3 ms·
> because the cost of a bad hire is so much higher than the cost on missing out on someone good Is this true? Organizations I've been a part of the best hires
by JamesBarney 5y ago
> because the cost of a bad hire is so much higher than the cost on missing out on someone good
Is this true? Organizations I've been a part of the best hires were game changing for the company, and the worst hires just got fired after 6 months.
- the_gipsy 5y agoI see only really, really bad hires getting fired, after a year or so. Simply mediocre people are not fired, and don’t leave by themselves.
- Dudeman112 5y agoUnless you are paying a premium (and need exceptional employees), getting mediocre people qualifies them for being a good hire. So those people not leaving is a good thing.
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoYes, it’s true. Even if you remove the bad hires after six months, that’s six months of wasted mentoring effort and six months of of not being able to fill that position with someone who can do better. That’s also six months that the bad hire’s coworkers have to put up with a bad employee on their team. They’re going to wonder if bad hires are the new norm and take it as a sign that it’s time for them to move on. Bad hires have a lot of ripple effects. Most employees aren’t isolated islands within a company. Their coworkers suffer the most.