Word. And to all of you clinging to the "we're going to hire the top 10%" on whatever the metric of the week is, may I presume you also plan to offer them compensation in the top 10% of industry salaries for the role?
Reposted from
Hasnain Lakhani
Having seen and heard of cultures which bias towards “we will hire the smartest people, they can figure it out” rather than invest in tooling.. it doesn’t end the way they think it will
Comments
And most people with the power to hire would struggle to even pass for the top 50% ... they got to management because they couldn't cut it in the top tiers
it's weird af that good managers i know have earnt their craft by trial/error in e.g. Eve
and doubly weird that such learning worked, repeatedly, over time
anyway, i must have ranted about this in your mentions before, i'll stop moaning now :)
You're going to need more than a work of satire to prove a claim like that, I'm afraid.
One sure sign of people who definitely aren't going to be able to hire the top 10% is that they make assumptions
Second, the Peter Principle is about promoting people into roles where skills that worked in their prior role aren't useful. It's situational, not about universal competence.
There’s a hell of a lot of variables preventing capable people and good intentions from succeeding.
But if you put me on a project involving say front end; I’m likely to add negative value and somehow make the situation worse. Only managed to do some front end work at $pastjob because the tooling had guardrails