25 ms·
> Fired after 3 months. Which means you probably went 6 months or more without a role properly filled. On a small team that's a huge dent. For half a year. N
by qes 7y ago
> Fired after 3 months.
Which means you probably went 6 months or more without a role properly filled.
On a small team that's a huge dent. For half a year.
Not to mention the time spent in the hiring process itself, which you now get to repeat.
- mc32 7y agoThat’s one of the things. The other is some people are more litigious than others. When that happens, even though they don’t have a case, it can result in distractions —gags, evidence gathering, being called as witness, etc. On occasion companies will rather settle and get the distraction over with than go to court because it drains a small team who are now weary when hiring.
- boring_twenties 7y agoI mean, if you keep a guy who can't do the job, you still end up without a role properly filled.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoYou can’t have it both ways though. If you have a more selective process than the one that hires-then-fires-after-3-months, you’re _already_ going more than 6 months without filling the role, because by being risk averse to hiring “bad” candidates, you’re passing on good candidates. So either you pay the cost by trying more people more quickly, or you pay the cost desperately waiting and waiting because you’re so confident your interviewing filter is tuned correctly and that you know better regarding who to hire. (In a small company, the process of hiring is often quite poor because it’s idiosyncratically controlled by the early employees and founders, and usually reinforces their cultural views and their biases of interviewing, so having a restrictive filter is even more harmful to small companies.)