What percentage of your hires are keepers?
I'm curious for the people here who are actually involved in the hiring process, how many of the people you hire end up being keepers? And how many turn out to be underperformers, incompetent, or just plain lazy?
How many of you work for companies that are keepers? How many turn out to have no conscience, are managerially incompetent, and expect you to work 85 hours a week for 2-3 months at a time?
"How many turn out to have no conscience, are managerially incompetent, and expect you to work 85 hours a week for 2-3 months at a time?"
Hires: I'd say it was about 50/50 so far as good/not, if we define the test as, "Would I hire that person again immediately, or would I want to interview others first?" And at least 80/20 so far as the long run keep/fire answers go. But the one time I hired a whole bunch of people, I did so in a massive hurry -- people who have time to think might do better.
At Microsoft, I believe the ratio is 19 out of 20.
About 9/10 are ones where we would pick them again. But our hiring process is incredibly slow, we really discard a lot of people that I think we should have given a chance to and if we had more agility in staffing we wouldn't have to turn down jobs.
Rumor has it that in some unfortunate organizations, "keeper" and "incompetent" are not mutually exclusive :-)
I try before buying, requiring that I worked with the person or someone in the company has and is willing to speak for them. This keeps my number very high.
Fog Creek Home