3 ms·
Sure. Consider incentives though. A false negative is cheap (at most you spent the time interviewing the person), while a false positive is expensive (good luck
by lobotryas 13y ago
Sure. Consider incentives though. A false negative is cheap (at most you spent the time interviewing the person), while a false positive is expensive (good luck firing the person in our litigious environment).
- michael_miller 13y agoA false positive is expensive for more than just litigious reasons. Hiring a bad apple can destroy the culture of a small company. As Steve Jobs said, "It’s too easy, as a team grows, to put up with a few B players, and they then attract a few more B players, and soon you will even have some C players."
- wavefunction 13y agoSteve Jobs, that noted "good apple" who took advantage of the Woz... Our Jobs who art in Heaven hallowed be thy name
- fossuser 13y agoI agree and also prefer false negatives when I do interviews - the cost of having someone terrible join your team is much worse than the cost of missing out on the occasional good person. Of course there is a balance and if you're routinely turning away great candidates there's probably a problem with your interview process that should be checked out. I used 'flawed' in the sense that interviewing is a hard problem in general. Edit: Fixed
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]