4 ms·

Another ivory tower joins those built by Spolsky and Yegge. A nice theory on hiring that is completely impractical, bordering on the surreal. 1) You wouldn't r

Another ivory tower joins those built by Spolsky and Yegge. A nice theory on hiring that is completely impractical, bordering on the surreal. 1) You wouldn't recognize a Dennis-Ritchie- or Claude-Shannon-to-be if they would spit you in the face, because at the point in their lives where they would consider to work for you (if there ever was such a point), their achievements would not stand out nearly as much. Robin Milner died saturday and I just learned he didn't even have a Ph.D. Pretending you'd be even remotely capable of recognizing 2) What gives you the idea that people with such potential would apply at RethinkDB? You are describing a group of maybe a thousand people worldwide. Many have academic ambitions; others are interested in completely different subjects. There are more than a thousand companies looking for these people. If you'd manage to hire one, you'd be lucky. 3) Even if you were able to recognize the ability for such achievements and get them to apply, it is doubtful they would able to achieve those peaks in your corporate environment. Claude Shannon didn't have to satisfy any customers. He could spend years developing a theory, whose practical value was only clear after it was sufficiently developed. 4) A corollary of 2): the people you've hired so far are not the kind of people you describe. It would be nice if, just for once, someone would try to describe the people they actually hire, instead of pretending they only hire potential Field medalists, Nobel laureates and other people of such fame that all of their actual developers know them. [..] I am often unable to solve complex problems during the interview because of the nervous pressure. But I don’t want to hire people as good as me, I want to hire people much better than me. 5) People that botch their interview because they are nervous can't be better than you? Perhaps nervousness/self-doubt go hand-in-hand with the ability to be better than you and you're throwing out the babies with the bathwater. Especially considering that someone passionate about working with you would be prone to nervousness. 6) And finally, about that Spolsky quote: I'm convinced he put it there to make sure no one else would hire the ones he would like to hire. If you don't have any doubts about a candidate, then you haven't pried enough to expose their weaknesses. That, or they are too glib. You should have doubts about every single one of your interviewees. PS: this article, as well as the ones by Spolsky and Yegge referenced in the article, contain sound advice. However, all three of them go overboard at some point, which inspired the above. This comment might be considered as tearing apart a specific point, while ignoring the larger whole. This is not my intention: the article is worth reading.

edw519 17y ago
Great post. Approached from an angle not often taken here. Oddly, you said one thing that just didn't sit well with me. I re-read it several times trying to figure out why I was so uncomfortable with it: Claude Shannon didn't have to satisfy any customers. He could spend years developing a theory, whose practical value was only clear after it was sufficiently developed. This is exactly the opposite of my thinking. I've been in academia and in the trenches. I prefer the trenches. Where I come from you don't have anything until you're able to satisfy customers. Building theories, tools, and new approaches is great, so great, in fact, that some of the best breakthroughs I've ever seen were because a customer demanded something people like us never imagined or thought possible. I love satisfying customers with whatever I have in my back pocket. And lots of that stuff was developed by the giants whose shoulders I stand on. I always imagined that they were satisfying their own customers, but I guess quite a few of them were just doing "basic research". You reminded us that there needs to be room for both the "trench warrior" and the "dreamer". When you're building a team, you need to decide who would be better for the role at hand and approach the recruiting accordingly.
- ggruschow 17y ago
  With respect, isn't it normal to start with something less than would satisfy customers? I think the difference you're describing is in direction, not position. On the side you prefer, you figure out what someone wants, and heads toward that. On the other, you head towards something you want or feel like doing. I assume you've found the right project for you when the sides are the same.
- weichi 17y ago
  Not relevant to the "hiring process" discussion, but I think the idea that: Claude Shannon didn't have to satisfy any customers. He could spend years developing a theory, whose practical value was only clear after it was sufficiently developed is historically wrong; certainly reading the wikipedia page on Shannon makes it sound like he developed his ideas while doing quite practical work during WW II. Someone please correct me if my impression is incorrect.
coffeemug 17y ago

edw519 17y ago

Great post. Approached from an angle not often taken here. Oddly, you said one thing that just didn't sit well with me. I re-read it several times trying to figure out why I was so uncomfortable with it: Claude Shannon didn't have to satisfy any customers. He could spend years developing a theory, whose practical value was only clear after it was sufficiently developed. This is exactly the opposite of my thinking. I've been in academia and in the trenches. I prefer the trenches. Where I come from you don't have anything until you're able to satisfy customers. Building theories, tools, and new approaches is great, so great, in fact, that some of the best breakthroughs I've ever seen were because a customer demanded something people like us never imagined or thought possible. I love satisfying customers with whatever I have in my back pocket. And lots of that stuff was developed by the giants whose shoulders I stand on. I always imagined that they were satisfying their own customers, but I guess quite a few of them were just doing "basic research". You reminded us that there needs to be room for both the "trench warrior" and the "dreamer". When you're building a team, you need to decide who would be better for the role at hand and approach the recruiting accordingly.

ggruschow 17y ago
With respect, isn't it normal to start with something less than would satisfy customers? I think the difference you're describing is in direction, not position. On the side you prefer, you figure out what someone wants, and heads toward that. On the other, you head towards something you want or feel like doing. I assume you've found the right project for you when the sides are the same.
weichi 17y ago
Not relevant to the "hiring process" discussion, but I think the idea that: Claude Shannon didn't have to satisfy any customers. He could spend years developing a theory, whose practical value was only clear after it was sufficiently developed is historically wrong; certainly reading the wikipedia page on Shannon makes it sound like he developed his ideas while doing quite practical work during WW II. Someone please correct me if my impression is incorrect.

coffeemug 17y ago