5 comments
  1. I was working at a startup, and we were searching for C++ developers. We got a candidate who was a world-class expert in C++. He wrote a commercial compiler. He had retired, but was board, and wanted to keep busy.

    He was the best qualified person for *MY* job.

    I insisted that we must make him an offer and try to hire him. I’d be glad to work for him.

    My “superiors,” however, seemed to be afraid of him. They sunk the deal. 😦

    • I have seen this often. On some occasions, fear of the potential new hire “discovering” how poor the working environment, and thus leaving again soonest.

      • At the time, working conditions were good. Demanding, but good.

        Later, things got worse.

        Then some time later than that, things took a turn for the much worse. So I left. I kept in touch with those who stayed. (Before long, they regretted staying.)

  2. Alex said:

    On the other hand, this is one of the few quickies that rankles with my usually sympathetic sensibilities, Bob. It struck me as something a Yee-Ha! American (viz televangelist/politician) would say, at first reading. And Tom Peters is usually ok, isn’t he. I guess I understood the point to be something like: If you are a big-shot with the ability to hire people, don’t be afraid of hiring somebody that will leapfrog you in your lovely meritocratic hierarchy?! Is there ever room to hire somebody not as good as you? How about we compromise and hire some people better, some worse than you at various things? And maybe focus on acting on the system? Is this from the 90’s when McKinsey was counselling Enron to hire the best? I’m not gonna look it up, back to work now. How do you feel about Margaret Heffernan’s work with the super-chickens?

    • I understand the rankle. Deming’s 95:5 not least? Yet, I take the quote in the wider context of Tom’s lifetime output. I wax hot and cold over Margaret’s stuff. Keen and congruent observations, too much of a traditional frame for my tastes.

Leave a comment