4 ms·
In this and your previous post, you greatly under-appreciate the cost and disruption of a bad hire. Not to mention the time lost bringing a new hire up-to-speed
by ternaryoperator 6y ago
In this and your previous post, you greatly under-appreciate the cost and disruption of a bad hire. Not to mention the time lost bringing a new hire up-to-speed on the company's way of doing things. A bad hire can be very expensive and disruptive.
If a few more hours of interviews can avoid a bad hire, I think almost all experienced managers would opt for the extra interviews.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> If a few more hours of interviews can avoid a bad hire Can it, though? I'm sure it can increase the manager subjective feeling of confidence, but does it verifiably, objectively produce better results?
- ternaryoperator 6y agoI've uncovered craziness in candidates late in the process when they are no longer guarded about what they're saying. So, for myself, it has indeed produced objectively better results. I expect that most seasoned managers have had similar experiences.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y agoIf your work culture allowed you to remove bad hires, then the company would not experience the 'cost and disruption'. The problem isn't the time invested getting employees up to speed: you'll do that with good or bad employees. The problem is, bad employees stay, and often for long periods of time. Have you experienced the bureaucratic nightmare of formally dismissing someone? It's something we all would like to avoid, but clearly today's filtering is ineffective if our organizations are filled with dead weight.