3 ms·
> There is no meaningful data that any hiring process--good or bad--improves the outcome of a hire. I don't have stats but anecdotally, hiring by personal refe
by taneq 6y ago
> There is no meaningful data that any hiring process--good or bad--improves the outcome of a hire.
I don't have stats but anecdotally, hiring by personal reference seems by far the most effective way to hire.
> Given this, why not hire lightly and fire lightly?
Because it's a huge financial and organisational burden on the hirer and an even huger (sometimes existential if you live in the U.S. due to health insurance but that's a whole nother rant) burden on the hiree.
- learc83 6y ago>Because it's a huge financial It shouldn't be. From my experience, the financial cost that comes from increasing the number of people you fire after a few weeks is less than what companies spend furiously guarding against making a bad hire. >and organisational burden on the hirer There's no reason this needs to be the case.
- InfiniteRand 6y agoTo add to this, as a senior employee, bringing someone junior up to speed to the point where they can make actual contributions is a big consumer of time typically. Less so for employees who come in at medium rank but even then there is a hand holding period as the new person gets used to the company culture. In a sufficiently large company you could have a specialized onboarding team, but you’d need to be careful that the specialized team doesn’t get isolated from the technical culture and needs of the rest of the company