Ever had to take part in a lynching?

[sgeeeee]

I can only speak for myself. Perhaps an unlucky string of bad hires is cause to go back and rethink the hiring process, but your comment about JG deserving to be fired along with your comment below just came across as pretty arrogant.  Then there was the bit about helping to get your CEO fired but I won't go there.

I don't know anyone who has done any quantity of hiring, be able to make that claim.  I've done megacorps, startups through IPO's, brother&brother, one man government contractor, and for last 6 years sweating out my own startup company.  I know all about  being ultra-cautious with new hires, carefully screening and watching cashflow like a hawk.   Startups sometimes have to act quick in hiring just to keep the operation going. Sometimes you have to delegate part of the hiring process to someone in your company you trust, especially in fields you are weak in.  Sometimes hiring for out-of-state positions (we have several) requires a different strategy.  Sometimes you can't afford to hire the person that is perfect for the job, or even be able to afford relocation expenses.  Sometimes people with a big company background just don't fit in with the startup mentality.  Sometimes you have to hire a personality type that is somewhat anti-social (programmers are a great example and no offense meant to the many talented programmers on this site). Almost all the people you bring in must be highly motivated self starters since there is very little time-resources for training when everyone is focused on sales-support-development.  I have brought several people in under contract before I even offered them a full time spot.

My turnover rate is extremely low because I pay well once people prove out, I never micromanage, the numbers are transparent, we have a lot of fun inbetween the madness, I never take the big office or put myself above the dirty work, and I am always happy to say "I don't know the answer".  We would never survive otherwise.  But I have had to let a couple of people go (quickly) and I have had to keep a couple of people in line personality wise.  I've even smacked myself upside the head a couple of times since there is no one to smack me.   I get better as time goes on but I would never ever claim that every person I hired not only wasn't fired but never had a performance issue.  I would never have made that "firing" comment to JG just from what I know of his posts.  When you really live and survive in that world you get a much better appreciation for those who have gone before you and you tend to cut them some slack because it is one tough, imperfect world where you never get it exactly right the first time.

Too much said.  SG, You can have the last dig if you want it.  (BTW, the three laughin smilies are gettin kind-of old, try something new.)
A quote from Teddy Roosevelt:  "Those who aren't making mistakes usually aren't making anything."

How about four?

 

[sgeeeee]

I can only speak for myself. Perhaps an unlucky string of bad hires is cause to go back and rethink the hiring process, but your comment about JG deserving to be fired along with your comment below just came across as pretty arrogant.  Then there was the bit about helping to get your CEO fired but I won't go there.

When I was working full-time I hired several dozen people over the years. A couple of times I changed jobs and hired several of them a second time. I inherited groups as large as 100 people on a couple of occassions, but I don't consider that as hiring. I also served on merger teams and helped coordinate the reorganization efforts required for that. ()'s description of managing and hiring rings pretty true to me. Nord's observations about the cost of training vs hiring also sound right.

I'm not sure what bothers you about my efforts that led to the ouster of the CEO. I neither hired or fired him, but the company is far better off without him. The fallout from that exposure of corporate research fraud has done that company a world of good (think American cell phone company).

I don't know anyone who has done any quantity of hiring, be able to make that claim.  I've done megacorps, startups through IPO's, brother&brother, one man government contractor, and for last 6 years sweating out my own startup company.  I know all about  being ultra-cautious with new hires, carefully screening and watching cashflow like a hawk.   Startups sometimes have to act quick in hiring just to keep the operation going. Sometimes you have to delegate part of the hiring process to someone in your company you trust, especially in fields you are weak in.  Sometimes hiring for out-of-state positions (we have several) requires a different strategy.  Sometimes you can't afford to hire the person that is perfect for the job, or even be able to afford relocation expenses.  Sometimes people with a big company background just don't fit in with the startup mentality.  Sometimes you have to hire a personality type that is somewhat anti-social (programmers are a great example and no offense meant to the many talented programmers on this site). Almost all the people you bring in must be highly motivated self starters since there is very little time-resources for training when everyone is focused on sales-support-development.  I have brought several people in under contract before I even offered them a full time spot.

Like I said, I've hired several dozen people over the years and inherited hundreds of employees through reorganizations and advancements. One thing that may be different about my experience is that I always worked in research and development organizations. I tended to be hiring top technical talent -- often people who were familiar with me professionally and with published accounts of our work before they even applied. I did have to hire support staff too, but most of my hiring was of highly skilled professionals.

. . . When you really live and survive in that world you get a much better appreciation for those who have gone before you and you tend to cut them some slack because it is one tough, imperfect world where you never get it exactly right the first time.

I find this comment condescending. You assume my experience is somehow inferior to yours -- that I haven't really lived and survived. I stand by my claims that company's I have worked for would never tolerate the rapid hire and fire of three people to fill one position. Furthermore, I am convinced that companies are right to hold this attitude. Good supervisors hire the right people and motivate them to excel. That's their job. If they can't do that, they don't belong as supervisors.

A quote from Teddy Roosevelt:  "Those who aren't making mistakes usually aren't making anything."

While I believe this to be true, it doesn not imply that the more mistakes you make, the more productive you are.

 

[wabmester]

Good supervisors hire the right people and motivate them to excel.  That's their job.  If they can't do that, they don't belong as supervisors.

Uh huh.   Maybe you could give us an example of your toughest case.

I'll give you one of mine.   West coast company acquired a small company in Utah.   I've never seen such an inbred culture.   About 20 engineers, but two of them were "Prima Donnas."   They "owned" important parts of the software architecture, and they consciously kept everything to themselves for job security and control.   No documentation, critical components, inbred culture, xenophobic, threatened by the idea of losing control to acquiring company, etc, etc.

Long story short.   Two managers before me went down in flames trying to get things in shape.   So, I started the process of migrating their technology to our west coast office, ostensibly to mirror the services for  redundancy.    Obviously, this required that we be able to build and maintain the system locally, so I looped the Prima Donnas into the migration effort, which they fought every step of the way.    I gave them important responsibilities with clear milestones.   Offered them lots of autonomy in planning the migration.   And when they failed, I fired them, and we essentially reverse engineered their spaghetti code and built a new system from scratch.

What would you have done to "motivate them to excel?"

 

[Mr._johngalt]

My last post on this thread.

With all of the people I hired/fired over my 25+ years in
management, I can't recall even one instance where my choice
(of who to hire or fire) caused me any criticism or censure
from those above me (when I had someone above me).
I think the key here is they were looking to get the job done
and for me to solve the problems (which I did), even if some of the problems
were caused by my own hiring. Maybe I worked in a different culture.

JG

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .What would you have done to "motivate them to excel?"

I assume this is a rhetorical question.

But this is a different case than we have been discussing here, wab. The discussion was started with JG telling us how he hired and fired two people very rapidly before hiring the third for a position. He was making the point that firing people was easy for him. I pointed out that this just made it sound like he was an incompetent hiring manager. I stand by that position.

In your case, you didn't hire these guys. They did not choose to work for you. And they probably did not share the same corporate goals as you. If you had interviewed these people, not been able to figure out that they were the wrong folks for the job, not been able to make your requirements so clear that they didn't want the job, and then you hired them anyway -- I would call that incompetent.

Not everyone is right for every job; and interviewing and hiring is an expensive and risky proposition. That's why a hiring manager needs to learn how to interview effectively.

Hiring the right people to work with you and managing them is a whole lot easier than managing a group that you did not choose. Their goal may actually be to make you fail. You can't let that happen. I also mentioned one of my experiences in this thread where I was forced to expose a group of researcher managers who were invloved in research fraud. They ultimately lost their jobs. While they were not my direct reports in this case, the only difference in the outcome had they been my direct reports is that I would have fired them sooner and been less generous with their severance agreements. I don't believe they could have been rehabilitated to become good corporate citizens, and even if they could, it would have sent the wrong message to the troops and been a costly rehabilitation.

 

[wabmester]

But this is a different case than we have been discussing here, wab.

Oh, sorry. For a minute there I thought you were boasting to be one of those super-human managers who could fit square pegs into round holes regardless of whether you hired them or inherited them. So, I think we agree -- some people just need to have their butts canned. And if you fail to can them, you are failing to do your job as a manager.

 

[ERD50]

A good leader sometimes does influence others by understanding what makes that person tick and offering the right reward or the right punishment for an action.

However, some people get it and some people don't. Some people will continue to be losers and some will continue to be winners, no matter how hard you try to rehab them.

It happens in school, at work, and in life in general.

The only time people go from "not getting it" to "getting it" is when THEY decide for themselves.

The most 'freeing' management article I ever read was one that encompassed the above viewpoint. You rarely can motivate someone that is not self-motivated. What you CAN do, as a manager, is provide a great environment for the motivated employees, so they can do their best. If you generally hire good people, and then work to create a great working environment, things will tend to go well.

ERD50

 

[laurence]

Well, for the record, I'm out of the loop on that now, thank goodness. Now I have returned from Hawaii to find my current boss battling my future boss to keep me. It's gotten a little bit ugly. I'm gone, there is nothing he can do about it, but I just didn't want hard feelings to come out of it. Not a bridge burner. Still, it's nice to be wanted.

Interesting thread we've got going here, as I've never had direct reports, I can contribute nothing further. I will remember try to remember this thread for the day that I do.

 

[TargaDave]

How about four?

Egadz! Settle down cowboy.

 

[vic]

My turnover rate is extremely low because I pay well once people prove out, I never micromanage, the numbers are transparent, we have a lot of fun inbetween the madness, I never take the big office or put myself above the dirty work, and I am always happy to say "I don't know the answer".

You are so right. In my experience the #1 happiness factor in megacorp was a good direct boss, and I like what you described above. In my little world at megacorp, upper management, company direction etc. were insignificant factors in my daily cube life compared to the effect of my direct supervisor and some colleagues. A happy employee is a productive employee. For one year I absolutely loved going to work. I also ranked as the top performer. The vast majority of bosses I worked for were absolutely not quallified to manage others. The result is entire groups that are highly unproductive. Without any doubt, there are some people that do not want to work but I think the number of essentially 'bad' people is very limited.

Vicky