're incentivised for numbers. This is in contrast to employment consultants getting fees in intervals over a period of a person's time with an employer, usually done for executive positions. So I'd say optimise your agreements with contracting firms for quality rather than quantity by paying them bonuses in intervals, with a low initial payment for the finding the candidate.
- mikeash 8y ago
  There were a few good reasons I saw over my years as a contractor: 1. You can get a functioning team much more quickly. 2. It's a lot easier for someone unfamiliar with the field in question to evaluate the quality of a consulting company than to evaluate a prospective hire. 3. It's a lot easier to get rid of them once you don't need them anymore.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Why do companies, when they could do it in house, use them? A few basic reasons: * You can't do it in-house as well as a contractor who specializes in this field, or as well as this particular contractor. Very broadly speaking, the best people in field X want to work for themselves, do things their way, and keep the revenue from their work. They don't want to be several layers deep in management at your company, to have f-ng morons (i.e., anyone else) telling them how to do their job, and to be paid a salary for the breathtaking, save-the-day miracles they routinely output. * It's not worth the investment: You would have to find and hire talent, ramp up, provide resources to them (equipment, training, etc.), be able to manage the talent in a field that isn't your expertise, and keep them busy and interested. Maybe you don't have enough scale in the things they do to support quality resources; maybe you just don't have enough work or enough interesting work for them. * Every additional employee or capability is a distraction for the organization, including management. Keep focused on the things you do best and that are strategically important; you don't even have time for that. If you're small restaurant chain, IT isn't strategically important - it just has to be reliable and good enough. Outsource it and focus on world-beating food, service, and marketing. * You don't want to pay benefits, taxes, or have the other responsibilities of being an employer. See: Uber. * Sometimes it's just politics: I once worked in an outsourced capacity for a company where the IT manager simply didn't want to invest in a technology that would threaten their fiefdom, so somebody brought in a contractor. It was not a fun place to be.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  The government has penalized companies who hire full time employees with lots of expensive regulatory requirements and litigation risks. Hiring a person is one of the riskiest things any company does. It's foolish to do so unless absolutely necessary.
- nraynaud 8y ago
  some jobs are really temporary, the electrician installing your painting booth has no future at your company, the guy making the tools for the press either. Some consultants are here to solve a painting adhesion problem, and they have no reason to be here when it is solved.
- xtreme 8y ago
  It can be helpful to view in-house employees as workstations and contractors as AWS. Employees can take more time to find, train, and manage while contractors can be hired (and fired) rather quickly.

solarkraft 8y ago

It really makes me wonder: Isn't using contractors super inefficient? Why do companies, when they could do it in house, use them?

querulous 8y ago
it's a lot easier to have a contracting shop send over 500 people than it is to hire 500 people
icanhackit 8y ago
It's not inefficient if your metric is quickly getting workers in the door as contracting firms are built for this purpose. But you could argue that it will result in a poorer selection of high-quality candidates. I'd say this is because when hiring non-technical workers they're incentivised for numbers. This is in contrast to employment consultants getting fees in intervals over a period of a person's time with an employer, usually done for executive positions. So I'd say optimise your agreements with contracting firms for quality rather than quantity by paying them bonuses in intervals, with a low initial payment for the finding the candidate.
mikeash 8y ago
There were a few good reasons I saw over my years as a contractor: 1. You can get a functioning team much more quickly. 2. It's a lot easier for someone unfamiliar with the field in question to evaluate the quality of a consulting company than to evaluate a prospective hire. 3. It's a lot easier to get rid of them once you don't need them anymore.
forapurpose 8y ago
> Why do companies, when they could do it in house, use them? A few basic reasons: * You can't do it in-house as well as a contractor who specializes in this field, or as well as this particular contractor. Very broadly speaking, the best people in field X want to work for themselves, do things their way, and keep the revenue from their work. They don't want to be several layers deep in management at your company, to have f-ng morons (i.e., anyone else) telling them how to do their job, and to be paid a salary for the breathtaking, save-the-day miracles they routinely output. * It's not worth the investment: You would have to find and hire talent, ramp up, provide resources to them (equipment, training, etc.), be able to manage the talent in a field that isn't your expertise, and keep them busy and interested. Maybe you don't have enough scale in the things they do to support quality resources; maybe you just don't have enough work or enough interesting work for them. * Every additional employee or capability is a distraction for the organization, including management. Keep focused on the things you do best and that are strategically important; you don't even have time for that. If you're small restaurant chain, IT isn't strategically important - it just has to be reliable and good enough. Outsource it and focus on world-beating food, service, and marketing. * You don't want to pay benefits, taxes, or have the other responsibilities of being an employer. See: Uber. * Sometimes it's just politics: I once worked in an outsourced capacity for a company where the IT manager simply didn't want to invest in a technology that would threaten their fiefdom, so somebody brought in a contractor. It was not a fun place to be.
Consultant32452 8y ago
The government has penalized companies who hire full time employees with lots of expensive regulatory requirements and litigation risks. Hiring a person is one of the riskiest things any company does. It's foolish to do so unless absolutely necessary.
nraynaud 8y ago
some jobs are really temporary, the electrician installing your painting booth has no future at your company, the guy making the tools for the press either. Some consultants are here to solve a painting adhesion problem, and they have no reason to be here when it is solved.
xtreme 8y ago
It can be helpful to view in-house employees as workstations and contractors as AWS. Employees can take more time to find, train, and manage while contractors can be hired (and fired) rather quickly.