| That's a half week of work without breaks at one resume per minute-ish. I agree that it is a very important decision, but that's also unreasonable for a manager to set time aside to look through. You've just set the other projects that you're already behind on (that's why you need to hire in the first place) back another half week or so. It's like a reverse rocket equation here. You need time to make more time, so you take time, but that time needs time, so ... The cost isn't really borne by the hiring manager though, it's just their budget (that they argued for) that they need to spend down. The decision makers really don't care that much about the numbers, just that they don't go over. |
| |
| ▲ | Balgair 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The manager is responsible for $X but only gets paid their salary. I'm their day to day, hiring is a pain. They need the extra hands, but they have to go through more work to get that person onboard. The activation energy is high, higher now with AI and automated job applications clogging things up. Then you have onboarding and the continued costs of management of that person. Honestly, most managers would want the smallest team possible in terms of day to day workload. This is also why AI is appealing. The promise of no sick days, no HR complaints, no chit chat. Just pure work done in plain language. Work done overnight, right, the first time. A middle managers dream worker. The thing that is more important is the budget. It's always the budget. Nothing matters but the budget. That's the second iron law of beauraracy, of course. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 5 days ago | parent [-] | | As I see it, hiring people is the most important part of running any business - by a large margin. And if you have a lot of employees, then hiring people who are good at hiring becomes your highest priority. > The manager is responsible for $X but only gets paid their salary. That's why somebody higher in rank makes sure the manager gets the time he needs to make the best hires. Somewhere up the line there is somebody who cares about the basics of running a business right. > I'm their day to day, hiring is a pain. Of course it's a pain, that's why it's a job and why people get paid for it. > This is also why AI is appealing. The promise of no sick days, no HR complaints, no chit chat. Just pure work done in plain language. Work done overnight, right, the first time. A middle managers dream worker. Okay, but that means the company instantly lost all customers and all income and went bankrupt. Because why in the world would a client hire your company to use an AI, when they can just use the AI themselves? And don't say that there needs to be a human who is specialized in using the AI, because then you're back at hiring and having employees again. | | |
| ▲ | Balgair 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm not trying to be glib here, but I'm not entirely certain that you have worked for a long time in a large corporation, right? If you have not, I would like to introduce you to one of the best pieces of writing on corporate workings that I have ever come across: The Gervais Principle. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-... It is a very good lens, but a very cynical one, to look at the corporation. In general, shows like The Office, though satire, are close, I feel, to reality than what you are espousing here. Not that I disagree with you at all. There should be people that are all about hiring. There should be managers that see their paychecks as adequate compensation. There should be consumers that are that reactive to internal staffing decisions. But in my limited experience, the things that should be there, typically are not. | | |
|
|
|
