4 ms·

Yeah, you could put it that way. Personally, I prefer "I can't pay very much, so people who think they can earn more go elsewhere" I mean, hell, I'm only pay

by lsc 16y ago

Yeah, you could put it that way. Personally, I prefer "I can't pay very much, so people who think they can earn more go elsewhere" I mean, hell, I'm only paying myself about $30K a year, and I'm located in Silicon Valley. You can get new people for that, but you can't keep experienced folks for that kind of money. Not here. I'm very conscious of perceived fairness, and try to pay people accordingly, so I'm not worried about a confident employee negotiating a higher that warranted salary. I mean, I acknowledge that they are worth more, and I'm not offended when they shop around their resume... but my budget is what it is. I also tend to go for inexperienced people for the same reason. Do you think that's unethical? I mean, I've told everyone who has worked for me that I will expect them to leave for more money at some point (unless my business grows fast enough to suddenly pay everyone 'experienced person' rates... but so far the experience of people who worked for me has grown quite a bit faster than my company's ability to pay, so people leave, and I give good recommendations.) You are right that you should try to ignore attributes that are not relevant to the job at hand (including, in this case, confidence) and my own personal prejudices in the matter, I agree, make me look like an asshole who doesn't like dealing with other assholes (which, to be fair, I am.)

philwelch 16y ago
If you're completely upfront about that situation it sounds pretty good--to the point where I wouldn't mind working for you myself to gain experience. I suspect a confident person will, worst case, just tell you they're not interested from the outset. Not hiring confident people implies that you're less than upfront about the situation (edit: absent the other explanation you've given--right now I don't find that ethically questionable at all anymore).
- lsc 16y ago
  Most of the people I've hired in the last five years have known oneanother socially before they worked for me, so if the first guy had a bad experience, it's likely that nobody else would have touched me.
donw 16y ago
As long as you're willing to train people up, this sounds like a great way of doing business. You get cheaper employees, with the trade-off of having to educate them (which costs time), and they get both useful skills and a reference (in exchange for taking a much lower rate of pay). Definitely not a zero-sum game. :)
- lsc 16y ago
  Yeah, that's the idea. It is the only way to hire customer support people. people who have worked phone or email tech support at other companies are extremely difficult to train into any sort of a customer facing role. I mean, sometimes they will make fine SysAdmins or Programmers, but working phone support usually kills off that which is required to deal with customers like human beings, especially in introverts, and, well, most qualified SysAdmins and Programmers are introverts. as for other roles, it has it's ups and downs. On the upside, you get things done your way. On the downside? well, if your way isn't the best way, well, in the worst case you think your way is the best way and you keep doing it until it ends badly. In the best case, you know your way isn't any good and you hire an expert for consultation. There are many projects where I look back and say "It would have been cheaper if I just paid someone who knew what they were doing $100/hr to come in and just make it work for us." but obviously, I keep doing it, so I think, overall, the approach works for me.

by lsc 16y ago

philwelch 16y ago

If you're completely upfront about that situation it sounds pretty good--to the point where I wouldn't mind working for you myself to gain experience. I suspect a confident person will, worst case, just tell you they're not interested from the outset. Not hiring confident people implies that you're less than upfront about the situation (edit: absent the other explanation you've given--right now I don't find that ethically questionable at all anymore).

lsc 16y ago
Most of the people I've hired in the last five years have known oneanother socially before they worked for me, so if the first guy had a bad experience, it's likely that nobody else would have touched me.

donw 16y ago

As long as you're willing to train people up, this sounds like a great way of doing business. You get cheaper employees, with the trade-off of having to educate them (which costs time), and they get both useful skills and a reference (in exchange for taking a much lower rate of pay). Definitely not a zero-sum game. :)

lsc 16y ago
Yeah, that's the idea. It is the only way to hire customer support people. people who have worked phone or email tech support at other companies are extremely difficult to train into any sort of a customer facing role. I mean, sometimes they will make fine SysAdmins or Programmers, but working phone support usually kills off that which is required to deal with customers like human beings, especially in introverts, and, well, most qualified SysAdmins and Programmers are introverts. as for other roles, it has it's ups and downs. On the upside, you get things done your way. On the downside? well, if your way isn't the best way, well, in the worst case you think your way is the best way and you keep doing it until it ends badly. In the best case, you know your way isn't any good and you hire an expert for consultation. There are many projects where I look back and say "It would have been cheaper if I just paid someone who knew what they were doing $100/hr to come in and just make it work for us." but obviously, I keep doing it, so I think, overall, the approach works for me.