Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

If the US job market is so "agile" then why are companies so conservative in hiring and obsessed with not making the wrong decision? I've heard it on the hiring side at multiple companies in the past: "He's a good candidate but I have this small concern. Let's play it safe and talk to the next guy!" WHY? If it's so easy to fire someone if they ended up a lemon?

View on HN

Legally firing someone is easy, but the cost of bringing someone on, getting them up to speed, having them become part of a team only to discover you wasted all that money and time and need to start that process again months later with a now slightly demoralized team who has less confidence in the hiring process is very significant.

I'd be curious to see an itemized list of such costs and compare the total to the opportunity cost of waiting another 2 months for the ultra-perfect candidate.

I'd be astonished if it's less expensive than waiting 2 months. A new employee costs a hunch of time for existing employees and is a net negative at first, and that ignores the wasted salary and cost and delay of starting the process again months later.

Because hiring people that you think you'll probably fire is not a nice thing to do: people quit jobs or reject other offers based on it.

I was involved in a hiring decision once where we were on the fence but made the hire because we really needed to fill the position. The person didn't work out for all the reasons we expected, and we fired them ~3 months later. It was really shitty, and I will never do it again. It's counterproductive, and it's unethical.

I don't understand why this is so terrible. Having been rejected for new jobs after clearing a lengthy interview process many times, I would much rather an employer just give me a chance. Then if I fail, at least I'll know it's not for me.

Think about it again in terms of what the parent said in the second paragraph: You, tboyd47, are hired but the employer correctly anticipated during the interview process that you would not be able to succeed but needed a body and you were the closest match. Did you really fail if you never had a chance? That's why he said it was unproductive and unethical.

If I get a job, stay in it for 3 months, and still can't succeed in it, then I would consider that a fair chance no matter what the person really thought of me. Not being given the job at all (and, if they hire like most companies I know, not being given a reason why) would make me feel more like I haven't been given a chance.

> why are companies so conservative in hiring and obsessed with not making the wrong decision?

Given that you're here on HN, you're probably biasing towards high skills jobs like software where a bad hire can really screw up the productivity of the entire team and project for a long time.

With lower-skilled jobs, employers are happy to hire and dump as their demand changes over time. Look at how many cashiers and customer service folks get hired right before the holiday season and then get canned after Christmas.

> WHY? If it's so easy to fire someone if they ended up a lemon?

it still costs money to bring the person up to speed, not to mention the opportunity costs involved in not having the right person for that much longer.

and many employers even in the US are terrified they'll be sued for wrongful termination. or they just don't want to risk having to do something viewed as "mean".

its easy but there are still costs to the org to onboard an employee and it still reflects poorly on the hiring manager to have hired the wrong/bad candidate

Reply on news.ycombinator.com