5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - chegra 16y ago
      [I didn't downvote you, I think you are making some valid points] What I'm trying to point out is not paint with broad strokes. But evaluate everything and everyone independently of rules. Flaws of people admired: 1) Gandhi - Racist 2) Martin Luther King - Copy someone's work for his phd. Also an adulterer. 3) Edgar Allan Poe - So disrespectful that he was disowned by his guardians. 4) Tesla - Hated fat people. 5) Steve Jobs - Erratic and Temperamental. Fired employees on the spot 6) Bill Gates - Monopolistic tendencies 7) Mark Zuckerberg - Used delay tactics on his competition to get facebook to market. Hacked people's profile. 8)Vincent van Gogh - Lived with a prostitute. Accused of rape. Was mentally ill. Cut his ear off. I would say it's best to control these negative tendencies than to try to find flawless people. Apple tried to control Steve behavior and you see what happened in his absent. While he went on to form NeXT and Pixar, Apple tank. Sure it will be nice to have someone who isn't temperamental and abrasive but choose genius over any other qualities. I think the rest qualities can be managed. Give Steve a meditation coach(meditation= more empathetic)
      - cookiecaper 16y ago
        Thanks for not downvoting me. Again, it's not about finding "flawless" or "perfect" people. We all know these people don't exist. It's just about paying attention to a few basic moral imperatives, namely integrity; if a person has a history of adultery, that person is not likely to be a trustworthy resource. That person is willing to destroy the lives and hearts of his family for fleeting personal sexual gain. Why do you think such a person wouldn't be willing to trade the well-being of your company or other employees if the right personal incentives materialized? An adulterer is pretty much the most selfish kind of person you can find. Of course adulterers and other people can still do good things. Everyone is capable of doing good. I am merely saying that I wouldn't invest the resources into hiring an adulterer because adulterers prove that they are suspicious and untrustworthy by committing adultery. There are plenty of non-adulterers out there that are safer investments, even if it costs me a bit of CPU time.
        chegra 16y ago
        All of us have our limits, I wouldn't hesitate to hire an adulterer but under no circumstances I would hire a racist, a rapist, or a murderer.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Neither Rodman nor Woods ever had any incentive to play poorly or otherwise screw over their team. Hiring untrustworthy people is fine if you can make sure their incentives are 100% aligned with yours. If you can't, then I think cookiecaper's advice is sound.
- zephyrfalcon 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?" From what I can tell, this seems to be a common way of thinking in the US, especially in politics. Much less so in Europe (and maybe other parts of the world, I don't know). Personally, I don't see the connection between a person's romantic affairs, and their political decisions... one involves raging hormones, the other (hopefully) does not, so the decision making process is likely very different. (One could say, there are different body parts involved in the decision making... :-)
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    And what happens when things align such that sexual incentives occur which are contrary to relevant covenants? If we can't trust a politician to be loyal to his wife when faced with another attractive woman, why should we trust him to be loyal to political or employment covenants, by all accounts much less intimate and involved than a marriage covenant, if such a condition was presented? For instance, if a company promises lots of pre-paid escort time in exchange for a given change to a given bill, why should we expect that an adulterer would be any more loyal to the right regarding the political establishment than his own wife and family? And the reality is that these people don't even need an explicit sexual offer to betray their associates, there are many other bribes that appeal to the same basic desires (like money, power, status, etc.) that can be exploited to the same ultimate end. An adulterer is a proven liability. Why should we trust him and invest a bunch of time and money and trust and secrets into him, only to betrayed when an adversarial entity lures him with money and sex? Obviously repentant people should be given another chance at some point, but I would never trust a known adulterer that wasn't completely repentant.

by chegra 16y ago

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.
  - chegra 16y ago
    [I didn't downvote you, I think you are making some valid points] What I'm trying to point out is not paint with broad strokes. But evaluate everything and everyone independently of rules. Flaws of people admired: 1) Gandhi - Racist 2) Martin Luther King - Copy someone's work for his phd. Also an adulterer. 3) Edgar Allan Poe - So disrespectful that he was disowned by his guardians. 4) Tesla - Hated fat people. 5) Steve Jobs - Erratic and Temperamental. Fired employees on the spot 6) Bill Gates - Monopolistic tendencies 7) Mark Zuckerberg - Used delay tactics on his competition to get facebook to market. Hacked people's profile. 8)Vincent van Gogh - Lived with a prostitute. Accused of rape. Was mentally ill. Cut his ear off. I would say it's best to control these negative tendencies than to try to find flawless people. Apple tried to control Steve behavior and you see what happened in his absent. While he went on to form NeXT and Pixar, Apple tank. Sure it will be nice to have someone who isn't temperamental and abrasive but choose genius over any other qualities. I think the rest qualities can be managed. Give Steve a meditation coach(meditation= more empathetic)
    - cookiecaper 16y ago
      Thanks for not downvoting me. Again, it's not about finding "flawless" or "perfect" people. We all know these people don't exist. It's just about paying attention to a few basic moral imperatives, namely integrity; if a person has a history of adultery, that person is not likely to be a trustworthy resource. That person is willing to destroy the lives and hearts of his family for fleeting personal sexual gain. Why do you think such a person wouldn't be willing to trade the well-being of your company or other employees if the right personal incentives materialized? An adulterer is pretty much the most selfish kind of person you can find. Of course adulterers and other people can still do good things. Everyone is capable of doing good. I am merely saying that I wouldn't invest the resources into hiring an adulterer because adulterers prove that they are suspicious and untrustworthy by committing adultery. There are plenty of non-adulterers out there that are safer investments, even if it costs me a bit of CPU time.
      - chegra 16y ago
        All of us have our limits, I wouldn't hesitate to hire an adulterer but under no circumstances I would hire a racist, a rapist, or a murderer.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Neither Rodman nor Woods ever had any incentive to play poorly or otherwise screw over their team. Hiring untrustworthy people is fine if you can make sure their incentives are 100% aligned with yours. If you can't, then I think cookiecaper's advice is sound.
zephyrfalcon 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?" From what I can tell, this seems to be a common way of thinking in the US, especially in politics. Much less so in Europe (and maybe other parts of the world, I don't know). Personally, I don't see the connection between a person's romantic affairs, and their political decisions... one involves raging hormones, the other (hopefully) does not, so the decision making process is likely very different. (One could say, there are different body parts involved in the decision making... :-)
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  And what happens when things align such that sexual incentives occur which are contrary to relevant covenants? If we can't trust a politician to be loyal to his wife when faced with another attractive woman, why should we trust him to be loyal to political or employment covenants, by all accounts much less intimate and involved than a marriage covenant, if such a condition was presented? For instance, if a company promises lots of pre-paid escort time in exchange for a given change to a given bill, why should we expect that an adulterer would be any more loyal to the right regarding the political establishment than his own wife and family? And the reality is that these people don't even need an explicit sexual offer to betray their associates, there are many other bribes that appeal to the same basic desires (like money, power, status, etc.) that can be exploited to the same ultimate end. An adulterer is a proven liability. Why should we trust him and invest a bunch of time and money and trust and secrets into him, only to betrayed when an adversarial entity lures him with money and sex? Obviously repentant people should be given another chance at some point, but I would never trust a known adulterer that wasn't completely repentant.