(no title)
seaknoll | 4 years ago
> Out of the people I had hired at my last startup:
> 12% of hires where exceptional hires (I would instantly hire again)
> 42% of Hire were good hires. (I wouldn’t hire again but they did a fine job)
> 29% of hires were bad hires. (They didn’t do a good job and were eventually let go)
> 17% of hires were very bad hires (They had a negative effect on the company culture and other staff)
These seem like extremely poor numbers. I haven't hired a ton of people but all of them have been excellent, though some that I was peripherally involved in hiring have been just good. I'm curious what other people feel that their ratio is.
shaggyfrog|4 years ago
This alone makes no sense to me. It's a contradiction.
So I assume the website/author thinks they're a kind of mega-hustler 1000x developer or something.
chinchilla2020|4 years ago
version_five|4 years ago
If you have money to spend, or can wait to hire, you can beat the averages. I've hired a fair amount and done well too, but only by refusing to hire anyone if there are not suitable candidates that applied, which can burn a lot of political capital (your boss sees you've spend x time and money and had y applicant and z interviews and you refuse to hire anyone).
Good, cheap, available, pick two.
sokoloff|4 years ago
peterthehacker|4 years ago
[0] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/news/is-everyone-replaceable-a...
zitterbewegung|4 years ago