3 ms·
The article describes a process for hiring high-end employees, the kind that it is not free or cheap to loose. So your "zero loss of productivity for the employ
by mseebach 13y ago
The article describes a process for hiring high-end employees, the kind that it is not free or cheap to loose. So your "zero loss of productivity for the employer" assertion doesn't hold. Also, being fired with zero warning and zero notice period is not the typical way for these kinds of employees to change jobs, so the typical candidate will be employed while looking for a new job.
The fact that the interview process is a fairly sizable investment in time and effort from both ends is an important positive signifier for me - this means that all my potential colleagues will have been thoroughly scrutinized and are thus much more likely to be solid.
- mattmanser 13y agoAutomattic employs 225 people. And his point is that if you are getting rid of that employee, because they're a bad fit, anyone is pretty free or cheap to lose in the first few months. They suck, you're firing them. Why would you lose productivity? Not that I totally buy it, hiring and then firing a lot of people trying to find an amazing person instead of just an ok one will be bad for morale, get you blacklisted by agencies who can't collect their fees, getting a bad rep in dev circles and other consequences I probably can't think of.