| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Training out the stupid" |
| << < (14/21) > >> |
| JohnG:
The last place I worked had a large HR department extremely capable of dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. They used this to follow corporate mandates like "cutting the bottom 10%" and so forth. I saw many very good, hard-working, and capable people get pushed out, and many others left in disgust. All technical folks were considered fungible. My experience is that HR will keep the toxic manager as long as they can, and get rid of a long line of subordinates in an attempt to keep the fire under control rather than risk an explosion. Also, I second the use of contractors if you want to hire and fire as you need. I have worked with contractors, selected contractors, and supervised contractors. My luck has been mostly good, but only because I have only used them for either very well defined projects with a fairly tight boundary, or for projects not in the critical path. But, contractors are not employees. If you are doing anything core to your business, you take a big risk with a contractor. They take their hard-won knowledge with them, and if someone decides to pay them more, they can drop you in a flash. They can also leak information, even unintentionally. Kind of like a FET leaks current when it's supposed to be off. Sure, you can take legal action, but there goes your savings. Cheers, John |
| JohnG:
On a different note, I have a hardware centric job. One of the best places to interview potential hardware engineers is in the lab, i.e. a lab tour. If they are a good fit, they will be happy to get a lab tour. If they don't recognize anything, maybe you shouldn't hire them. Cheers, John |
| fourfathom:
--- Quote from: JohnG on December 16, 2020, 07:20:51 pm ---corporate mandates like "cutting the bottom 10%" and so forth. --- End quote --- I've worked in places where we cut the bottom 10% while bringing in new-hires, and I've also worked at places where the human deadwood accumulated to the point where many engineers left in disgust (on a few occasions me being one of them). No doubt times and circumstances are also critical factors, but on the whole I prefer the vitality of enforcing some turnover. Obviously it sucks if some clueless manager deems you to be one of the deadwood, but that's actually a separate problem. |
| Syntax Error:
--- Quote from: JohnG on December 16, 2020, 07:20:51 pm ---But, contractors are not employees. If you are doing anything core to your business, you take a big risk with a contractor. They take their hard-won knowledge with them, and if someone decides to pay them more, they can drop you in a flash. They can also leak information, even unintentionally. Kind of like a FET leaks current when it's supposed to be off. Sure, you can take legal action, but there goes your savings. --- End quote --- Agreed, you could try a restraint of trade clause, but that's not going to be enforceable unless they copy your business contact database. But then what the hell, our newly signed third party services company based in Bangladesh is already doing that. A truth of the modern company is fewer employees are full-time employees. Consultants, contractors, consultant-contractors, consultant's contractors, semester academics and random pre and post grad interns, all make up the team mix in the workplace. "Do you work here full time?" is a question often whispered at the vending machine. A reply maybe, "everyone who works here is loyal to the business. It's just not our business they're all loyal too." |
| JohnG:
--- Quote from: fourfathom on December 16, 2020, 08:34:33 pm ---I've worked in places where we cut the bottom 10% while bringing in new-hires, and I've also worked at places where the human deadwood accumulated to the point where many engineers left in disgust (on a few occasions me being one of them). No doubt times and circumstances are also critical factors, but on the whole I prefer the vitality of enforcing some turnover. Obviously it sucks if some clueless manager deems you to be one of the deadwood, but that's actually a separate problem. --- End quote --- Companies that need to cut an arbitrary percentage per unit time already have a problem in identifying deadwood, so they don't get rid of the right people. If they do it year after year, people develop survival strategies that rarely have to do with actual performance, but rather perceived performance. Typically much of the deadwood in these companies is higher up, and that almost never gets cut. If a company has already accumulated so much deadwood that it needs a program to repetitively cut the bottom 10%, it is too late. If you are an engineer or scientist at such a company, you would be wise to "git while the gittin's good". Don't look back, because there is nothing you can do. Cheers, John |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |