Thread by @DellAnnaLuca

I agree. Plenty of exceptions (that might be over-represented in my Twitter audience) but for most businesses, the below holds.

(Thread with motivations, 1/6)

https://twitter.com/Molson_Hart/status/1312249943592140801

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.

https://twitter.com/DellAnnaLuca/status/1311724982595186690?s=20

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.