3 ms·
This is very true! I believe (don't have a good reference) that companies in the past had more incentive and means to cultivate or train people on the job, an
by supernova87a 7y ago
This is very true! I believe (don't have a good reference) that companies in the past had more incentive and means to cultivate or train people on the job, and thus, a formal signal of education wasn't as important. (and until 1950s(?), wasn't as available to many)
I seem to observe that now many companies generally want to pick the already-developed crop of people who fit the bill to a T, have had education or previous employment do the job of training / filtering who to consider, and not engage in the training part of it much any more.
Maybe it's due to the increasing cost of hiring people that you must only take a chance on a sure bet, and that there is less and less appetite (financial return-wise) to spend money on training people who are just as likely to pick up and leave for another company.
- cat199 7y ago> Maybe it's due to the increasing cost of hiring people ... perhaps put another way, the 'professionalization' of HR?
- supernova87a 7y agoI also meant, when employing someone for any kind of position of responsibility costs $100k minimum, you don't make big bets on unproven people.
- ghaff 7y agoEspecially in "tech," job tenures are generally shorter than they used to be. It wasn't at all unusual at the big computer companies of the 80s and 90s to have a fairly large group of employees who had worked at a company for a decade or two (or more). For various reasons, on both the employer and employee side, this has changed a lot especially when you're talking startups--but also companies like Amazon from what I understand. In any case, if the expected tenure of an employee is only a couple of years, it's probably unreasonable in most cases to have a 6-12 month training period during which the employee isn't especially productive.