3 ms·
Agreed. Many people parrot this line, but I have not seen anyone put actual data behind it. I have seen made-up scenarios about what could happen. Those usua
by vonmoltke 13y ago
Agreed. Many people parrot this line, but I have not seen anyone put actual data behind it. I have seen made-up scenarios about what could happen. Those usually stick to near worst case situations, though, with no indication of the actual risk.
People also seem to minimize or ignore the cost of a no-hire. If your company has an open position it is trying to fill, it should be feeling pain. Work isn't getting done. Projects or clients can't be bid on. Current engineers are working overtime to meet commitments. If you can look at this situation, shrug your shoulders, and say, "Eh, we're going along fine. We can wait several months for a perfect fit.", then I think you need to re-evaluate why you have an open position in the first place.
I would like to see some actual data to back up this conception. Something that gives the actual statistical risk. As someone mentioned on another story here recently, humans tend to over-estimate the risks of negative events. I think the risk of bad hires in SV has been seriously over-estimated.
- hso9791 13y agoIn my observation, the rule that people get promoted to their highest level of incompetence holds true way too often. I.e. the incompetent new guy just has to fake it long enough that he gets promoted. Now his incompetence has leverage. He can most likely shove responsibility onto others, and eventually gets promoted again. More leverage. If I were to start an organization, I would make damned sure that every single new hire could do what they were hired to do - and then some. Otherwise, the office dynamics may lead to a stagnant organization over time.