4 ms·
>I've observed that in pursuing the 1% unicorn candidate, many people step in unicorn shit and hire smart people who are bad employees. What's fun is that this
by fizx 8y ago
>I've observed that in pursuing the 1% unicorn candidate, many people step in unicorn shit and hire smart people who are bad employees.
What's fun is that this isn't just a possibility, its likely! Despite the following being a clearly artificial argument, the general shape of it is true.
Let's say that you can rate employees 1-10 on each of technical skill and employability/soft-skills, and that both are equally sought by the market. Given how attractive your company is to work for and what you pay, its quite often true that you can allocate around 12 total points between the two categories. 13 point candidates have better offers from Google; 11 point candidates fail your interview process.
If you only hire people that strongly pass a strong technical interview, ensuring that their technical skill is at least an 8/10, then your employees will have at most 4/10 soft skills.
- slededit 8y agoMicrosoft in the 90s figured out how to work around that. Just silo them and have their manager do the external interfacing for them. This was assuming they really were at least an 8/10 which was required to make the whole thing worthwhile. That of course works much better when everyone has their own office so the angry outbursts are only heard by the 2-3 closest neighbors.
- benibela 8y agoOr everyone works remotely, so no one hears their outbursts
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- carlmr 8y ago>If you only hire people that strongly pass a strong technical interview, ensuring that their technical skill is at least an 8/10, then your employees will have at most 4/10 soft skills. Why most companies find it hard to find good sales engineers.