6 ms·

> Ideally all our interview problems should be built in a way that even a non-technical person with highly developed abstract thinking could answer. why is th

> Ideally all our interview problems should be built in a way that even a non-technical person with highly developed abstract thinking could answer. why is this any kind of ideal? What about reality? > your current technology stack is also irrelevant, the right candidate with great cognitive capacity will be able to adapt fast, pick up new things and bring new ways and ideas, breaking your team’s or company’s tunnel vision. Their fluid thinking and almost extreme ability to identify and extract patterns will exceed anything you have expected. Hire a superstar that will steamroll your existing developers - great advice. Let's not worry if they're collaborative. > I can’t stress enough that hiring based on your current technology stack or domain is extremely wrong. Never do it. Never. If the only reason you are bringing on board new developer because he has a lot of experience in your domain or with the CMS, programming language or framework that you are using, then you are making a kind of mistake it is very hard to recover from. don't hire them for any real reason you might have? Sounds like real sage wisdom. This post is classic silicon valley. Out of touch with reality, and discriminatory towards diversity. People are different. No person is more than one person. I have a lot of experience with hiring software developers. This is mostly drivel. You want to hire talent? Offer good pay, interesting work, and freedom to do it. That's step one. Step two is finding people who can do the work in the given domain(s) of your organization, and step three is finding people who can do said work with your team. There is no step four.

rinchik 9y ago
Good points. I think the topic is more complex than just finding an oompa-loompa for your current technology stack. If you think about long-term benefits for the team and company as a whole, it will be highly beneficial to bring highly able, rational and driven people on board. I'm guessing what you probably have in mind is consultancy, where you need a highly specialized individual to complete this, one, particular project, which is very different from full-time employees. Also we need to carefully start destructing and eliminating this stigma around people who are being perceived and labeled as "superstars". Great mental capacity and ability does not imply bad social skills. This marginalization hurts the industry. Great note about collaboration! This post doesn't cover an entire hiring process, just one aspect of it. Collaboration and communication skills are definitely a must.
- meesterdude 9y ago
  > I think the topic is more complex than just finding an oompa-loompa for your current technology stack. If you think about long-term benefits for the team and company as a whole, it will be highly beneficial to bring highly able, rational and driven people on board. See point one. It's up to you if you have oompa-loompa work to be done or are trying something entirely new. But the reality is there is a lot of talent out there - the oompa-loompas are out there too, but it's for low paying, uninteresting work (which i tried to exclude). > I'm guessing what you probably have in mind is consultancy, where you need a highly specialized individual to complete this, one, particular project, which is very different from full-time employees. no. The point I was trying to make is that we can overthink hiring, when in reality it's not that mysterious. And the reason hiring is so bad in the industry is because we think it's something it's not. > destructing and eliminating this stigma around people who are being perceived and labeled as "superstars". Great mental capacity and ability does not imply bad social skills The stigma is not around "superstars", but the quest for them and solely them in our industry. We as an industry are hyper-focused on this one type of person and missing out on all other kinds of people than can bring a variety of things to the table (aka diversity). The stigma is not that superstars are anti-social, it's that non super stars have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Which is just a recipe for the classic SV echo chamber.
  - xstartup 9y ago
    >> The stigma is not around "superstars", but the quest for them and solely them in our industry. We as an industry are hyper-focused on this one type of person and missing out on all other kinds of people than can bring a variety of things to the table (aka diversity). The stigma is not that superstars are anti-social, it's that non super stars have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Which is just a recipe for the classic SV echo chamber. Diversity might be good for an established company but for a startup, it's not important at all. I encourage everyone to look for the right person and not waste their time on others. It's their startup, they are the person taking all risk. It's up to them to figure out what kind of person is best fit to solve their problem. After all, they've thought about both problems and solution and long enough to consider taking this risk. It's all or nothing game, no person who succeeded elsewhere can be deemed qualified to change their perception. If you need a superstar, chase him with passion.
throwawayeoi9 9y ago
> You want to hire talent? Offer good pay, interesting work, and freedom to do it. How about just offer good pay and don’t pretend like email archival or configuring LDAP or trudging through poorly-designed databases is sexy, exciting work because it isn’t? Bad news: most work isn’t interesting, and I absolutely loathe when companies, even “exciting” startups that are “changing the world”, pretend that configuring their Jenkins server is somehow life-altering, fulfilling work. Most work isn’t interesting, and that’s fine. I don’t mind configuring Jenkins, or setting up LDAP, or fixing crappy databases, or writing Yet Another Feature. I’m good at those things, and a job well-done is certainly satisfying, but let’s not pretend that my 9 to 5 is anything more than a job. I get excited about my job like I get excited about going to the dentist: it’s something I have to do to maintain a good life, and while I am certainly more than willing to do it, I don’t try to pretend like it’s particularly fun or special.
- meesterdude 9y ago
  > How about just offer good pay and don’t pretend like email archival or configuring LDAP or trudging through poorly-designed databases is sexy, exciting work because it isn’t? This is 100% fair as well. Some companies really do have interesting work and problems to be solved, and the work is enjoyable and satisfying. But I get that all work won't be like that, and there may be plenty of boring work as well. in your case, i think what would be relevant is making it known that these technologies are used, and that they are configured in the best way possible to ensure they're maintainable. If it's going to be boring work, it should at least be orderly.
- watwut 9y ago
  I think that ability to do the job and being responsible should definitely rank higher then ability to look "passionable" - which often seems to be more important. Another issue however is that there truly are people who like fixing database, configuring LDAP and other similar practical work. I have met them. They don't find that life altering, but they dont want life altering. They want to come to work, fix stuff, do the job and go home. There is no universal interesting work. What is interesting to me is not interesting to you or other people. I enjoyed fixing bugs in someone elses code, I found it interesting challenge, but quite a lot of people hate it. I like large long lived projects, quite a lot of people hate them. Too many people think that what they find interesting is what everyone finds interesting. What happens in this industry is that the company has a job that requires a lot of routine, but goes out of its way to pretend the job is exciting for people who don't. Because generic idea of superstar. So they hire someone who does not fit position at all. And they would not hire that person who would gladly do the routine thing to them and would be good at it, because he does not fit the expected profile of excitement.
xstartup 9y ago
>> You want to hire talent? Offer good pay, interesting work, and freedom to do it. As someone who has hired a lot of people and offered a 1M+ salary to some of them, they'll take your salary and start their own business with it. Pay what market will bear, never regret again. People are not that loyal no matter what you pay. Even if you pay someone lot more than what they worth, they'll attribute it to their talent and will never feel indebted or loyal to you. (as you might be thinking).
- seangrogg 9y ago
  Money doesn't create loyalty... it aligns interests. Most businesses aren't loyal to their employees - there is no logic as to why the inverse should be true, either.
  - xstartup 9y ago
    Yea, this seems to support my point.
IncRnd 9y ago
> I have a lot of experience with hiring software developers. This is mostly drivel. Quoted for truth.

rinchik 9y ago

Good points. I think the topic is more complex than just finding an oompa-loompa for your current technology stack. If you think about long-term benefits for the team and company as a whole, it will be highly beneficial to bring highly able, rational and driven people on board. I'm guessing what you probably have in mind is consultancy, where you need a highly specialized individual to complete this, one, particular project, which is very different from full-time employees. Also we need to carefully start destructing and eliminating this stigma around people who are being perceived and labeled as "superstars". Great mental capacity and ability does not imply bad social skills. This marginalization hurts the industry. Great note about collaboration! This post doesn't cover an entire hiring process, just one aspect of it. Collaboration and communication skills are definitely a must.

meesterdude 9y ago
> I think the topic is more complex than just finding an oompa-loompa for your current technology stack. If you think about long-term benefits for the team and company as a whole, it will be highly beneficial to bring highly able, rational and driven people on board. See point one. It's up to you if you have oompa-loompa work to be done or are trying something entirely new. But the reality is there is a lot of talent out there - the oompa-loompas are out there too, but it's for low paying, uninteresting work (which i tried to exclude). > I'm guessing what you probably have in mind is consultancy, where you need a highly specialized individual to complete this, one, particular project, which is very different from full-time employees. no. The point I was trying to make is that we can overthink hiring, when in reality it's not that mysterious. And the reason hiring is so bad in the industry is because we think it's something it's not. > destructing and eliminating this stigma around people who are being perceived and labeled as "superstars". Great mental capacity and ability does not imply bad social skills The stigma is not around "superstars", but the quest for them and solely them in our industry. We as an industry are hyper-focused on this one type of person and missing out on all other kinds of people than can bring a variety of things to the table (aka diversity). The stigma is not that superstars are anti-social, it's that non super stars have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Which is just a recipe for the classic SV echo chamber.
- xstartup 9y ago
  >> The stigma is not around "superstars", but the quest for them and solely them in our industry. We as an industry are hyper-focused on this one type of person and missing out on all other kinds of people than can bring a variety of things to the table (aka diversity). The stigma is not that superstars are anti-social, it's that non super stars have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Which is just a recipe for the classic SV echo chamber. Diversity might be good for an established company but for a startup, it's not important at all. I encourage everyone to look for the right person and not waste their time on others. It's their startup, they are the person taking all risk. It's up to them to figure out what kind of person is best fit to solve their problem. After all, they've thought about both problems and solution and long enough to consider taking this risk. It's all or nothing game, no person who succeeded elsewhere can be deemed qualified to change their perception. If you need a superstar, chase him with passion.

throwawayeoi9 9y ago

> You want to hire talent? Offer good pay, interesting work, and freedom to do it. How about just offer good pay and don’t pretend like email archival or configuring LDAP or trudging through poorly-designed databases is sexy, exciting work because it isn’t? Bad news: most work isn’t interesting, and I absolutely loathe when companies, even “exciting” startups that are “changing the world”, pretend that configuring their Jenkins server is somehow life-altering, fulfilling work. Most work isn’t interesting, and that’s fine. I don’t mind configuring Jenkins, or setting up LDAP, or fixing crappy databases, or writing Yet Another Feature. I’m good at those things, and a job well-done is certainly satisfying, but let’s not pretend that my 9 to 5 is anything more than a job. I get excited about my job like I get excited about going to the dentist: it’s something I have to do to maintain a good life, and while I am certainly more than willing to do it, I don’t try to pretend like it’s particularly fun or special.

meesterdude 9y ago
> How about just offer good pay and don’t pretend like email archival or configuring LDAP or trudging through poorly-designed databases is sexy, exciting work because it isn’t? This is 100% fair as well. Some companies really do have interesting work and problems to be solved, and the work is enjoyable and satisfying. But I get that all work won't be like that, and there may be plenty of boring work as well. in your case, i think what would be relevant is making it known that these technologies are used, and that they are configured in the best way possible to ensure they're maintainable. If it's going to be boring work, it should at least be orderly.
watwut 9y ago
I think that ability to do the job and being responsible should definitely rank higher then ability to look "passionable" - which often seems to be more important. Another issue however is that there truly are people who like fixing database, configuring LDAP and other similar practical work. I have met them. They don't find that life altering, but they dont want life altering. They want to come to work, fix stuff, do the job and go home. There is no universal interesting work. What is interesting to me is not interesting to you or other people. I enjoyed fixing bugs in someone elses code, I found it interesting challenge, but quite a lot of people hate it. I like large long lived projects, quite a lot of people hate them. Too many people think that what they find interesting is what everyone finds interesting. What happens in this industry is that the company has a job that requires a lot of routine, but goes out of its way to pretend the job is exciting for people who don't. Because generic idea of superstar. So they hire someone who does not fit position at all. And they would not hire that person who would gladly do the routine thing to them and would be good at it, because he does not fit the expected profile of excitement.

xstartup 9y ago

>> You want to hire talent? Offer good pay, interesting work, and freedom to do it. As someone who has hired a lot of people and offered a 1M+ salary to some of them, they'll take your salary and start their own business with it. Pay what market will bear, never regret again. People are not that loyal no matter what you pay. Even if you pay someone lot more than what they worth, they'll attribute it to their talent and will never feel indebted or loyal to you. (as you might be thinking).

seangrogg 9y ago
Money doesn't create loyalty... it aligns interests. Most businesses aren't loyal to their employees - there is no logic as to why the inverse should be true, either.
- xstartup 9y ago
  Yea, this seems to support my point.

IncRnd 9y ago

> I have a lot of experience with hiring software developers. This is mostly drivel. Quoted for truth.