4 ms·
I think the point is that good programmers are constantly tinkering, trying things out, learning new things, etc, outside of the 9-5 work. I call it "passion" a
by pierrefar 16y ago
I think the point is that good programmers are constantly tinkering, trying things out, learning new things, etc, outside of the 9-5 work. I call it "passion" and other words apply too.
It's a lot like driving: good drivers are fanatic about it. They are always itching to go for a drive and push their cars. If you wanted to hire a star driver, would you want want to hire someone passionate or someone who learned it on the job and gets by?
- jacquesm 16y agoIt simply isn't a criterion for fitness for the job. I can see that it would be an advantage and you might be able to get away with this on a small scale but if say Microsoft made it policy to only hire programmers that program in their spare time as well they'd be in hot water in not time flat. If you want your programmers to continue to be educated for the work that they do and for new technologies applicable to that work then you can provide them with courses during work time. If they do such stuff in their spare time it's great but that can never be a discriminating factor during the hiring process in anything but the most unofficial manner. Anyway, you don't have to believe me, passion is great but you can't mandate it of an employee. If you are looking for a co-founder that's a different story, but people that are employees do not fall in the same category.
- pierrefar 16y agoI think two things are at play here: 1. The chances of discovering a potential employee are much higher if they are passionate about their field. Passionate people make a lot of noise. The OP acknowledges this. 2. I never said you should always higher passionate people. For example, some passionate people are unlikely to get things finished (they're more likely to be excellent at starting projects). I agree with you about this being a rubbish (and potentially illegal) HR policy.
- brown9-2 16y agoThe problem isn't in looking for someone who has "passion" but it is with judging candidates based not upon their ability to do the job, but on other factors. Companies in US are not allowed to discriminate based upon things like commute time, family situation at home, age, etc. - none of which factors into how well they can do the job once they are at work and on "company time" - and the argument that what someone does on their personal time falls into this category of judging someone based on factors beyond "Can the applicant perform this job?" is pretty easy to make. So it's fine to look for passion - but people hiring and doing interviewing should be very cautious about what they say (and especially what they tell applicants) about how they are going to judge your level of passion, unless they want to open themselves up to potential discrimination suits (or so my possibly overly cautious corporate HR department would have us believe).