4 ms·

Counterintuitively I think the problem with hiring is actually a problem with firing. Hear me out. Everyone is so focused on finding this mythical perfect cand

Counterintuitively I think the problem with hiring is actually a problem with firing. Hear me out. Everyone is so focused on finding this mythical perfect candidate, instead of giving people a chance. Which is really another way of saying "We're afraid to fire people." Culturally, we should hire and fire more freely. I once got a call from a company that said I was an absolute perfect fit for what they were doing-- would I consider a 6-month contract-to-hire? I had been in my job 10 years and told them no. They were so flabbergasted they called back and asked if I wouldn't consider it, that the CTH was simply to see if I was a "culture fit." I told them in plain language that if I was such a perfect candidate, they could hire me straight out. That I'd been in a job 10 years, was obviously happy, why would I jump ship so they could dangle employment as a carrot in front of me? I can't tell you how many jobs I've not gotten because I didn't get some gotchya question-- or in some cases understood more than the person interviewing me. The abusive hours need to end, as does the concept of "culture fit" which is just a proxy for age, race, religion, binger drinker status, etc. We need to stop judging people and trying to feel better about ourselves by dismissing people who can't answer questions we just googled ourselves. Almost every company I've ever talked to claims they only hire the best candidates. That simply, cannot be true. How is anyone supposed to grow if you can only get a job you're an expert in? And when what you're supposed to be an expert in changes every two years? The answer is, culturally, you're not.

chillacy 8y ago
So instead of giving you a 6 month trial run followed by employment they should give you a permanently temporary gig? Because a job where they hire and fire freely sounds a lot like how companies treat contractors.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  That's already the way almost all jobs are. Being "hired" isn't a protection for your job. It just means you're getting automatic tax withholding. I was a formal full-time employee at NCC Group until just a month ago, when they fired me with no warning, no explanation, and no severance.
  - izacus 8y ago
    In US perhaps, elsewhere a job signifies significantly greater income stability.
  - jinglebells 8y ago
    You can't fire people for no reason in the UK and probably the rest of Europe as well or you'll end up being taken to court for unfair dismissal. Roles can be made redundant, but it's a lengthy process.
    - gezxfPajuc9x 8y ago
      I think, it depends on your agreement / contract.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    At my company employment is also at will so they can terminate, but they try very hard not to. In practice contractors are let go much more frequently than employees, and when employees are let go they tend to get a soft landing. But maybe my job is the exception.
- oceanghost 8y ago
  I was, of course, using the story to illustrate the absurdity of the overall situation. I don't want to leave a secure job for an insecure situation because they're difficult to find. They won't consider a direct hire for a "perfect candidate" -- proving my fears. My point which perhaps I should have been made more clearly is that they're asking me to leave a direct hire situation for a temp job. They're asking me for a commitment they're unwilling to make themselves. Power asymmetries suck.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    I see, thank you for explaining. It just seemed odd that you yourself sought a secure situation but in you also said "Culturally, we should hire and fire more freely" which to me sounded like we shouldn't have these secure situations at all.
    - oceanghost 8y ago
      Nah, you're right. It was unclear.
wccrawford 8y ago
Culturally, we should sue people less frequently. Until that happens, you won't find companies being more willing to fire people, and therefore won't be willing to give them a chance unless they look really good.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  > we should sue people less frequently. Until that happens, you won't find companies being more willing to fire people No, you could also find this if the legal system stopped encouraging meritless suits. Suing would be less frequent then, but as an effect, not a cause.

chillacy 8y ago

So instead of giving you a 6 month trial run followed by employment they should give you a permanently temporary gig? Because a job where they hire and fire freely sounds a lot like how companies treat contractors.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
That's already the way almost all jobs are. Being "hired" isn't a protection for your job. It just means you're getting automatic tax withholding. I was a formal full-time employee at NCC Group until just a month ago, when they fired me with no warning, no explanation, and no severance.
- izacus 8y ago
  In US perhaps, elsewhere a job signifies significantly greater income stability.
- jinglebells 8y ago
  You can't fire people for no reason in the UK and probably the rest of Europe as well or you'll end up being taken to court for unfair dismissal. Roles can be made redundant, but it's a lengthy process.
  - gezxfPajuc9x 8y ago
    I think, it depends on your agreement / contract.
- chillacy 8y ago
  At my company employment is also at will so they can terminate, but they try very hard not to. In practice contractors are let go much more frequently than employees, and when employees are let go they tend to get a soft landing. But maybe my job is the exception.
oceanghost 8y ago
I was, of course, using the story to illustrate the absurdity of the overall situation. I don't want to leave a secure job for an insecure situation because they're difficult to find. They won't consider a direct hire for a "perfect candidate" -- proving my fears. My point which perhaps I should have been made more clearly is that they're asking me to leave a direct hire situation for a temp job. They're asking me for a commitment they're unwilling to make themselves. Power asymmetries suck.
- chillacy 8y ago
  I see, thank you for explaining. It just seemed odd that you yourself sought a secure situation but in you also said "Culturally, we should hire and fire more freely" which to me sounded like we shouldn't have these secure situations at all.
  - oceanghost 8y ago
    Nah, you're right. It was unclear.

wccrawford 8y ago

Culturally, we should sue people less frequently. Until that happens, you won't find companies being more willing to fire people, and therefore won't be willing to give them a chance unless they look really good.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
> we should sue people less frequently. Until that happens, you won't find companies being more willing to fire people No, you could also find this if the legal system stopped encouraging meritless suits. Suing would be less frequent then, but as an effect, not a cause.