4 ms·
Even if we assume that what you think is true then it is still solely the companies' fault. Because if the prospective employees are so shit why would you hire
by pi-e-sigma 3y ago
Even if we assume that what you think is true then it is still solely the companies' fault. Because if the prospective employees are so shit why would you hire them in the first place?
- srverma 3y agoI feel like assigning blame is neither here nor there. Leaders in these companies often look at what other companies are doing, and follow suite. There's an argument that Elon laying off 80% of twitter is another catalyst - so why companies not follow? Ultimately, if hiring managers offered these roles because work was needed but no longer is, would you blame them for adjusting their approach?
- spike021 3y agoEither that or why not interview, accept a certain level of experience, and then expect to do a bit more training during the onboarding phase. My previous two companies didn't do a great job with onboarding and I think it can be so varied and not very helpful many times.
- helsinki 3y agobecause A’s hire B’s that hire C’s that hire D’s /incorrect grammar
- groby_b 3y agoBecause time-to-market matters? Because even minimally productive folks were ROI-positive in ZIRP world, but a bad idea in 8% interest world? Because Wall Street rewards growth?
- leetharris 3y agoI'm not looking to assign blame or anything, I've just seen this pattern play out in the last couple of decades. I think it's a valid theory of the current "market correction."
- tensility 3y agoBecause that's how managers promote themselves...by hiring.