Hard disagree on this. Large companies can't afford false negatives because false negatives can hide out and move from team to team without detection. At a small company if the same thing happens it means leadership is incompetent and you have bigger problems anyway.
At the risk of over-explaining (hopefully) obvious satire, I'm considering a "false positive" to be someone who was hired who should not have been, i.e. the hiring process gave a positive result that was wrong.
Large companies can and often do afford sizeable percentage of workforce making zero to negative contributions. This would be devastating for a small team with a finite runway
Indeed! But it's generally much harder to reach consensus and actually remove someone at large companies. Especially for a startup with limited runway it's existential, whereas at a large company there is far more to lose from a lawsuit than from eating a high salary as a net negative.
> But it's generally much harder to reach consensus and actually remove someone at large companies
Disagree. Big corps have well established processes for this and deep pockets to pay lawyers out of in case of any wrongful termination claims against them
