Re:The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire
by protomyth on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @03:59PM
(#6092530)
The first one is just bad, but sadly common.
The "entry level dev/intern" really depends on a lot of factors. If it is truly and entry level position, then you should expect mistakes to be committed and you should be paying them less and have some infrastructure to handle the mistakes and training. If they learn, they get more pay. If they cannot learn, then they get canned. You're taking a chance when you advertise that position and should price the job accordingly.
Re:The Unexpectedly High Cost of a Bad Hire
by potatolicious on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @02:08PM
(#6091810)
I take it to mean both. They're both bad hires, though obviously in different ways and degrees.
Generally speaking though, in places I've worked, simply being not up to snuff is not in and of itself evidence of a bad hire.
If you're not competent, cannot learn quickly, or are unwilling to train and learn, then you may be a bad hire.
Or
Does it mean an entry level dev/intern who is just learning the ropes and might commit a few mistakes out of genuine incompetence/inexperience rather than malice.
I see most hiring managers, HRs and what have you intimidate potential entry-level interviewees that if they weren't upto and in some cases over the company standard they'd end up costing the company a lot.