2/ One reason is that hiring inside is Lindier than hiring remote – not from a historical perspective, but (see below) for the range of circumstances that must be true and must hold true over time for remote hiring to be effective vs in-house.
3/ (Yes, there are good examples of hiring remote, but I suspect there's a lot of survivorship bias in there. Also, it's possible that you hire a better-than-internal remote talent and still lose the long-term game due to externalities such as morale hits or cultural problems.)
4/ A second reason is that you might be great at hiring remote and still be terrible at running your business, whereas if you're good at hiring from inside, then there are good chances that you're doing what the business needs to be run well and sustainably too.
5/ I am a big fan of "take care of X and everything falls into place" situations.
Examples of X:
- Safety overflows into operational excellence
- A clean factory flow overflows into better logistics
- Fairness overflows into good management
- Same for hiring from inside
6/ As I'm writing this thread, I have most businesses in mind, but there are exceptions, e.g. companies at the very hedge of a hard-tech field or in high CoL areas.
I know that my audience might be overrepresented in the exceptions above, so this thread might not be for you.
7/ A clarification to tweet #5.
I do not mean that attempting X takes care of everything else.
I mean that the actions you need to take to ensure that X is done well take care of everything else.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Nothing about graduation rates (literacy rates, yes).
Instead:
– Knowing what matters for society to work well
– Being able to find a value-adding role in society
– Having learned that personal improvement is achievable
Things such as:
– What brings prosperity?
– What did countries that were wealthy and democratic do (or didn't do) that caused them to become poor or totalitarian
Seems banal, but…
2/6
…we only discuss how good it's to be prosperous or democratic without discussing how to get there or how not to fall back to the default state (poverty / absence of rights)
3/6
A problem of many organizations is that they are aware of the needs of employees (impact, recognition, growth, fair salary, etc) but fulfill them as they would with a checklist: let's do this superficially, checked, done.
Some examples (& solutions) ↓
1/8
Example #1: recognition.
Many companies and managers know that employees want recognition.
But they fulfill this need in a very superficial way. With a small internal award, a certificate, etc. Top red flag: it's HR-driven and/or feels cringe.
2/8
The alternative:
– make it personal: it should come from the boss or the boss' boss.
– make it congruent: a moment of recognition followed by a year of no recognition feels (and likely is) fake.
3/8
Whenever we desire an outcome but not the actions that would make us achieve it, we end up with inaction, busywork, shortcuts, excuses, and, ultimately, frustration.
(a thread of highlights from the first chapter of my book "The Control Heuristic")
1/14
You probably do not have a decision-making problem, but an action-taking one
2/14
Decision-making is not the same as action-taking.
The cortex is mostly responsible for taking decisions, and the ~basal ganglia determines whether we act on our decisions.
The recent wealth tax increase in Norway was expected to bring an additional $146M in yearly tax revenue
Instead, an estimated $54B-worth of ultra-rich left the country, leading to a lost $594M in yearly wealth tax revenue
A net decrease of $448M+
(sources and calculations ↓)
The Guardian estimates the wealth of the relocated millionaires at 600B NOK, or $54B. That would have been taxed at 1.1%, which means $594M in wealth tax lost
Norway raised NOK 16.1B = $1.46B in wealth taxes in 2019 (page 3 of the PDF below); increasing the wealth tax from 1% to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Plenty of replies who seem to think that leaving the country to keep one’s money is greed, but implementing a wealth tax to get someone else’s money isn’t