Comment by bskinny129
11 years ago
Those are simple numbers, but they don't get at the real issue. People say that because 1 bad hire can have negative effects on the whole team, causing others to get less done and leave. Missing a good hire doesn't poison your team.
But 1 bad hire is easily correctable - you fire the person. You won't know that you missed on the good hires.
I personally have worked with several awesome people that have interviewed with Google, and none of them got hired. They all said the interview process was flat out insulting.
Interestingly enough, most of them ended up at Facebook.
>>But 1 bad hire is easily correctable - you fire the person.
Not sure if you have ever been a manager, because firing someone is NEVER easy. It hurts everyone emotionally. The person getting fired feels awful. The person doing the firing feels awful (unless they are a real sociopath). And team morale tends to take a big hit.
Here is my stance: if you hire someone who isn't a good fit, unless they actively deceived you, it is your god damn job to find a way to make it work. As a principle you should treat people with respect and dignity, and not as easily disposable and replaceable cogs.
> it is your god damn job to find a way to make it work.
No, it isn't. This is why probation periods exist. If you hired someone and they aren't working out, then at the end of the probation period you don't keep them on.
Trying to force someone who doesn't fit the team dynamic to stay is going to hurt your org. It doesn't make you a "good" manager to say to everyone "I know this sucks but deal with it because letting them go would mean I was wrong."
> As a principle you should treat people with respect and dignity, and not as easily disposable and replaceable cogs.
Which is ironic because so many job descriptions I see today are basically written as "we want to hire someone with exactly these skills, who requires zero training, and can become an expert in our systems in their first week."
No one is that way, unless your system consists of pressing one button all day, but then the job description would probably require that the person have intricate knowledge of the button and is friends with the engineer who designed it so they know what to do if the button suddenly stops working.
If companies actually treated people with respect and dignity, I'd get the training I need to become a better employee, instead of going to management and begging them for any training every 6 months like the industry is now.
/rant
2 replies →
I have been a manager, and I have had to fire people.
I have also quit a job because they fired the wrong person.
In my opinion, if you fire someone and the reaction from the whole team isn't "thank god, that guy needed to go", then you made a mistake firing them and should have tried to make it work. In the past when I fired someone, the general reaction was much more along the lines of "what took you so long". In both cases I was the one at the table defending the person while everyone else said they needed to go.
Interestingly, in both cases the reason for firing them was that the person in question was not treating other people with respect. So what is worse, letting one person shit on your whole team and make everyone else feel bad, or getting that person off your team?
Managing isn't easy.
"it is your god damn job to find a way to make it work"
That attitude is how bloat happens. There is a middle ground here. Not firing bad employees also hurts many people emotionally as does an underperforming, overbloated company. Employees are as replaceable as employers. To use a sports analogy, it's the big leagues and you may not make the team and often times it is hard to know whether someone can make the team without a trial. I believe these draconian interview practices and contract-to-hire approaches are a direct result of the never-fire-bad-employees attitude.
3 replies →
I agree with you, but it's still easier to fire someone than to un-not-hire someone ;-)
The good and bad the op is talking about is different. If the attitude is not the best, you don't hire anyway.
If the candidate cannot invert a binary tree and gets mostly there, and has demonstrable real world software, it's a different thing.
> invert a binary tree
What does that even mean? Swap left-right child nodes? Write it linearly (n-th children at 2n and 2n+1) and reverse it as if it was a string? OP later described it as "to min-max the tree, ascending to descending." confusing me further.
>People say that because 1 bad hire can have negative effects on the whole team, causing others to get less done and leave. Missing a good hire doesn't poison your team.
That doesn't disprove what he said. In fact it strengthens it and makes missing a good hire even worse, because, as he said missing good hires -> MORE change of bad hires (that can "poison your team").
In other words, it's not a choice: "I'm better of rejecting a good hire than getting a bad one, because a bad one could poison the team".
By rejecting good ones, who're actually getting MORE bad ones. So it should be corrected to:
"I'm better of NOT rejecting good hires, or else I'll get more bad hires and poison my team".
This is akin to banning food because people might get a stomach ache, and this is bad for the team.