3 ms·

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 t

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.
  - meesterdude 9y ago
    > Diversity might be good for an established company but for a startup, it's not important at all You're right, it's not important - it's critical. Diversity means stretching boundaries, broader perspectives, and greater quality; not to mention playing a huge part in shaping the company's culture and values. There are a lot more amateur & semi-pro basketball players in the world than in the NBA. Make sure you're playing a game that requires all star gameplay (like space jam!) before setting the bar that high. Most games just need players who are reasonably good. And likewise, beware what happens when a team is packed with nothing but allstars - they all play their own way but not together (and typically lose)
    - mixedCase 9y ago
      Diversity in technical backgrounds is an important value-add. There's something truly special about a team of people with backgrounds in embedded, web, traditional desktop, devops, and so on working on the same project; even if they're not currently applying their specialty directly on the work they do. The knowledge acquired through their backgrounds will have taught them different approaches to problems, often allowing them to pick a better solution to a problem in (as an example) the development of a web application than an equally experienced web-only team would've come up with. Diversity of skill absolutely DOES NOT MATTER in a startup. You really want to get your money's worth on a team that will not stumble and leave a project in limbo due to technical issues (which can easily kill any small company); and for that you always want to get the best possible talent.
sz4kerto 9y ago
> If you think about long-term benefits One long-term benefit is a company that's alive. If I need feature X to be delivered in 12 months for because that'd benefit the company immensely, then I rather hire someone who can be productive on day one (as she knows the tech stack, has experience with similar problems, etc.) than someone who re-imagines how our tech stuff is implemented. The latter is also useful in some cases, but article somehow claims that this is the general rule. No, it isn't.
- xstartup 9y ago
  >> than someone who re-imagines how our tech stuff is implemented. The latter is also useful in some cases, but article somehow claims that this is the general rule. No, it isn't. I guess you work in a service oriented company and not the product because this is exactly what results in a bad product.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    Not always. Think of how Google has repeatedly tried to reinvent the world with their 20 messaging apps. That inconsistency combined with a lack of steadfastness and a tendency to shut down old apps has prevented their products from thriving, and hurt their reputation in the process. Just like everyhing else, the optimum strategy varies from project to project.
    - dasmoth 9y ago
      The Google that released something new every week (and had beta tags everywhere) did at least seem to be able to innovate. And some of that innovation stuck (and even some of the things they probably rated as “misses” had lasting impact — witness the various Reader clones...) I’m struggling to think of Google changes in the last few years that have made the slightest difference to me as an end user. Except maybe tweaks to search that make it less useful for any vaguely obscure query.
  - sz4kerto 9y ago
    Or maybe we already have some idea about the product even before hiring the next rockstar ninja.
xstartup 9y ago
>> If you think about long-term benefits Do employees these days stay long enough for a company to even be able to think long-term?
- potta_coffee 9y ago
  Are companies reliable and trustworthy enough for employees to assume that staying long-term is an option for them?

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.
- meesterdude 9y ago
  > Diversity might be good for an established company but for a startup, it's not important at all You're right, it's not important - it's critical. Diversity means stretching boundaries, broader perspectives, and greater quality; not to mention playing a huge part in shaping the company's culture and values. There are a lot more amateur & semi-pro basketball players in the world than in the NBA. Make sure you're playing a game that requires all star gameplay (like space jam!) before setting the bar that high. Most games just need players who are reasonably good. And likewise, beware what happens when a team is packed with nothing but allstars - they all play their own way but not together (and typically lose)
  - mixedCase 9y ago
    Diversity in technical backgrounds is an important value-add. There's something truly special about a team of people with backgrounds in embedded, web, traditional desktop, devops, and so on working on the same project; even if they're not currently applying their specialty directly on the work they do. The knowledge acquired through their backgrounds will have taught them different approaches to problems, often allowing them to pick a better solution to a problem in (as an example) the development of a web application than an equally experienced web-only team would've come up with. Diversity of skill absolutely DOES NOT MATTER in a startup. You really want to get your money's worth on a team that will not stumble and leave a project in limbo due to technical issues (which can easily kill any small company); and for that you always want to get the best possible talent.

sz4kerto 9y ago

> If you think about long-term benefits One long-term benefit is a company that's alive. If I need feature X to be delivered in 12 months for because that'd benefit the company immensely, then I rather hire someone who can be productive on day one (as she knows the tech stack, has experience with similar problems, etc.) than someone who re-imagines how our tech stuff is implemented. The latter is also useful in some cases, but article somehow claims that this is the general rule. No, it isn't.

xstartup 9y ago
>> than someone who re-imagines how our tech stuff is implemented. The latter is also useful in some cases, but article somehow claims that this is the general rule. No, it isn't. I guess you work in a service oriented company and not the product because this is exactly what results in a bad product.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Not always. Think of how Google has repeatedly tried to reinvent the world with their 20 messaging apps. That inconsistency combined with a lack of steadfastness and a tendency to shut down old apps has prevented their products from thriving, and hurt their reputation in the process. Just like everyhing else, the optimum strategy varies from project to project.
  - dasmoth 9y ago
    The Google that released something new every week (and had beta tags everywhere) did at least seem to be able to innovate. And some of that innovation stuck (and even some of the things they probably rated as “misses” had lasting impact — witness the various Reader clones...) I’m struggling to think of Google changes in the last few years that have made the slightest difference to me as an end user. Except maybe tweaks to search that make it less useful for any vaguely obscure query.
- sz4kerto 9y ago
  Or maybe we already have some idea about the product even before hiring the next rockstar ninja.

xstartup 9y ago

>> If you think about long-term benefits Do employees these days stay long enough for a company to even be able to think long-term?

potta_coffee 9y ago
Are companies reliable and trustworthy enough for employees to assume that staying long-term is an option for them?