3 ms·
Not only that, but is anyone really "great" across multiple/all domains? I've worked across a pretty diverse set of businesses and functions in management, and
by SmellTheGlove 9y ago
Not only that, but is anyone really "great" across multiple/all domains? I've worked across a pretty diverse set of businesses and functions in management, and I can say pretty confidently that "greatness" is very dependent upon fit for the problem space, and I do mean that to work both ways: Fit is incredibly dependent upon the individual giving a shit about that problem space. No doubt someone could be very good working on something they don't care that much about, but we're talking great here, right? That means talking/writing in broad strokes about great developers approaches impossible.
I also don't think you need "great" developers in most roles. Sometimes average is exactly what you need, and hiring above that just leads to having a great person leave because they're not particularly challenged or enthusiastic about the role.
And to wrap all of that up, I don't even know that I can objectively define what "great" really means anyway, so maybe I have no place in this discussion :)
- perl4ever 9y ago>Fit is incredibly dependent upon the individual giving a shit about that problem space. Amen. That should be obvious, but I don't think I've ever had any recruiter or phone screen where they acknowledged that in any way. I responded to a recruiter recently by asking what the company actually did, and they reacted like I was just hamfistedly demanding the company name or prematurely trying to research for the interview, but I really just wanted to know - what would I actually be contributing to the world in this job, never mind the technical challenges, the buzzwords, and the paycheck. It's like everyone is assumed to be at best apathetic to the larger context of their job, apart from delusions of grandeur about "changing the world".