3 ms·

>Subtext: "A hire can either be good or bad. It's never management's fault if it doesn't work out." I agree that the article gets this wrong. It reminds me of

>Subtext: "A hire can either be good or bad. It's never management's fault if it doesn't work out." I agree that the article gets this wrong. It reminds me of Diego Forlan's time at Manchester United. Diego Forlan is/was an Uruguayan striker at Independiente (Arg) where he scored 36 goals in 77 games (a very good rate). He then moved to Manchester United (Eng) in January of 2002 and was anticipated to take off. He made 18 appearances in the 2001-2002 season but failed to score. It took him until October to net his first Premier League goal. He was loved by the fans as he has/had a great attitude and had some delightful near misses. He also famously scored twice against Liverpool[1]. But he continued to struggle at United, scoring only 17 goals in 63 appearances until he was sold to Villareal (Esp) in August of 2004. In his first season at Villareal he won the Pichichi Trophy (golden boot for La Liga) and the European Golden Boot. What a turnaround! Forlan went on to have a terrific career and is considered one of the best Uruguayans to play modern football (soccer). His time at United was certainly a misstep but it wasn't because he was bad. And it wasn't because United were bad. It just didn't work. Sometimes it just doesn't work. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Zym0gaZqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Zym0gaZqA

peacemaker 9y ago
Delighted to see the unexpected Diego Forlan story here! Such a great talent and the thing was, EVERYONE wanted him to do well at United. I don't believe it was a case of management or team mates not liking him or not working well together, it was just some strange combination of factors that resulted in his performances never living up to expectations. It really does draw parallels to other jobs as you say. I recall a company I joined that had a great mission, interesting work, friendly team and lovely atmosphere but something about it just didnt gel with me. I still have no idea what it was but I guess sometimes it just doesn't work.
sqeaky 9y ago
Did they really get it wrong? Very few candidates are Diego Forlan, very few wrote books, verfy few created a foundational open source project, etc... I suspect candidates that wrote the Linux kernel, Rails, Modern Effective C++ etc... don't need a recruiters services. If whatever candidate wrote is not so big as to land them jobs almost automatically then was it really that big as to demand consideration separate from college degrees and other ignored history? I think we dislike the idea of our history being ignored because we all feel that we are special, but in reality very few of us are.
- fnord123 9y ago
  >Very few candidates are Diego Forlan How would one know? Usually we know a friend who works somewhere and they say the company is shit. Or you work somewhere and someone doesn't work so you end up thinking they're shit. It's not often that you have both sides of the story. >very few wrote books, Books might indicate a good communicator and independent ability to complete a task but it's not an indication that someone is a good team member that fulfills a particular role. >verfy few created a foundational open source project, etc... I contend that this actually risks being a Balotelli. Good in the right atmosphere, but very independent and often stroppy when they don't get their way. They can be terrific in their element but often they're not good enough to build a team around.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    I would argue I know because I have done many interviews, not nearly as many as the author of the article. Most interviewer candidate are about as qualified as a stuffed animal, except I would allow a stuffed animal in the office because they tend not to break things. I agree with you that on your points about books and project founding, but I would hear a candidate out and not make hard unchangeable presumptions. As for how do I "know" I can't know, I am only in the interview for an hour or two. The best I can do is get a sense. If the candidate nails fizzbuzz, explain the nuances of git v mercurial for 20 minutes and provides a plausible explanation for his previous place of employments toxicity then that affects my decision making one way. If it feel as though their reasons are thinly veiled excuses, they don't know foundational tools or fail at fizzbuzz... well I don't let interviews proceed to where people fail all three when they start with some minor points against them. Too many red flags and I call it done.

peacemaker 9y ago

Delighted to see the unexpected Diego Forlan story here! Such a great talent and the thing was, EVERYONE wanted him to do well at United. I don't believe it was a case of management or team mates not liking him or not working well together, it was just some strange combination of factors that resulted in his performances never living up to expectations. It really does draw parallels to other jobs as you say. I recall a company I joined that had a great mission, interesting work, friendly team and lovely atmosphere but something about it just didnt gel with me. I still have no idea what it was but I guess sometimes it just doesn't work.

sqeaky 9y ago

Did they really get it wrong? Very few candidates are Diego Forlan, very few wrote books, verfy few created a foundational open source project, etc... I suspect candidates that wrote the Linux kernel, Rails, Modern Effective C++ etc... don't need a recruiters services. If whatever candidate wrote is not so big as to land them jobs almost automatically then was it really that big as to demand consideration separate from college degrees and other ignored history? I think we dislike the idea of our history being ignored because we all feel that we are special, but in reality very few of us are.

fnord123 9y ago
>Very few candidates are Diego Forlan How would one know? Usually we know a friend who works somewhere and they say the company is shit. Or you work somewhere and someone doesn't work so you end up thinking they're shit. It's not often that you have both sides of the story. >very few wrote books, Books might indicate a good communicator and independent ability to complete a task but it's not an indication that someone is a good team member that fulfills a particular role. >verfy few created a foundational open source project, etc... I contend that this actually risks being a Balotelli. Good in the right atmosphere, but very independent and often stroppy when they don't get their way. They can be terrific in their element but often they're not good enough to build a team around.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  I would argue I know because I have done many interviews, not nearly as many as the author of the article. Most interviewer candidate are about as qualified as a stuffed animal, except I would allow a stuffed animal in the office because they tend not to break things. I agree with you that on your points about books and project founding, but I would hear a candidate out and not make hard unchangeable presumptions. As for how do I "know" I can't know, I am only in the interview for an hour or two. The best I can do is get a sense. If the candidate nails fizzbuzz, explain the nuances of git v mercurial for 20 minutes and provides a plausible explanation for his previous place of employments toxicity then that affects my decision making one way. If it feel as though their reasons are thinly veiled excuses, they don't know foundational tools or fail at fizzbuzz... well I don't let interviews proceed to where people fail all three when they start with some minor points against them. Too many red flags and I call it done.