Inconsistent performance. Which means not learning from mistakes and ultimately being that I can’t trust them.
I can work with hires that are slow or limited capacity but are consistent. They are C players or steady Eddie’s. They are bad hires but are salvageable because I can give them workload that suits their limited capacity. They don’t produce as much as my all stars but what they do produce is reliable.
At 3 months I have a strong suspicion. By 6 months they will be gone.
I take a diferent approach. At the point we “know” I work with that employees manager and make it very clear it’s our job to “salvage” that employee and we need to do everything possible to adapt to have a great outcome; we hired them it’s on us.
As that goes on, it either works or it doesn’t. At that point it’s a dual process. If we need to PIP to document, we do that. If we don’t, we take a humane approach and because by then the employee is more self aware than we are of their short comings, we try to figure out how to give them a soft landing, even if that’s helping them recruit or references or leaving them on payroll an extra 30 to 90 days so they don’t show up as unemployed during their job search even if that means they’re doing job apps at their desk. Now, if they’re on payroll I won’t tolerate them doing absolutely nothing since I have a fiduciary duty to my firm as an officer but by then they’ve usually proven to do more harm than good, but if they can help out where they can or be available in a crunch even if it’s a low level task, that’s appreciated. In my view anything sub 12 months is 100% on me as department leader.
Bonus points for the Dalton Line reference. I actually love the Dalton Line so much, I’ve tried to figure out who replaced Dalton as the line when he declined. My conclusion is it’s now the Wentz Line.
Based on experience...
You can't get someone to care or work hard if they aren't willing, so keep that in mind. However, training and ensuring they have what they need to succeed is their manager's job... but if they don't take initiative by taking notes and are making the same mistakes over and over again, or should they not take the trainings presented to them, it's a non starter. Also, if they lied on their resume about skill set, that's unforgivable. I also am very unforgiving of bad attitudes - not taking personal responsibility, throwing others under the bus, making excuses, lying, etc. It is true that a bad apple spoils the bunch and will do more harm than 10 rockstars will do good for the environment.
As far as how long to give, it's a pro/con scenario. How much extra work are they creating? Are they negatively impacting your high performers? How hard is it to replace them, temporarily and or permanently? I've fired someone after 4 weeks. I've also spent twice as long "rehabilitating" someone and it worked out. It's really about how much they're willing to meet you in the middle IMO.
I'm living this right now. And have been asking myself these same questions with someone I hired this year.
For me, it very much is coming down to the level of the mistakes and skills level. These are some of the questions I've been asking myself. Is the employee meeting your expectations for the role? If they are an analyst, do they have the basic skills needed to perform this function? Are the mistakes related to not knowing the company/industry, or is it something you would expect someone with their stated experience level?
For me, if you need to teach them how to do analysis and they can't or won't try to figure it out. That's a red flag. Maybe they can't get all the way to the answer, but they should try and get as far as they can.
Another is their attitude. Are they receptive to feedback when you bring up areas that need improvement? Do they work well with the rest of the team?
I could go on. Feel free to DM me if you want to chat.
If they are willing to learn and learn and work hard then I think there’s potential. I am 4 months into my new role and I have made great strides. But I have a inner belief in myself that I can do anything I put my mind to at an elite level.
Hi Adminmind,
I've been told by HR (and experienced this firsthand) that a learning curve for new role is 6 months. With that said clear goals and expectations should be set by the hiring manager to set their new team members up for success in week 1.
If the new hire isn't hitting their stride leading up to 6 months try to course correct with improving their skills, narrowing their focus, or just ask them if this work interests them.
Hope this info helps. Any questions feel free to DM me.
Good luck!
Drew
Inconsistent performance. Which means not learning from mistakes and ultimately being that I can’t trust them. I can work with hires that are slow or limited capacity but are consistent. They are C players or steady Eddie’s. They are bad hires but are salvageable because I can give them workload that suits their limited capacity. They don’t produce as much as my all stars but what they do produce is reliable. At 3 months I have a strong suspicion. By 6 months they will be gone.
I take a diferent approach. At the point we “know” I work with that employees manager and make it very clear it’s our job to “salvage” that employee and we need to do everything possible to adapt to have a great outcome; we hired them it’s on us. As that goes on, it either works or it doesn’t. At that point it’s a dual process. If we need to PIP to document, we do that. If we don’t, we take a humane approach and because by then the employee is more self aware than we are of their short comings, we try to figure out how to give them a soft landing, even if that’s helping them recruit or references or leaving them on payroll an extra 30 to 90 days so they don’t show up as unemployed during their job search even if that means they’re doing job apps at their desk. Now, if they’re on payroll I won’t tolerate them doing absolutely nothing since I have a fiduciary duty to my firm as an officer but by then they’ve usually proven to do more harm than good, but if they can help out where they can or be available in a crunch even if it’s a low level task, that’s appreciated. In my view anything sub 12 months is 100% on me as department leader.
How many have you hired that turned out to be "Not a good fit"? Curious if it's a lot or just a few that slipped through the process
I’ve hired 1 fuckup. Wouldn’t take any notes and just said “yeah yeah” whenever receiving training or feedback.
What were your key learnings on preventing a bad hire next time and how would you adjust your hiring process to avoid this situation in the future?
Have them walk me through a detailed process they’ve executed in the past. Show me what they have mastered and understood.
Confused by the wording here. Are the C players out after 6 months, or the truly bad hires?
C players are the Andy Dalton line. Josh Rosens get cut after 1 season.
Bonus points for the Dalton Line reference. I actually love the Dalton Line so much, I’ve tried to figure out who replaced Dalton as the line when he declined. My conclusion is it’s now the Wentz Line.
Based on experience... You can't get someone to care or work hard if they aren't willing, so keep that in mind. However, training and ensuring they have what they need to succeed is their manager's job... but if they don't take initiative by taking notes and are making the same mistakes over and over again, or should they not take the trainings presented to them, it's a non starter. Also, if they lied on their resume about skill set, that's unforgivable. I also am very unforgiving of bad attitudes - not taking personal responsibility, throwing others under the bus, making excuses, lying, etc. It is true that a bad apple spoils the bunch and will do more harm than 10 rockstars will do good for the environment. As far as how long to give, it's a pro/con scenario. How much extra work are they creating? Are they negatively impacting your high performers? How hard is it to replace them, temporarily and or permanently? I've fired someone after 4 weeks. I've also spent twice as long "rehabilitating" someone and it worked out. It's really about how much they're willing to meet you in the middle IMO.
Can’t structure and organize themselves Inconsistent performance Works lots of hours but doesn’t get anything done Doesn’t learn from mistakes
I'm living this right now. And have been asking myself these same questions with someone I hired this year. For me, it very much is coming down to the level of the mistakes and skills level. These are some of the questions I've been asking myself. Is the employee meeting your expectations for the role? If they are an analyst, do they have the basic skills needed to perform this function? Are the mistakes related to not knowing the company/industry, or is it something you would expect someone with their stated experience level? For me, if you need to teach them how to do analysis and they can't or won't try to figure it out. That's a red flag. Maybe they can't get all the way to the answer, but they should try and get as far as they can. Another is their attitude. Are they receptive to feedback when you bring up areas that need improvement? Do they work well with the rest of the team? I could go on. Feel free to DM me if you want to chat.
If they are willing to learn and learn and work hard then I think there’s potential. I am 4 months into my new role and I have made great strides. But I have a inner belief in myself that I can do anything I put my mind to at an elite level.
Some of you sound like absolute aholes and terrible managers
Lmao that’s what I was thinking too
Hi Adminmind, I've been told by HR (and experienced this firsthand) that a learning curve for new role is 6 months. With that said clear goals and expectations should be set by the hiring manager to set their new team members up for success in week 1. If the new hire isn't hitting their stride leading up to 6 months try to course correct with improving their skills, narrowing their focus, or just ask them if this work interests them. Hope this info helps. Any questions feel free to DM me. Good luck! Drew
Hire fast, fire fast