[ILUG] Google "behind the scenes" tech talk

[Barry Flanagan]

Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 16:43, David Murphy wrote:
> 
>>Realistically, it has more to do with the fact that current employees
>>are a known quantity, whereas you always take a risk with a new hire,
>>no matter how thoroughly you interview them, so when you've  got a
>>choice between two people who can probably do the job, one of which
>>already works for you, it's a case of 'better the devil you know'.
>>It's almost never thought of in terms of "Oh no!, We might lose X" -
>>that's not how the real world works.
> 
> 
> I would not put it "Oh no!, We might lose X", but I would put it the way
> that it's cheaper (and of course the factor, that you know people
> allready) to let somebody advance within the company, because somebody
> from the outside might need a lot more training, knowledge on corporate
> rules/procedures and the products that the company might carry.

I would agree with Martin on this. In my experience the best companies 
are ones in which you can (and are encouraged to) grow and advance 
within the company. If the only option employees have for advancement is 
to look elsewhere, then the objectives of the employees and the company 
are divergent and you don't get the best out of either.

My preference would be to feed the lower levels with new recruits and 
give people a chance to move up the chain wherever possible.

-
-- 

-Barry Flanagan