Relatedly, get good at the things that you're hiring for. It's possible to tell if somebody is about twice as good as you are at something. It's very hard to tell the difference between twice as skilled and ten times as skilled. So if you need to hire people who are very good at something you need to get at least decently good at it yourself.
This also has a strange corollary. It often makes sense to hire people for the things that you're good at and to keep doing the things that you're mediocre at.
This also has a strange corollary. It often makes sense to hire people for the things that you're good at and to keep doing the things that you're mediocre at.
Comparative advantage at work
Just as important is firing quickly. Learn as soon as possible that you (both) made the wrong decision, and the person you spent hours de-risking won't work out. The sunk cost fallacy post-hiring is a real quagmire, and the only way out is to decisively acknowledge that you made a bad call and cut ties as cleanly as possible.
This is good business, but it's also better for the person you incorrectly hired, assuming you effectively filtered out freeloaders.
One additional thing: it may so happen that you are encouraged or even pushed to hire a team and maybe quickly so by your boss (or board), investors, advisors, or others. Push back. Unless they have really good reasons. Then you need to think quick if you can steelman Greta's points above.
Kinda weird seeing so many mistakes (which I've seen being made in the past) being summarised in one post like this. Having this as a checklist would have saved many years of headache
Thank you! I'm laughing because I first read this as "wow, how could one person manage to make so many mistakes in one post?" :D
I don't have experience hiring for non-researchers, but for hiring researchers I disagree with some of the core advice in this post. (Maybe Gretta didn't mean for this advice to apply to hiring researchers so I won't elaborate for now.)
I have never hired or managed a research team and I am interested in what you have to say about how it's different. Elaborate if you feel like it!
My first ever hire was a terrible mistake and the only thing that made it worse was to not fire her and spend too long trying to fix it. It was for a startup and my idea at the time was that firing someone so early might cause unnecessary morale damage to the company (startups are fragile).
In hindsight, if you ever make a bad hire it is better to admit the mistake and then not worry about the consequences of firing, because the only thing worse is to keep the person around for longer than necessary. A mistake is a mistake and you get to pick which poison to swallow, one of them is much better than the other.
W9 work seems to be gaining in popularity, I think possibly for this reason.
(W9 is the USA tax form for "independent contractor", as opposed to W2 which has a slightly(?) tougher compliance burden about how to go about firing) (there are other words for this in other jurisdictions, probably?)
A low-effort guide I dashed off in less than an hour, because I got riled up.