The good point of the article is bringing people up to speed as soon as they are hired.
Yet everyone here will only see the bad points of the article, which is pretty much a recipe for bro-culture and hiring fluent english speakers exclusively.
Yet everyone here will only see the bad points of the article, which is pretty much a recipe for bro-culture and hiring fluent english speakers exclusively.
Why is hiring fluent-speakers of the language in which the company conducts operations a bad thing?
As you iterate, your win percentage (AKA how many people you bring in and actually hire) goes up. We got to a point where we hired 75% of the people we brought in to the office.
Do you have numbers to back that up?
Even worse, you have to go through the hiring process again! So we can at least say it costs twice as much.
As mentioned, this kind of investment in the hiring process requires you to actually iterate it and continuously improve your win percentage. If not, you might be throwing money away.