The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire

Re:The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire by r_m_adler on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @12:38PM (#6091126)

sorry the last sentence seems to be a non-sequitur. Why does the high cost of a hiring mistake justify letting slightly sub-par people stay?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire by eigenvector on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @12:39PM (#6091142)

Because they might be replaced with someone who is much, much worse. Not awesome vs. complete disaster.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire by astral303 on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @12:40PM (#6091148)

Presumably because of the risk of replacing a known slightly sub-par quantity with an unknown truly bad hire.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire by GeneralMayhem on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @12:46PM (#6091188)

Very risk-averse people might prefer a known meh to an unknown potential apocalypse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire by mathattack on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @02:26PM (#6091939)

You answered it much better than me. Every hire that comes in without someone at the firm personally vouching for their character is a risk. Sometimes an honest meh is better than risking the apocalypse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire by matwood on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @02:15PM (#6091867)

Known quantity versus unknown.

[ Parent | on HN ]