undefined

points

[-]

There’s an old Malcom Gladwell podcast episode, I think the show was Revisionist History, where he says he’s an interview nihilist. As long as the person seems reasonably capable, and can probably do a bit of what you need, hire them. Interviews are so hard to get right that what you’re saying ends up being most effective.

Edit: Didn’t link it initially because I thought it would be hard to find. Turns out it’s not. https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/hamlet-w...

by bitwize15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Unfortunately from an organizational perspective, a bad hire could cause so much damage through incompetence let alone malice, that making no hire the default unless they're a perfect cinnamon roll of a fit, is actually a good strategy.

by laserlight11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> a bad hire could cause so much damage through incompetence let alone malice

The fact that an organization cannot deal with such a case is a bigger problem in the first place. Eliminating incompetence and malice is among the basic skills of an organization.

by not_the_fda15 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Our hiring dis-function is because there a lot of people that dislike conflict and firing someone.

by anon_e-moose10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

ie - people that are incompetent at their role of people managers.

Why is incompetence so discussed for ICs but rarely for management?

Maybe if more managers were competent and less conflict-averse they would do their jobs better and cycle out incompetence and bad intentions faster.

Ah wait, but middle managers specifically choose conflict-averse, easy to control, domesticated people. That's why you find this particular type of personality in management so often.

So the issue is incentives as well and bigger than initially thought.

by cindyllm21 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

[dead]