3 ms·

I mean, it's just a hunch though. I've only spent an hour or two with the person, I don't know actually know if they would be hard to work with. Candidate one

by umvi 8y ago

I mean, it's just a hunch though. I've only spent an hour or two with the person, I don't know actually know if they would be hard to work with. Candidate one gives off slightly anti-social vibes but is brilliant, candidate two jokes around with me during the interview and is smart as well, but less so than candidate one. Am I justified in going with candidate two on a hunch?

kaesar14 8y ago
In your position, I’d take candidate 2. Displaying a reasonable level of competence and ability to work in a group is so much more crucial for a small company!
- maaaats 8y ago
  But now you did the mistake of assuming a lot of stuff, with very little data. Why can you say that person 2 is better at working in a group? Maybe person 1 was just very nervous, or is a type that takes a few days to warm up to new people. Maybe person 1 just crack jokes all day and is actually detrimental to the productivity. Impossible to tell from this one que alone.
  - jvagner 8y ago
    And hence, some weight in the skills/judgement of the interviewer. Which is also why there are usually multiple stages in an interview process, or at least, you pass a candidate to 3 or more team members to interview the candidate. In my experience, it's hard to find good candidates, but not that hard to figure out which of the candidates will be a good fit, and a strong contributor, to a team. I've also hired mostly for team sizes of 10-20 developers, not 200.
  - debaserab2 8y ago
    You're always left with an imperfect amount of information after an interview. I don't think that means you should discount how well someone fits into a conversation given how important solid communication is.
    - kaesar14 8y ago
      Pretty much this. Yes, technical skill is important, but to some degree, the proficiency to do our jobs can mostly be taught given a proven background and some proven competency during the interview. Good communication skills? That's something taught over a lifetime.
lucretian 8y ago
what about the risk that candidate #2 has schmoozed their way up the ladder, and really isn't as smart as they seem?

by umvi 8y ago

kaesar14 8y ago

In your position, I’d take candidate 2. Displaying a reasonable level of competence and ability to work in a group is so much more crucial for a small company!

maaaats 8y ago
But now you did the mistake of assuming a lot of stuff, with very little data. Why can you say that person 2 is better at working in a group? Maybe person 1 was just very nervous, or is a type that takes a few days to warm up to new people. Maybe person 1 just crack jokes all day and is actually detrimental to the productivity. Impossible to tell from this one que alone.
- jvagner 8y ago
  And hence, some weight in the skills/judgement of the interviewer. Which is also why there are usually multiple stages in an interview process, or at least, you pass a candidate to 3 or more team members to interview the candidate. In my experience, it's hard to find good candidates, but not that hard to figure out which of the candidates will be a good fit, and a strong contributor, to a team. I've also hired mostly for team sizes of 10-20 developers, not 200.
- debaserab2 8y ago
  You're always left with an imperfect amount of information after an interview. I don't think that means you should discount how well someone fits into a conversation given how important solid communication is.
  - kaesar14 8y ago
    Pretty much this. Yes, technical skill is important, but to some degree, the proficiency to do our jobs can mostly be taught given a proven background and some proven competency during the interview. Good communication skills? That's something taught over a lifetime.

lucretian 8y ago

what about the risk that candidate #2 has schmoozed their way up the ladder, and really isn't as smart as they seem?