<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hiring and democracy in the workplace</title>
	<atom:link href="http://soft-arts.net/2007/09/25/democracy-in-the-workplace/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://soft-arts.net/2007/09/25/democracy-in-the-workplace/</link>
	<description>iPhone and Mac development, Tech, Internal Martial Arts, and Life</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Lee</title>
		<link>http://soft-arts.net/2007/09/25/democracy-in-the-workplace/#comment-891</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:22:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soft-arts.net/2007/09/25/democracy-in-the-workplace/#comment-891</guid>
		<description>I like it! It's especially true that the mediocre can reject the amazing because they find them threatening. In an ideal world you would avoid that by never hiring the mediocre in the first place, but in the real world, it's a good thing to keep in mind.

The 90-day (or in one extreme case I worked 6-month) probation is a good idea, but only if you are actually good at firing people. Even in 90 days you can become sufficiently aware of a person's humanity to make it very difficult to let them go.

I think the ultimate hiring test is to go out drinking. I think you can tell more about a person at the bar than you can in a stuffy interview room, including gauging that most important and more ethereal quality: how well they fit into the team.

Of course, that assume you work for a company that values the ability to drink. I suppose a good dinner might do the same thing and be less legally troublesome.

Finally, in software we have that advantage of being able to look at a person's portfolio, which a much better indicator of technical skill than on-the-spot technical questions or the resume, which is French for "a list of lies."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like it! It&#8217;s especially true that the mediocre can reject the amazing because they find them threatening. In an ideal world you would avoid that by never hiring the mediocre in the first place, but in the real world, it&#8217;s a good thing to keep in mind.</p>
<p>The 90-day (or in one extreme case I worked 6-month) probation is a good idea, but only if you are actually good at firing people. Even in 90 days you can become sufficiently aware of a person&#8217;s humanity to make it very difficult to let them go.</p>
<p>I think the ultimate hiring test is to go out drinking. I think you can tell more about a person at the bar than you can in a stuffy interview room, including gauging that most important and more ethereal quality: how well they fit into the team.</p>
<p>Of course, that assume you work for a company that values the ability to drink. I suppose a good dinner might do the same thing and be less legally troublesome.</p>
<p>Finally, in software we have that advantage of being able to look at a person&#8217;s portfolio, which a much better indicator of technical skill than on-the-spot technical questions or the resume, which is French for &#8220;a list of lies.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
