15 ms·

I particularly like the advice on how to hire: > 1. You want to find people with mastery, true depth. > 2. The problem is, that isn’t enough. You need people

I particularly like the advice on how to hire: > 1. You want to find people with mastery, true depth. > 2. The problem is, that isn’t enough. You need people who had failed and recovered. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. > 3. Breadth, meaning curiosity about things beyond what you’re deep in. > 4. Collaboration. Not a synonym for cooperation, but the ability to magnify others. As a separate aside, I didn’t realize Apple invested that much in training.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
It takes a true #2 to recognize a #2. Otherwise, it's just crazy risky to put failures on your resume kind of thing. Corporations are full of people competing on a political level, failure is just a stain, so risk taking is minimal. In a regular corporation you could get looked at very oddly for suggesting anything outside of normative.
- GoRudy 8y ago
  I wonder what some good examples of people that have gone on to have a strong second or third act after failing.
  - joewee 8y ago
    Probably 40% of fortune 1000 c level executives. You can reach a point where you continually fail upward. Some companies are willing to accept someone who failed at a company twice their size if they think the executive can get them to double their current size before they reach their point of failure.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      I respectfully disagree and would say c-level people of major companies are the most risk averse of almost all people. They run from failure like it's a stain. They want to always look good in the eyes of 'the big boss' and often have very little interaction with them and so are keen to always impress. In business politics, perception is the only thing that matters, so it's really hard to spin failure as success.
      - raverbashing 8y ago
        Also, their first reaction to failure will be to find someone to take the blame.
- milesvp 8y ago
  I once interviewed a very impressive candidate for a product manager/owner role. This guy stood out from all the other candidates, he had a slick binder full of all his accomplishments and could talk about then at great length. I would have loved ro work with this guy. But, it became clear to me he’d never experienced failure, and so I asked about some of his professional set backs, and it was even clearer that he’d only ever worked on projects that were able to get a lot of support from management at companies with the resources to all but guarantee success. I ended up having to tell management he’d be a poor fit as a result. The position was one that was almost guaranteed failure at a company shrinking over 10% a year, that was unable to stop the old habits that were no longer working. We needed someone who could fail on an almost daily basis, yet still manage to salvage something from the position. I think we got lucky and found someone who did this, she was able to consistently interact with upper management, and understood that 1% improvements compounded to make a great product. Sadly, she eventually got beat down enough arguing with management to leave, but her presense was invaluable in creating the culture my team currently enjoys.
  - watwut 8y ago
    And sadly, she will not make the mistake of taking similar project on again. Because it was not rewarded altrough people under her and after her appreciate it, she likely had no benefit from it.
    - southerndrift 8y ago
      She got more confidence and experience. That makes her a better leader in her next job. She moved on and chances are that she got a better job because she could convince somebody that she can succeed in a difficult environment.
      - watwut 8y ago
        Quoting parent: "Sadly, she eventually got beat down enough arguing with management to leave" That is not more confidence. And likely, she does not want "difficult environment" job either - could have stayed for that. What you learn in such environment is to spot red flags sooner. Such positions are not rewarded, she did not enjoyed that, she will likely seek different position next.
- codingdave 8y ago
  It depends on how you define risk. I find it crazy risky to tailor your resume in a way that results in people who are not "#2s" end up being your boss. In my experience, the only thing worse than a bad employee is a bad boss. I recommend letting hiring managers see the good, bad, and ugly of your experience. Let someone who can see through it all to recognize your value be your boss. And let everyone else walk away.
buserror 8y ago
I think I have 1, 2, 3 no problems after 35+ years of programming -- I still love it, I still learn stuff, and I'm shockingly experienced in a rather large amount of subfields. The problems is #4. 1,2,3 are 'easy' given time and someone who's dedicated and actually LOVES that job. #4 requites two (at least). In my 35y career I can count on the fingers of one hands the time where I really, REALLY "clicked" with someone and we both ran away with it. Needless to say, in all the cases, we still are on each other xmas card list, regardless of time/space. But that's the scary bit, to really, REALLY "collaborate" you need someone who's already pretty much 'there' on the 1,2,3 listed there, and the chance of meeting someone like that is low. I don't say it's 'rare', I say it's 'low' and if you factor other things like personality, lifestyle and so on, it makes it actually 'rare'... I treasure the people I can collaborate with, because it's magic. It's like, as a musician, when you jam and the band just 'gels' and stuff starts happening, it gives you a little shiver in the spine area that is unique. But hell, it's rare.
- yuchi 8y ago
  Just my 2 cents after no more than 10y of career. The idea of letting other grow has nothing to do with resonating with them and form a bigger wave — you need to really want them to succeed and really fight for that to happen. In my personal growth path I think I'm this close to reach that — but my ego is practically sabotaging it from the inside. I still can't let myself go in background-mode. And I'll pay for this sooner or later. </personal-emotional-burst>
- sbuttgereit 8y ago
  I'm about a decade behind you experience-wise, but I can tell you that I've seen #4 a few times. What's interesting is that in each case I can say it didn't feel like #4 was happening until I looked at the experience in retrospect. It's almost like had we of been mindful or trying to achieve that, we would have been too self-conscious of ourselves to have actually succeeded. It was also a more broad cultural trait, it was a team that collaborated together well (sometimes kinda large teams, too). And most of the time there was a key leader or two that seemed to be key in bringing out that quality in the team. I can also say that many of those teams still keep in touch, even if loosely, in some cases (now) decades later.
NikolaeVarius 8y ago
Balancing 3 and 1 is damn impossible for me. I do a ton of 3 and can't focus on point 1. Though that literally seems to be the point of the article...
- umvi 8y ago
  I think it's because point 1 has diminishing returns. You start having to invest more and more time to get deeper and deeper in one narrow thing. It's much more satisfying to develop breadth (imo) because you get about 80% deep and then stop before the diminishing returns kick in
  - GoRudy 8y ago
    so true, I've experienced this in things like learning the guitar / piano, playing poker, learning excel macros etc.
mda 8y ago
Good luck finding people who are 2 of these, and it is not possible to judge people with existing limited interview processes. This list is impossible.
- snovv_crash 8y ago
  In the right environment a lot more people will have these. A good team lead can nurture them and given the right ingredients and conditions a whole team of these can emerge. On the other hand, just a few small things can completely prevent these people from blooming (overwork, bad morale, badly explained goals, constantly changing scope etc.). Hire smart people with a spark. Give clear directions without micromanaging. Make sure people are getting enough sleep to think clearly, and enough time to do upfront planning so they don't write those bugs they would get demoralized on in the first place. Be an inspiration to others, then hand them the reins and let them inspire everyone else.
- baxtr 8y ago
  I don't think the list is simply a checklist in the sense that you decline candidates whenever there is a miss. I think it is rather a guideline to what to look for in candidates. You will have to make trade-offs with any candidate.
booleandilemma 8y ago
“True mastery, true depth” is impossible in our field. If anyone disagrees, find me someone with mastery of the 10 latest JavaScript frameworks, or whatever service Amazon put on AWS last week. What you what is someone with a strong knowledge of fundamentals, everything else follows from that.
- harshalizee 8y ago
  I think that's exactly what 'true mastery; true depth' would mean. People with incredibly strong fundamentals can look past the fancy facade of a new framework/tool and deduce its possibilities and limitations quickly enough.
- strken 8y ago
  It's probably possible to have something approaching true mastery over compilers or physics simulation or distributed databases, or anything that's a field instead of a framework. Asking for mastery over React instead of over UI engineering is a little like asking for deep knowledge of Torx screwdrivers - there are high level concepts from internationalisation, accessibility, QA, automated testing, and UX design that will still apply in a decade or two, even if we write all our UI code in Rust and steam lightweight VDOM diffs to the server or whatever.
- jdbernard 8y ago
  In the video Randy addresses this very point. In his delivery #1 and #2 are actually part of the same point. He explains that true mastery of something, even unrelated, shows the mindset needed to dig in to a hard problem that's never been solved before. That leads into the discussion of failure and the persistence required to overcome failure and reach mastery. Not too far away from your advice regarding fundamentals.
derblitzmann 8y ago
Number 2 reminds me of something my dad has told me a bunch, "it's not how you mess up, it's how you recover"

sonnyblarney 8y ago

It takes a true #2 to recognize a #2. Otherwise, it's just crazy risky to put failures on your resume kind of thing. Corporations are full of people competing on a political level, failure is just a stain, so risk taking is minimal. In a regular corporation you could get looked at very oddly for suggesting anything outside of normative.

GoRudy 8y ago
I wonder what some good examples of people that have gone on to have a strong second or third act after failing.
- joewee 8y ago
  Probably 40% of fortune 1000 c level executives. You can reach a point where you continually fail upward. Some companies are willing to accept someone who failed at a company twice their size if they think the executive can get them to double their current size before they reach their point of failure.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I respectfully disagree and would say c-level people of major companies are the most risk averse of almost all people. They run from failure like it's a stain. They want to always look good in the eyes of 'the big boss' and often have very little interaction with them and so are keen to always impress. In business politics, perception is the only thing that matters, so it's really hard to spin failure as success.
    - raverbashing 8y ago
      Also, their first reaction to failure will be to find someone to take the blame.
milesvp 8y ago
I once interviewed a very impressive candidate for a product manager/owner role. This guy stood out from all the other candidates, he had a slick binder full of all his accomplishments and could talk about then at great length. I would have loved ro work with this guy. But, it became clear to me he’d never experienced failure, and so I asked about some of his professional set backs, and it was even clearer that he’d only ever worked on projects that were able to get a lot of support from management at companies with the resources to all but guarantee success. I ended up having to tell management he’d be a poor fit as a result. The position was one that was almost guaranteed failure at a company shrinking over 10% a year, that was unable to stop the old habits that were no longer working. We needed someone who could fail on an almost daily basis, yet still manage to salvage something from the position. I think we got lucky and found someone who did this, she was able to consistently interact with upper management, and understood that 1% improvements compounded to make a great product. Sadly, she eventually got beat down enough arguing with management to leave, but her presense was invaluable in creating the culture my team currently enjoys.
- watwut 8y ago
  And sadly, she will not make the mistake of taking similar project on again. Because it was not rewarded altrough people under her and after her appreciate it, she likely had no benefit from it.
  - southerndrift 8y ago
    She got more confidence and experience. That makes her a better leader in her next job. She moved on and chances are that she got a better job because she could convince somebody that she can succeed in a difficult environment.
    - watwut 8y ago
      Quoting parent: "Sadly, she eventually got beat down enough arguing with management to leave" That is not more confidence. And likely, she does not want "difficult environment" job either - could have stayed for that. What you learn in such environment is to spot red flags sooner. Such positions are not rewarded, she did not enjoyed that, she will likely seek different position next.
codingdave 8y ago
It depends on how you define risk. I find it crazy risky to tailor your resume in a way that results in people who are not "#2s" end up being your boss. In my experience, the only thing worse than a bad employee is a bad boss. I recommend letting hiring managers see the good, bad, and ugly of your experience. Let someone who can see through it all to recognize your value be your boss. And let everyone else walk away.

buserror 8y ago

I think I have 1, 2, 3 no problems after 35+ years of programming -- I still love it, I still learn stuff, and I'm shockingly experienced in a rather large amount of subfields. The problems is #4. 1,2,3 are 'easy' given time and someone who's dedicated and actually LOVES that job. #4 requites two (at least). In my 35y career I can count on the fingers of one hands the time where I really, REALLY "clicked" with someone and we both ran away with it. Needless to say, in all the cases, we still are on each other xmas card list, regardless of time/space. But that's the scary bit, to really, REALLY "collaborate" you need someone who's already pretty much 'there' on the 1,2,3 listed there, and the chance of meeting someone like that is low. I don't say it's 'rare', I say it's 'low' and if you factor other things like personality, lifestyle and so on, it makes it actually 'rare'... I treasure the people I can collaborate with, because it's magic. It's like, as a musician, when you jam and the band just 'gels' and stuff starts happening, it gives you a little shiver in the spine area that is unique. But hell, it's rare.

yuchi 8y ago
Just my 2 cents after no more than 10y of career. The idea of letting other grow has nothing to do with resonating with them and form a bigger wave — you need to really want them to succeed and really fight for that to happen. In my personal growth path I think I'm this close to reach that — but my ego is practically sabotaging it from the inside. I still can't let myself go in background-mode. And I'll pay for this sooner or later. </personal-emotional-burst>
sbuttgereit 8y ago
I'm about a decade behind you experience-wise, but I can tell you that I've seen #4 a few times. What's interesting is that in each case I can say it didn't feel like #4 was happening until I looked at the experience in retrospect. It's almost like had we of been mindful or trying to achieve that, we would have been too self-conscious of ourselves to have actually succeeded. It was also a more broad cultural trait, it was a team that collaborated together well (sometimes kinda large teams, too). And most of the time there was a key leader or two that seemed to be key in bringing out that quality in the team. I can also say that many of those teams still keep in touch, even if loosely, in some cases (now) decades later.

NikolaeVarius 8y ago

Balancing 3 and 1 is damn impossible for me. I do a ton of 3 and can't focus on point 1. Though that literally seems to be the point of the article...

umvi 8y ago
I think it's because point 1 has diminishing returns. You start having to invest more and more time to get deeper and deeper in one narrow thing. It's much more satisfying to develop breadth (imo) because you get about 80% deep and then stop before the diminishing returns kick in
- GoRudy 8y ago
  so true, I've experienced this in things like learning the guitar / piano, playing poker, learning excel macros etc.

mda 8y ago

Good luck finding people who are 2 of these, and it is not possible to judge people with existing limited interview processes. This list is impossible.

snovv_crash 8y ago
In the right environment a lot more people will have these. A good team lead can nurture them and given the right ingredients and conditions a whole team of these can emerge. On the other hand, just a few small things can completely prevent these people from blooming (overwork, bad morale, badly explained goals, constantly changing scope etc.). Hire smart people with a spark. Give clear directions without micromanaging. Make sure people are getting enough sleep to think clearly, and enough time to do upfront planning so they don't write those bugs they would get demoralized on in the first place. Be an inspiration to others, then hand them the reins and let them inspire everyone else.
baxtr 8y ago
I don't think the list is simply a checklist in the sense that you decline candidates whenever there is a miss. I think it is rather a guideline to what to look for in candidates. You will have to make trade-offs with any candidate.

booleandilemma 8y ago

“True mastery, true depth” is impossible in our field. If anyone disagrees, find me someone with mastery of the 10 latest JavaScript frameworks, or whatever service Amazon put on AWS last week. What you what is someone with a strong knowledge of fundamentals, everything else follows from that.

harshalizee 8y ago
I think that's exactly what 'true mastery; true depth' would mean. People with incredibly strong fundamentals can look past the fancy facade of a new framework/tool and deduce its possibilities and limitations quickly enough.
strken 8y ago
It's probably possible to have something approaching true mastery over compilers or physics simulation or distributed databases, or anything that's a field instead of a framework. Asking for mastery over React instead of over UI engineering is a little like asking for deep knowledge of Torx screwdrivers - there are high level concepts from internationalisation, accessibility, QA, automated testing, and UX design that will still apply in a decade or two, even if we write all our UI code in Rust and steam lightweight VDOM diffs to the server or whatever.
jdbernard 8y ago
In the video Randy addresses this very point. In his delivery #1 and #2 are actually part of the same point. He explains that true mastery of something, even unrelated, shows the mindset needed to dig in to a hard problem that's never been solved before. That leads into the discussion of failure and the persistence required to overcome failure and reach mastery. Not too far away from your advice regarding fundamentals.

derblitzmann 8y ago

Number 2 reminds me of something my dad has told me a bunch, "it's not how you mess up, it's how you recover"