4 ms·

This also assumes that PagerDuty's hiring process is so shitty that 1 in 5 of their hires suck. In that case there's no guarantee they'll hire better talent, lo

• Phlarp 4y ago
  On the one hand PagerDuty's hiring process is shitty, but on the other hand the rest of the industry's process for identifying which heads to reduce is worse?
• ivalm 4y ago
  Start with distribution for employee Good: P(good)=p Bad: P(bad)=(1-p) Have a bad employee detector P(detected as bad|bad)=q1 P(detected as good|bad)=1-q1 P(detected as good|good)=q2 P(detected as bad|good)=1-q2 Fraction of employees detected as good: pq2+(1-p)(1-q1) Fraction of employees detected as bad (and therefore fired) p(1-q2)+(1-p)q1 Suppose you pay a discount on ability to hire new good employees as d (so probability to hire a new good employee is dp instead of p) So you benefit as long as p(1-q2)/((1-p)q1)<dp/(1-dp) Or (1-q2)/q1 < d (1-p)/(1-dp) Plugging in p=.8, d=.5, q1=q2=q (knowing good and bad is equally hard) (1-q)/q < .167 Break even is then q = 1/1.167=.857 So if you start with 80/20 distribution and after a while improve your discrimination to 86/14 then firing benefits you even if you are hiring from a 40/60 pool.