Comment by slowtrek
1 month ago
If we were to do this, we wouldn't just pick someone so out of the range of what's needed. So basically, if you reframe your question, would I hire a 70 average student on a team of 90 average students? Yes. We would not pick the 50 average students. This is all possible within reason, the kind of stuff being discussed in this thread is to purge people who are 80 average students (free riders in a 95 average class).
Will we need to tutor and support the 70 average student? Yes. Why would we do this? It's good for the soul. The stuff I'm talking about has no place in business, as far as we care to understand as a society at the moment.
My dangerous opinion is that the purpose of a company is to provide a living for its employees.
As in, if you are on the ship, we can absolutely find something for you to do. Here, color the fucking map, clean the sails. Why would we throw them off the ship?
That's another angle of what I mean, but absolutely. Stop expecting everyone to be above average, use your human resources intelligently, put people where they're productive and happy, and stop chasing nonstop growth. Mostly the last one. If we recalibrate our expectations about growth, I think we could tame the boom/bust cycle.
1 reply →
That isn't dangerous, just ignorant.
It's not ignorant, it's a different perspective on priorities that is outside your orthodoxy.
1 reply →