Why would a boss hire or keep weak talent?

[mixmastermo]

Here's a little background info: I am a buyer for a manufacturing company in NYC. This company has been around for 75+ years.

Why would the owner/boss hire and keep weak talent?

There are some folks there who have been there for over 20 years, and while I respect their knowledge of the products, they don't have the skills necessary to keep the company relevant in the 21st century. What's more, the boss brings in people that have little to no education or prior experience.

I was an exception to this hiring practice, as I was hired by an Operations manager that we had at the time and he was trying to change the status quo. I came in with 8 years of purchasing and 5 years of production experience, along with a BS in Supply Chain Management. I'm currently working on getting the APICS CPIM certification. There is also one engineer that was brought in a few months before me that has a great head on his shoulders, again he was hired by someone who was trying to change things.

That operations manager kept getting into arguments with the owner and he ultimately left the company. The owner never replaced him and he tries to run a lot of things on his own now.

So anyway, it is clear that much of the staff either does not possess the skills necessary to run a competitive company, and/or they are unwilling to adapt to doing things more efficiently. Here's a specific example: the accounting supervisor never went to college, she is decent with computers and all that so she also doubles as the IT consultant. Nobody in that company knows much of anything about accounting, and they often come to me with issues. I have never worked as an accountant but I did study it in school and I do know about GAAP.

With all these talented unemployed or underemployed college graduates in NYC, wouldn't it make sense to bring in some newer, more skilled talent?

 

[Organic Damage]

In a small company employees are probably more close knit and thus firing someone for underperforming is probably too personal.

Plus if they've been around that long running things that way and still turn a profit, there's probably little incentive to switch things up.

 

[evansusmc2]

I'm guessing the owner is trying to save a buck by not hiring more people?

These days experience is where it's at.

College degrees are very iffy these days. They could mean the person has to right knowledge to be efficient in a specific job if given the ample time to adjust to it. Or it could mean a person just has proof that they got their ass spanked with a paddle during rush week at a kegger party.

I noticed not many people had replied so I wanted to give you that best answer I could. I'm US military btw so my view might not be as useful as others.

 

[mixmastermo]

In a small company employees are probably more close knit and thus firing someone for underperforming is probably too personal.

Plus if they've been around that long running things that way and still turn a profit, there's probably little incentive to switch things up.

Company is not doing well financially. I don't have exact figures, but I know that in the first quarter we lost our open credit accounts with several suppliers due to the fact they weren't being paid on time. They were deliberately not being paid on time due to a management directive given to A/P. The cash flow was and still is weak.

On another note we are in an industry where our competitors routinely deliver their product within a week of ordering. Everything we sell that is make to order takes a minimum of 5 weeks, and due to the fact you have under qualified people running the operation, we delay orders all the time

 

[John Wang]

They need weak talent around to make themselves feel better because they're weak managers! They prob work for a weak company and are weak in the gym. They live their life week to week

 

[HelloJapan]

Great ass.

 

[mixmastermo]

I'm guessing the owner is trying to save a buck by not hiring more people?

These days experience is where it's at.

College degrees are very iffy these days. They could mean the person has to right knowledge to be efficient in a specific job if given the ample time to adjust to it. Or it could mean a person just has proof that they got their ass spanked with a paddle during rush week at a kegger party.

I noticed not many people had replied so I wanted to give you that best answer I could. I'm US military btw so my view might not be as useful as others.

I'm sure the people who have been with the company for 20, 30 years are getting paid handsomely. You can easily get a recent college grad who will be easier to train to do things the right way for much much less.

 

[lowlife]

In my experience, general incompetence at management levels coupled with trying to get talent for cheap..also most hiring mgers don't effectively evaluate talent during the interview process, can't tell you how many times I've seen what turned out to be a weak performer bullshit his way into a job.

 

[evansusmc2]

In my experience, general incompetence at management levels coupled with trying to get talent for cheap..also most hiring mgers don't effectively evaluate talent during the interview process, can't tell you how many times I've seen what turned out to be a weak performer bullshit his way into a job.

THIS^^

Some people are masters of the interview. Talking fast and loud can work wonders.

 

[SammyPops]

You get what you pay for. I work in medical research, and our admin/support staff are generally weak, but the place I work for pays them for shit.

 

[Lone Coyote]

I don't have enough information, but here's my insight:

Sometimes you don't need to change the way of doing business, you just need to keep the cog running.

 

[Oblivian]

I'm battling this at our office as well. The owner of our company came up in the 1970s where it was common to just have secretaries and general office help. Nowadays, you can maybe get by with one employee like that, but the rest need to be very competent.

I've convinced him at spending more on new hires, make sure they are salary w/ benefits, etc., but we are stuck with two of his old hires. One has been here 30+ years. I literally hired in making more than her at age 25. The 24 year old girl that I just hired makes as much as her. The woman is really bad at her job, and we have several clients that specifically avoid talking to her. The fact is that we are stuck with her until retirement as she's been very loyal to the company and our owner would never fire her. We then have another one of his hires who we give very little responsibility. He honestly said "treat her like an office janitor - give her tasks that need cleaned up or things she can handle that you don't want to do". That doesn't really work out when you have to literally explain everything and are constantly having to look for tasks to do.

I could literally hire one person to replace both of those ladies and have it run more efficiently. I'd probably pay that person a little less than their combined income, so we'd get by even better.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Why would the owner/boss hire and keep weak talent?

They say 80+% of the US workforce is incompetent at their job.......

 

[drstrangelov]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "possess the skills to rub a competitive company?" Your example is a little soft. The crux of your argument seems to be that you feel superior to your coworkers. Im sure everyone there feels the same way.

I can understand the desire to hold on to reliable employees, they're hard to find if you're not paying very high wages. It's often necessary to make a sacrifice on education and train someone to a role in order to hold a person in place in a position for long enough to get over the learning curve. Even well educated people need to learn the job, especially at the entry level, and if you have some over educated millennial in that kind of role, they're going to job-hop out in less than 2 years.

 

[ripskater]

Some bosses keep people because they care about them. They might be slow mentally, or older but the boss can afford to keep them on payroll and he does it out of kindness and loyalty.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Of course you're the exception, lol.

But the reason managers often do this is that they want employees who pad their egos. So they will hire people who they think are not threatening, read stupid. Or they hire kiss asses or both.

 

[Organic Damage]

Some bosses keep people because they care about them. They might be slow mentally, or older but the boss can afford to keep them on payroll and he does it out of kindness and loyalty.

From what TS is saying the business really can't afford to keep these underperforming employees out of loyalty, because they are costing the company money.

I guess it'll probably get to the point where it's either them or the company.

 

[Rhett Henley MD]

I'm sure the people who have been with the company for 20, 30 years are getting paid handsomely. You can easily get a recent college grad who will be easier to train to do things the right way for much much less.

Familiar with the ADEA (Age discrimination in employment act)? Dealing with the EEOC is the pits.

Sounds like the owner is just a tard but maybe this is coloring his decisions?

 

[method115]

Owner might be trying to save money by hiring unqualified people. When he tried to hire qualified people they probably wanted to much money. The guy who hired you may have had to do some serious arguing just to get them to pay you what you wanted who knows.

 

[Oblivian]

I'm sure the people who have been with the company for 20, 30 years are getting paid handsomely. You can easily get a recent college grad who will be easier to train to do things the right way for much much less.

I'm seeing the exact opposite at my job and at my wife's job (semi-large bank). You have people who have been there 20-30 years who are very comfortable at the job and would have a hard time going somewhere else. As I mentioned, I hired in making more than the old timers and I believe my wife made comparable when she hired in.