3 ms·
You'd hope that the people being hired to be later fired are at least given a chance to prove themselves. There's a world of difference between "We're not sure
by leoedin 5y ago
You'd hope that the people being hired to be later fired are at least given a chance to prove themselves. There's a world of difference between "We're not sure about this person, so let's hire them and we can always fire them if they're bad" vs "This person is definitely terrible at their job (or obnoxious) and I'm only hiring them so I don't feel bad about definitely firing them later".
The first one is actually commendable - the interview process isn't completely effective and sometimes either lack of experience or confidence can exclude otherwise capable people who might excel.
- svachalek 5y agoPossibly they could outdo someone already on the team who would be fired instead. But the metric demands blood.
- cratermoon 5y agoThe new hire could outdo someone else but management favoritism for that someone else means the new hire is sacrificed.
- gojomo 5y agoIndeed - there are extreme limitations of interviews & other evaluations pre-hire. They'll rank some good candidates "below the hire line", and some charismatic bad candidates, who temporarily present well, as hires. Given that, a policy of "we're going to hire X% more people than we need, but fire fast" could be seen as a generous, progressive, error-correcting process. It's better than leaving those people who interview poorly always just short of the real, compensated, supervised employment situations where they could prove themselves. The grounds for judging the practice should be based on whether it's done honestly. Is the practice, and actual attrition-rates/risk-of-short-tenure, explained up-front? Are hires paid for all hours worked? Do those fired receive clear feedback for why they're not continuing?