4 ms·
>...they'd rather have a low performer than no one at all. Seems contradictory to many modern interview process opinions that low performers introduce a net ne
by Frost1x 4y ago
>...they'd rather have a low performer than no one at all.
Seems contradictory to many modern interview process opinions that low performers introduce a net negative effect.
- Jagerbizzle 4y agoAgreed. It's easy to plan around and measure the potential business impact of no one. It's challenging to do the same with a low performing or otherwise inconsistent employee.
- lmm 4y agoEven if a low performer reduces team productivity, having more team members rather than fewer might be in the manager's personal interest.
- cdavid 4y agoIt is more complicated than that * losing the low performer in this context means you lose a head count. If you keep the low performer during hard times, you can hope to get them backfilled when the economic environment gets better * there are often more work to do than you have resources for: if as an EM, you have to deal with PM who refuse to adapt to capacity, you can simply assign the low perfomers to the projects you don't care about. * etc. once you reach a certain size, those issues happen in pretty much any organization in my experience.