4 ms·
I find this entire premise odd. The question ought to be "Why aren't you consistently hiring people better than yourself?". That is a big part of the reason you
by mberning 14y ago
I find this entire premise odd. The question ought to be "Why aren't you consistently hiring people better than yourself?". That is a big part of the reason you hire somebody in the first place. If I were brilliant at every imaginable task I suppose I could do everything myself given enough time. When I get a chance to bring in talent I go out and try to get people that I know are more brilliant, more focused, and more experienced than myself.
- alanctgardner2 14y agoI don't think you're contradicting the author... he's warning about some of the interpersonal issues that can arise. He certainly wants to attract brilliant people to take over things he doesn't do as well. It's just that people can hand off duties badly, or undermine their "replacement", even though they need to delegate those responsibilities - intentionally or accidentally
- stevenameyer 14y agoThe issue with saying I'm not going to hire someone if I can do their job given enough time is that time is a very valuable resource. Ideally you would be hiring the best person on the planet with every hire but that is unreasonable and sometimes you just don't have enough man-hours in a company to be able to keep up with demand. Sometimes you need to make a hire in order to keep up the speed and if the only person available is good, but maybe not better then you would you still make the hire? I think both decisions have merit depending on situation.