7 ms·

I honestly think this is a product of large corporations being essentially incapable of firing bad resources. Companies are terrified of litigation and bad PR s

I honestly think this is a product of large corporations being essentially incapable of firing bad resources. Companies are terrified of litigation and bad PR so the only control mechanism is the interview process.

buro9 5y ago
I do not disagree. The more people who interview, the more average the candidate has to be to succeed. For all the talk of "hire fast, fire fast" the reality is that most companies do not know how to evaluate someone within the probation time period in which they could let go of someone with ease (usually under 60 days) and after that they then fear doing so even when it's miserable for both the person (candidate) and team involved. I hire a lot, and some of my thoughts on the process: 1. The interview process should be short and sweet. 3 steps is enough, if you can't make a decision in 3 steps then the decision is to decline. 2. The hiring manager should be the first to interview. We have a good idea of what we're looking for in a team and what other roles other managers have open, we can speak of most teams and can spare both the candidate and ICs from interviews that cannot realistically result in a hire. Likewise, we can increase the chance of a successful hire by having the people from the team the candidate would be joining conduct the interview. 3. Some of the best candidates get love/hate feedback, a candidate who consistently gets "hire" feedback is seldom as good as those who get "strong hire" mixed with "no hire" feedback. The consistent "hire" usually typifies an "on the fence but don't want to take responsibility for declining so will wave through"... opinions should be stronger, interviewers should be excited for people - challenge whether a consistent stream of "hire" feedback actually means "hire". All that said, always listen to "strong no hire" when it turns up. 4. To increase diversity you only need to interview people who aren't already over-represented in your org... you will hire those people at exactly the same rate as you hire everyone else. If you don't have these people in your pipeline you have a sourcing or branding/reputation problem so focus on those things. If you do have those people and aren't hiring at the same rate, you have a bias problem and should root it out with urgency. 5. Degrees are not a signal, so absence of a degree is not a signal. 6. Don't hire based on what someone has done as it only reflects what their employers asked them to do, instead hire on what they can potentially do - if it lines up with what you want to achieve it's a win-win. Most of the above can be summed up as: Have an opinion and care about what you're doing.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  > the probation time period in which they could let go of someone with ease (usually under 60 days) Is this a thing? I would certainly judge a company doing this, and likely leave a manager who hired someone with an expectation that the beginning is just a probationary period, if I’m understanding you correctly (I hope i’m not). Leaving a safe job for a probationary period puts too much risk on the employee that the employer doesn’t really share.
  - buro9 5y ago
    Some companies do "hire fast, fire fast"... so yes. But I choose not to work for those companies, instead I prefer a strongly opinionated hiring process that won't play with anyone's life like that. That said, treating probation as probation is definitely a thing. Especially in legal domains such as France and Germany. In the USA it's far less of a thing as employers can mostly let go of people at almost any time if they wish to and it's not a pattern of discrimination (though this is the fear of course, that a pattern could be formed).
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
      I see. I could imagine accepting something like that if I got legal protections afterwards like some of those countries have.
  - thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
    IME most UK jobs have probationary periods. There's also a statutory probationary period of 2 years where you can be fired for any[1] reason. [1] strictly not any reason, you can't be discriminated against, but enough reasons that they could invent one.
abeppu 5y ago
Why are companies afraid of litigation? My understanding has been that, excluding discrimination on the basis of a few protected categories, sexual harassment retaliation, and whistle-blower protections, in the US private employers can fire non-union employees at any time without cause. (IANAL) Are large companies really afraid of PR in firing individuals? If a company with many thousands of employees fires one person, outside of the C-level officers is that a news story? Even if disgruntled former employee tries to say anything disparaging, doesn't that immediately make them less credible as a source?
dimmke 5y ago
This is not the case at Amazon. They are known for PIPing engineers. They’re not shy about it. Also all of these big tech companies can just not refresh your stock if they don’t want to bother with firing you, which effectively halves your compensation.

buro9 5y ago

I do not disagree. The more people who interview, the more average the candidate has to be to succeed. For all the talk of "hire fast, fire fast" the reality is that most companies do not know how to evaluate someone within the probation time period in which they could let go of someone with ease (usually under 60 days) and after that they then fear doing so even when it's miserable for both the person (candidate) and team involved. I hire a lot, and some of my thoughts on the process: 1. The interview process should be short and sweet. 3 steps is enough, if you can't make a decision in 3 steps then the decision is to decline. 2. The hiring manager should be the first to interview. We have a good idea of what we're looking for in a team and what other roles other managers have open, we can speak of most teams and can spare both the candidate and ICs from interviews that cannot realistically result in a hire. Likewise, we can increase the chance of a successful hire by having the people from the team the candidate would be joining conduct the interview. 3. Some of the best candidates get love/hate feedback, a candidate who consistently gets "hire" feedback is seldom as good as those who get "strong hire" mixed with "no hire" feedback. The consistent "hire" usually typifies an "on the fence but don't want to take responsibility for declining so will wave through"... opinions should be stronger, interviewers should be excited for people - challenge whether a consistent stream of "hire" feedback actually means "hire". All that said, always listen to "strong no hire" when it turns up. 4. To increase diversity you only need to interview people who aren't already over-represented in your org... you will hire those people at exactly the same rate as you hire everyone else. If you don't have these people in your pipeline you have a sourcing or branding/reputation problem so focus on those things. If you do have those people and aren't hiring at the same rate, you have a bias problem and should root it out with urgency. 5. Degrees are not a signal, so absence of a degree is not a signal. 6. Don't hire based on what someone has done as it only reflects what their employers asked them to do, instead hire on what they can potentially do - if it lines up with what you want to achieve it's a win-win. Most of the above can be summed up as: Have an opinion and care about what you're doing.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> the probation time period in which they could let go of someone with ease (usually under 60 days) Is this a thing? I would certainly judge a company doing this, and likely leave a manager who hired someone with an expectation that the beginning is just a probationary period, if I’m understanding you correctly (I hope i’m not). Leaving a safe job for a probationary period puts too much risk on the employee that the employer doesn’t really share.
- buro9 5y ago
  Some companies do "hire fast, fire fast"... so yes. But I choose not to work for those companies, instead I prefer a strongly opinionated hiring process that won't play with anyone's life like that. That said, treating probation as probation is definitely a thing. Especially in legal domains such as France and Germany. In the USA it's far less of a thing as employers can mostly let go of people at almost any time if they wish to and it's not a pattern of discrimination (though this is the fear of course, that a pattern could be formed).
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    I see. I could imagine accepting something like that if I got legal protections afterwards like some of those countries have.
- thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
  IME most UK jobs have probationary periods. There's also a statutory probationary period of 2 years where you can be fired for any[1] reason. [1] strictly not any reason, you can't be discriminated against, but enough reasons that they could invent one.

abeppu 5y ago

Why are companies afraid of litigation? My understanding has been that, excluding discrimination on the basis of a few protected categories, sexual harassment retaliation, and whistle-blower protections, in the US private employers can fire non-union employees at any time without cause. (IANAL) Are large companies really afraid of PR in firing individuals? If a company with many thousands of employees fires one person, outside of the C-level officers is that a news story? Even if disgruntled former employee tries to say anything disparaging, doesn't that immediately make them less credible as a source?

dimmke 5y ago

This is not the case at Amazon. They are known for PIPing engineers. They’re not shy about it. Also all of these big tech companies can just not refresh your stock if they don’t want to bother with firing you, which effectively halves your compensation.