3 ms·
Hiring should be strictly meritocracy; But training should be available to everyone.
by gjsman-1000 3y ago
Hiring should be strictly meritocracy;
But training should be available to everyone.
- oijj 3y ago[dead]
- LeafItAlone 3y ago> Hiring should be strictly meritocracy I’ve turned down hiring people who had more technical skills than who I did hire, because the more skilled people were assholes who would have ruined the team cohesiveness (which I have seen happen on previous teams). Skills aren’t the only thing that matter and “culture fit” is a real thing.
- blastonico 3y agoOr...you're unable to lead high skilled people. In my team, I always look for the best and manage to make them work well together.
- LeafItAlone 3y agoOh, I’m definitely not the best manager at all! I severely lack in my management skills. Seems like you are a better manager than me. But I wasn’t the manager of those teams I referenced.
- jmye 3y agoOr... sometimes, the amount of time you spend making an asshole work well enough with other people (let alone a bunch of assholes work with each other) could've been vastly better spent on literally anything else. High-skilled people are not always high-skilled contributors, and it's not a management issue. GP is probably a better manager than most for working to find people that enhance his organization, rather than force-fitting detractors and never looking at the bigger picture. I usually wonder if this "only skill matters" opinion is purely held by people leading small teams, or new managers. I have never seen it work in practice or with a team of more than one.
- chrismcb 3y agoThe op said "meritocracy" not "technical skills." There are other skills, such as people skills you need to also consider.
- peterfirefly 3y agoEven the stupid?
- gjsman-1000 3y agoIf they are stupid, they’ll drop out of the training.
- peterfirefly 3y agoThe requirements for passing can always be lowered. Always.
- calebio 3y agosure. equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome.
- peterfirefly 3y agoThe return on investment would likely be quite low. Who should pay for this positive right?
- gjsman-1000 3y agoWell, YouTube’s got it 90% of the way there. I didn’t say the corporations would or should be forced to pay for anyone who knocks on the door.
- peterfirefly 3y agoOh, then we don't disagree. The internet is indeed wonderful in many ways and YouTube is a part of that -- from Indian videos about how to replace obscure components inside old printers to MIT Courseware and 3Blue1Brown. It's also possible to get a very good start on language learning using only YouTube videos. I hate artificial barriers -- but I also feel a need to warn about the bad consequences of unrestricted positive rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights