7 ms·

Forgive me also for being blunt ... what if the person who has the poor track records is yourself? I'm of course referring to myself and others who don't have a

Forgive me also for being blunt ... what if the person who has the poor track records is yourself? I'm of course referring to myself and others who don't have as a tough sounding username as lionhearted. I think we give the benefit of doubt to people that we could relate to, who have had the same disadvantages and flaws as ourselves (after all, to not do so is to reject ourselves). Does your statement imply that we should try to align ourselves with those who have better track records than our own, and vice versa for those who are inferior? I'm not trying to be facetious, but trying to get you to elaborate applying what you said in a real world context.

lionhearted 16y ago
> what if the person who has the poor track records is yourself? Build a track record! :) The problem with people without track records is that often they talk a good game but haven't built up their game. You goal shouldn't be to convince people that you're now [loyal / effective / honest / disciplined / whatever], it should be to actually build that quality in yourself. Everyone's got no track record at some point. Build yours. Accomplish things. Be loyal. Keep growing and learning and doing things. Mostly - do things as much as possible as fast as possible. "Quantity always trumps quality" - http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/08/quantity-always-trumps-quality.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/08/quantity-always-tru... > Does your statement imply that we should try to align ourselves with those who have better track records than our own, and vice versa for those who are inferior? It's not about better/inferior - it means people will usually continue to do what they've done in the past, as opposed to what they say they're going to do. You should look to associate yourself with people you admire and like, and you should also look to find people on their way up and help them too. I don't think I've ever quoted the Bible before, but this about covers it: "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to reap that which is planted. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to to mourn, and a time to dance. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing. A time to get and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace." > I'm not trying to be facetious, but trying to get you to elaborate applying what you said in a real world context. Okay, ultra-practical rendition: -Avoid men/women with a history of nasty endings to their relationships, even if they're charming... -Avoid hiring people who look extremely talented but flame out without producing -Avoid working for people that everyone says is a terrible/mean/awful boss/client/whatever, even if they seem okay -Feel free to break this if you have a particularly good eye for talent, but only then -If someone has rehabilitated themself, you'll generally see a good track record coming from them quickly. People can accomplish and build and do good things pretty quick after improving. Don't take anyone's word that they've improved without results, because everyone says that. Anyway, don't sweat if you have a mixed or poor track record yet, just start building yours as quickly as you can. Accomplish things, build things, learn, and serve people, and don't forget to get some of the value you create for accomplishing, building, and serving - helping is good, but it's totally fair to get some of the value you created. As you accomplish more things, people come to know and respect you as a guy that gets things done, is a good guy, and accomplishes things. Then people want to work with you. It's a virtuous cycle.
- chegra 16y ago
  I agree with the track record thing but it is important to compartmentalize here. Somebody might have a track record of being a womanizer but might be good at what they do eg. Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, JFK, or they might have a gambling problem, reference Michael Jordon. With that said, only judge people on track record in the category you need them to perform in.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    I don't know, I think character is a really important trait. If someone is a womanizer and consistently breaks his commitment to his spouse, why should we believe that he will deal any differently with us? One is to have the most intimate, enduring, unbreakable commitment to his spouse, and if this person considers such an intimate connection worthless, why would he place any value on your professional relationship? The best way to find success in hiring is to hire people who are honest and moral all-around. Don't make exceptions just because someone is supposedly a "rockstar programmer"; even if he can write code 10x more efficient than anyone else, it's almost never worth the added interpersonal friction. Life -- and business -- is all about relationships, not technicalities.
    - chegra 16y ago
      Phil Jackson placed Rodman on the Bulls despite his character flaw and generally being regarded as being unstable. But Rodman was the best at what he did. I think everybody comes with their flaws but choose people based on their genius not on their lack of flaws. I think people have this notion that a person has to be this all around good person, when it is not true. Like Woods, the media needs to present this image of being perfect. What you need are people perfect for their position and manage their other flaws
      - cookiecaper 16y ago
        Sports stars are something of an unusual situation. Things like instability generate publicity for the given player and his team. Rodman was good for the Bulls because: a. the Bulls is show business; people pay to see characters like Rodman b. celebrity tabloids/news pick up on "unstable" behavior and make a show out of it, which is good publicity and marketing for the subjects c. a long-term steady relationship is not necessarily important; you milk the characters while they generate cash for your business, and try to make it last, but if they eventually leave (in most cases, including Rodman's; MJ would be an exception) there's no critical damage to the business, just less free publicity. It's not about picking people on a "lack of flaws" generally. It's about avoiding people who've demonstrably, repeatedly, unabashedly violated the most important and intimate commitments they have ever made, and it's about reasoning from that basis that they may not value your professional relationship so much if they won't even value their marital relationship very much. Adultery isn't necessarily the only case where this conclusion is valid, but I think you get the point. You should avoid "bad people", even if they are geniuses. Just look around -- Ulrich Drepper is a liability to libc because of his abrasiveness and that trait has caused fragmentation of effort, Hans Reiser wrote a mighty fine filesystem, but couldn't work with others and eventually murdered his wife, and so on. I don't know the personal lives of Drepper or Reiser so it's unfortunate to implicate them in this post, but the point is, some things are more important than raw performance in a core competency. If we accept slightly-less-awesome code in return for largely-more-awesome demeanor, interaction, and maintainership, that's a great trade because while the code may run slightly less fast, it will attract many more users and contributors, prevent fragmentation, and progress quickly and more applicably than a project run by a close-minded or hostile maintainer, no matter how great that individual's code is. The reality is that a person's behavior in their personal life is a reflection of their behavior in professional life. You can't really segregate the two and pretend that they're completely different animals. They bleed over, a person is one individual. I would never hire someone I knew to be a fraudster or adulterer because they have already proven that they are not worthy of trust from their closest friends and family members, much less their employer.

lionhearted 16y ago

> what if the person who has the poor track records is yourself? Build a track record! :) The problem with people without track records is that often they talk a good game but haven't built up their game. You goal shouldn't be to convince people that you're now [loyal / effective / honest / disciplined / whatever], it should be to actually build that quality in yourself. Everyone's got no track record at some point. Build yours. Accomplish things. Be loyal. Keep growing and learning and doing things. Mostly - do things as much as possible as fast as possible. "Quantity always trumps quality" - http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/08/quantity-always-trumps-quality.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/08/quantity-always-tru... > Does your statement imply that we should try to align ourselves with those who have better track records than our own, and vice versa for those who are inferior? It's not about better/inferior - it means people will usually continue to do what they've done in the past, as opposed to what they say they're going to do. You should look to associate yourself with people you admire and like, and you should also look to find people on their way up and help them too. I don't think I've ever quoted the Bible before, but this about covers it: "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to reap that which is planted. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to to mourn, and a time to dance. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing. A time to get and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace." > I'm not trying to be facetious, but trying to get you to elaborate applying what you said in a real world context. Okay, ultra-practical rendition: -Avoid men/women with a history of nasty endings to their relationships, even if they're charming... -Avoid hiring people who look extremely talented but flame out without producing -Avoid working for people that everyone says is a terrible/mean/awful boss/client/whatever, even if they seem okay -Feel free to break this if you have a particularly good eye for talent, but only then -If someone has rehabilitated themself, you'll generally see a good track record coming from them quickly. People can accomplish and build and do good things pretty quick after improving. Don't take anyone's word that they've improved without results, because everyone says that. Anyway, don't sweat if you have a mixed or poor track record yet, just start building yours as quickly as you can. Accomplish things, build things, learn, and serve people, and don't forget to get some of the value you create for accomplishing, building, and serving - helping is good, but it's totally fair to get some of the value you created. As you accomplish more things, people come to know and respect you as a guy that gets things done, is a good guy, and accomplishes things. Then people want to work with you. It's a virtuous cycle.

chegra 16y ago
I agree with the track record thing but it is important to compartmentalize here. Somebody might have a track record of being a womanizer but might be good at what they do eg. Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, JFK, or they might have a gambling problem, reference Michael Jordon. With that said, only judge people on track record in the category you need them to perform in.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  I don't know, I think character is a really important trait. If someone is a womanizer and consistently breaks his commitment to his spouse, why should we believe that he will deal any differently with us? One is to have the most intimate, enduring, unbreakable commitment to his spouse, and if this person considers such an intimate connection worthless, why would he place any value on your professional relationship? The best way to find success in hiring is to hire people who are honest and moral all-around. Don't make exceptions just because someone is supposedly a "rockstar programmer"; even if he can write code 10x more efficient than anyone else, it's almost never worth the added interpersonal friction. Life -- and business -- is all about relationships, not technicalities.
  - chegra 16y ago
    Phil Jackson placed Rodman on the Bulls despite his character flaw and generally being regarded as being unstable. But Rodman was the best at what he did. I think everybody comes with their flaws but choose people based on their genius not on their lack of flaws. I think people have this notion that a person has to be this all around good person, when it is not true. Like Woods, the media needs to present this image of being perfect. What you need are people perfect for their position and manage their other flaws
    - cookiecaper 16y ago
      Sports stars are something of an unusual situation. Things like instability generate publicity for the given player and his team. Rodman was good for the Bulls because: a. the Bulls is show business; people pay to see characters like Rodman b. celebrity tabloids/news pick up on "unstable" behavior and make a show out of it, which is good publicity and marketing for the subjects c. a long-term steady relationship is not necessarily important; you milk the characters while they generate cash for your business, and try to make it last, but if they eventually leave (in most cases, including Rodman's; MJ would be an exception) there's no critical damage to the business, just less free publicity. It's not about picking people on a "lack of flaws" generally. It's about avoiding people who've demonstrably, repeatedly, unabashedly violated the most important and intimate commitments they have ever made, and it's about reasoning from that basis that they may not value your professional relationship so much if they won't even value their marital relationship very much. Adultery isn't necessarily the only case where this conclusion is valid, but I think you get the point. You should avoid "bad people", even if they are geniuses. Just look around -- Ulrich Drepper is a liability to libc because of his abrasiveness and that trait has caused fragmentation of effort, Hans Reiser wrote a mighty fine filesystem, but couldn't work with others and eventually murdered his wife, and so on. I don't know the personal lives of Drepper or Reiser so it's unfortunate to implicate them in this post, but the point is, some things are more important than raw performance in a core competency. If we accept slightly-less-awesome code in return for largely-more-awesome demeanor, interaction, and maintainership, that's a great trade because while the code may run slightly less fast, it will attract many more users and contributors, prevent fragmentation, and progress quickly and more applicably than a project run by a close-minded or hostile maintainer, no matter how great that individual's code is. The reality is that a person's behavior in their personal life is a reflection of their behavior in professional life. You can't really segregate the two and pretend that they're completely different animals. They bleed over, a person is one individual. I would never hire someone I knew to be a fraudster or adulterer because they have already proven that they are not worthy of trust from their closest friends and family members, much less their employer.