5 ms·
> You let one bad, he will hire more in the future. When your organization can recognize a poor investment but cannot act on it, you have an organizational pro
by Supermancho 5y ago
> You let one bad, he will hire more in the future.
When your organization can recognize a poor investment but cannot act on it, you have an organizational problem. Why would someone get to hire more "bad" (for whatever that means) if you can recognize it? Even if you're doing all the hiring yourself, it's unlikely you'll have a 100% record over time.
- marcinzm 5y agoMost companies have organizational problems. So a system that only works if you don't will fail for the majority of companies.
- vanusa 5y agoMost companies have organizational problems. Right. But we can't talk about that, of course. Instead the corrective strategy seems to be: "Let's torture some more candidates. It's cheap and it's easy, after all."
- quietbritishjim 5y agoFor one thing, in many countries it's hard to get rid of a poor employee unless they're malicious or really exceptionally terrible. For another, even if "an organisational problem" or inconvenient labour laws don't get in your way, firing employees can have a serious effect on the morale of those left behind. And for good reason! Usually companies that regularly fire people for poor performance has a different sort of culture than companies that don't. In my experience, that's the worse organisational problem. The right solution is just to be more careful about who you hire in the first place.