4 ms·

Writing qualified candidates off as "overqualified" is a form of corruption and is very common in tech. It's far easier to cover up with the boredom-mitigation

by mcrad 6y ago

Writing qualified candidates off as "overqualified" is a form of corruption and is very common in tech. It's far easier to cover up with the boredom-mitigation argument, than to admit low IQ/experience is easier to "manage".

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't think anyone is trying to cover that up. Many teams are responsible for boring and low-impact work, so they need to hire people who are easy to manage or the work won't get done.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  What is that work? Why can't it be automated?
  - bargle0 6y ago
    Probably because it’s still cheaper to throw people at it.
  - anewdirection 6y ago
    Some things need a human touch. Interacting with other humans is one of those things. See any automated customer service bot ever to see how absolutely terrible an idea that would be.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Good luck automating fixing bugs and implementing weird customer requests in an old legacy application.
  - joejerryronnie 6y ago
    Probably because these are not rote tasks being performed but rather new dev projects driven by new demands, priorities, and business requirements. You can’t automate that type of work.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Ruling out skilled folks for their skills Kate a poor way of being for those teams. Motivation is something entirely different than aptitude. I hire engineers to work on internal tools. It’s far from the most “glamorous” roles in the SWE world and a lot of great engineers would not want to be working with Salesforce or Oracle. However, it’s very important and strategic to our business. I don’t reduce the qualifications when hiring though. I actually add another. They must be motivated by this type of work. I find people who care about efficiency of teams and are motivated by having a revenue impact more than being able to point to a widget on the main site and say “I did this”. I’ve been quite successful at it for the last 7 or so years with slightly lower turnover than the rest of the org or industry averages.
dehrmann 6y ago
> low IQ/experience is easier to "manage". How would this be "a form of corruption?" Lots of stories get posted to HN about the brilliant asshole being a net negative, and hiring people who are all-around easier to work with seems reasonable. That's probably the reason at least one interviewer in tech interviews covers HR-type questions. Yes, you want someone smart, but you also want someone who's not an asshole.
- pydry 6y ago
  The striking thing about most of those "brilliant asshole" stories is that by and large, they clearly weren't all that brilliant, they'd just managed to convince a bunch of people (including the story writer) that they were. I remember that one of them even mentioned that the asshole was so brilliant that he wrote code sometimes even the asshole couldn't read.... the manager didn't seem to twig even after writing that that this was a glaring klaxon warning signal that he was an extremely mediocre coder. IME the most toxic behavior in this profession derives from insecurity, not intelligence, and most of those "brilliant assholes" were actually assholes because they were hoping that their mediocrity wouldn't be uncovered.
  - newen 6y ago
    I can relate. I worked at a temporary position for a few months last year and I experienced this a lot. There were a couple of "brilliant" coders who convinced their coworkers they were the smartest by using their personality, the way they talk, etc. but when I talked technical with them, it was apparent that they didn't know in any depth what they were talking about.
  - secondaryditto 6y ago
    I worked with a colleague who had... 'interesting' ideas about software development. He'd put together a 'web framework' before joining the company, but was redeveloping a new one. It was... bizarrely weird, and was missing some 'normal' things like session management, authentication, etc. I didn't care much, cause I didn't have to use it, but... reviewing it, it didn't make sense. People using it were having to take a lot of time to do basic stuff, and ... people were constantly waiting for the main guy to 'finish up' the next bit that would save everyone 'lots of effort'. Some of the other 'sr' people there fawned over it - "he's a genius! this code and system is amazing. it's so hard to understand the brilliance, but that's because he's such a genius" (near exact quotes from his internal fans). Again - wasn't on that team, didn't care. Then... I was told to use it. For a project that needed things well beyond what it had in place. We needed session mgt, authentication, caching, solid XML support, etc - everything this 'framework' didn't have. I criticized it, saying we shouldn't use it for this new project. What complicated this is that I'd put together a framework before I'd started working there (with a team of other folks). It was far more feature complete (not great but functional). I was accused of being jealous, and wanting to use my system, etc. Well, yeah, I'd like to use my stuff, cause it checked the boxes we needed, and I'd used it for several years, and could be productive in it. But... I said "take my code off the table - it's not about me. System X is just not usable for our project needs - we need to plan to build something new, or spend time building out all the missing stuff." What a shitstorm that became. Internal fighting between people who'd never looked at the code, but insisting it was fine, and that I didn't understand 'enterprise' work. I left - turned in my two week notice (not 100% over this, but it was a factor). The day after I left... the "genius" quit the company, without telling anyone, no notice, just... left a voicemail saying he quit.

by mcrad 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I don't think anyone is trying to cover that up. Many teams are responsible for boring and low-impact work, so they need to hire people who are easy to manage or the work won't get done.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
What is that work? Why can't it be automated?
- bargle0 6y ago
  Probably because it’s still cheaper to throw people at it.
- anewdirection 6y ago
  Some things need a human touch. Interacting with other humans is one of those things. See any automated customer service bot ever to see how absolutely terrible an idea that would be.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Good luck automating fixing bugs and implementing weird customer requests in an old legacy application.
- joejerryronnie 6y ago
  Probably because these are not rote tasks being performed but rather new dev projects driven by new demands, priorities, and business requirements. You can’t automate that type of work.
ViViDboarder 6y ago
Ruling out skilled folks for their skills Kate a poor way of being for those teams. Motivation is something entirely different than aptitude. I hire engineers to work on internal tools. It’s far from the most “glamorous” roles in the SWE world and a lot of great engineers would not want to be working with Salesforce or Oracle. However, it’s very important and strategic to our business. I don’t reduce the qualifications when hiring though. I actually add another. They must be motivated by this type of work. I find people who care about efficiency of teams and are motivated by having a revenue impact more than being able to point to a widget on the main site and say “I did this”. I’ve been quite successful at it for the last 7 or so years with slightly lower turnover than the rest of the org or industry averages.

dehrmann 6y ago

> low IQ/experience is easier to "manage". How would this be "a form of corruption?" Lots of stories get posted to HN about the brilliant asshole being a net negative, and hiring people who are all-around easier to work with seems reasonable. That's probably the reason at least one interviewer in tech interviews covers HR-type questions. Yes, you want someone smart, but you also want someone who's not an asshole.

pydry 6y ago
The striking thing about most of those "brilliant asshole" stories is that by and large, they clearly weren't all that brilliant, they'd just managed to convince a bunch of people (including the story writer) that they were. I remember that one of them even mentioned that the asshole was so brilliant that he wrote code sometimes even the asshole couldn't read.... the manager didn't seem to twig even after writing that that this was a glaring klaxon warning signal that he was an extremely mediocre coder. IME the most toxic behavior in this profession derives from insecurity, not intelligence, and most of those "brilliant assholes" were actually assholes because they were hoping that their mediocrity wouldn't be uncovered.
- newen 6y ago
  I can relate. I worked at a temporary position for a few months last year and I experienced this a lot. There were a couple of "brilliant" coders who convinced their coworkers they were the smartest by using their personality, the way they talk, etc. but when I talked technical with them, it was apparent that they didn't know in any depth what they were talking about.
- secondaryditto 6y ago
  I worked with a colleague who had... 'interesting' ideas about software development. He'd put together a 'web framework' before joining the company, but was redeveloping a new one. It was... bizarrely weird, and was missing some 'normal' things like session management, authentication, etc. I didn't care much, cause I didn't have to use it, but... reviewing it, it didn't make sense. People using it were having to take a lot of time to do basic stuff, and ... people were constantly waiting for the main guy to 'finish up' the next bit that would save everyone 'lots of effort'. Some of the other 'sr' people there fawned over it - "he's a genius! this code and system is amazing. it's so hard to understand the brilliance, but that's because he's such a genius" (near exact quotes from his internal fans). Again - wasn't on that team, didn't care. Then... I was told to use it. For a project that needed things well beyond what it had in place. We needed session mgt, authentication, caching, solid XML support, etc - everything this 'framework' didn't have. I criticized it, saying we shouldn't use it for this new project. What complicated this is that I'd put together a framework before I'd started working there (with a team of other folks). It was far more feature complete (not great but functional). I was accused of being jealous, and wanting to use my system, etc. Well, yeah, I'd like to use my stuff, cause it checked the boxes we needed, and I'd used it for several years, and could be productive in it. But... I said "take my code off the table - it's not about me. System X is just not usable for our project needs - we need to plan to build something new, or spend time building out all the missing stuff." What a shitstorm that became. Internal fighting between people who'd never looked at the code, but insisting it was fine, and that I didn't understand 'enterprise' work. I left - turned in my two week notice (not 100% over this, but it was a factor). The day after I left... the "genius" quit the company, without telling anyone, no notice, just... left a voicemail saying he quit.