6 ms·

> That could be 15 years of hiding behind far more competent teammates at a company that has a pathological problem with not firing under-performers Funny that

• moron4hire 13y ago
  This doesn't seem to account for anti-productivity at all, i.e. people who create more work by the end of the day than they complete. It's hard to quantify anti-productivity, let along get anyone reviewing work to admit that anti-productivity has occurred. Our work culture tends to value activity over all else, so the common sentiment is that a warm butt in the chair is better than nothing, even if that warm butt is making more work for everyone else. I'm hoping that my method will actually ameliorate much of this. By starting the person part-time, perhaps their familiarity with the project builds "faster" over a unit-work-time than it would otherwise (I've personally found my comfort level with a project to be in some part a function of calendar time). In this way, I'm also not spending a lot on the candidate search itself. The idea is to spend less time on much-higher-yield methods of finding people who are better suited to the job crossed with people who are happier with the environment of the job. It is about avoiding turn-over, but not in this perverse way of "ignore the problem because the alternative is worse", but by trying to avoid the hiring of a bad worker in the first place. In this system, you'll never see a job notice from me. You won't know I have a need for an employee unless I ask you to come work for/with me. You'll only ever get a job offer from me if A) I know you're not an idiot, and B) I know you're available. Yes, that means I have to know the person very well already. If I have an opening that needs to be filled and I don't currently know of someone that fills it, then it is likely to be a long time before it gets filled, if I do nothing. But then again, it's not like sifting through resumes is providing quality applicants. The resume and job interview are so poor of a selection process that I'm willing to try just about anything else. There is also an element of respect for the worker involved in what I'm doing. I don't think I have a right to monopolize a person's time. I think people should have the time to be engaged in many pursuits. I want it to be up to them to choose how much they work. I want them to have the ability to find other work as well. The idea being, people who are happier in their work-life balance will be more productive. Of course, we'll see.
  • busterarm 13y ago
    Much respect for what you're doing. I think this is exactly the right approach to take. I might be willing to take a little bit more risk than you would but I'm also a lot more willing to fire people early (see here: http://www.defmacro.org/2013/07/10/firing.html http://www.defmacro.org/2013/07/10/firing.html) So many companies and their HR departments desire to just fill seats for the short term needs of the company rather than invest in efficiency and protect the long-term needs of the business.
  • jlebron2 13y ago
    Great points, I definitely agree. Anti-productivity of one employee can become a plague and affect numerous employees and the resume and job interview process is indeed broken. Good luck with your system and look forward to hearing how it turns out.