4 ms·

Hiring based on interest will answer the question, "does this person want to solve the problem we want to solve". A good recruit is both willing and able. So, h

Hiring based on interest will answer the question, "does this person want to solve the problem we want to solve". A good recruit is both willing and able. So, hire based on interest, but don't disregard credentials either. Focusing too much on interest risks getting showmen and excitable stupid people.

raganwald 15y ago
Showmen (a/k/a Charlatans) are to be avoided. And excitable talented people are gold! But an excitable person can learn. Or be directed into another role. How does one motivate a disinterested but competent person? I fear that motivation is a harder problem to solve than lack of talent.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  by giving them freedom. in my experience, what makes a job suck isn't that the problem lacks "excitement", but that you aren't given the freedom to do a good job. you can take pride in work for even simple tasks, if you own them. on the other hand, you can be in the most exciting field in the world, but have a crappy boss and a shit life. and almost any technical job can become complex enough to be intellectually interesting, if you have the freedom to use tools to automate the boring bits. what kills is being forced to do tedious rote work because you are restricted in your process. working on a production line is boring; building a production line is fascinating. the line between the two is clear in factory, but not in software development. "exciting" is for non-technical marketing people with an attention span of 2 seconds before they see the next shiny object. absorbing, empowering work hasn't got much to do with excitement. it's about expressing and developing something of your own. it doesn't have to be different, or exciting, or ground-breaking. it just has to be yours, to develop in the way you see fit, to meet the requirements you are given. i didn't know this when i started; i imagine selling "exciting" work will get you people with little experience. but i'm wiser now.

raganwald 15y ago

Showmen (a/k/a Charlatans) are to be avoided. And excitable talented people are gold! But an excitable person can learn. Or be directed into another role. How does one motivate a disinterested but competent person? I fear that motivation is a harder problem to solve than lack of talent.

andrewcooke 15y ago
by giving them freedom. in my experience, what makes a job suck isn't that the problem lacks "excitement", but that you aren't given the freedom to do a good job. you can take pride in work for even simple tasks, if you own them. on the other hand, you can be in the most exciting field in the world, but have a crappy boss and a shit life. and almost any technical job can become complex enough to be intellectually interesting, if you have the freedom to use tools to automate the boring bits. what kills is being forced to do tedious rote work because you are restricted in your process. working on a production line is boring; building a production line is fascinating. the line between the two is clear in factory, but not in software development. "exciting" is for non-technical marketing people with an attention span of 2 seconds before they see the next shiny object. absorbing, empowering work hasn't got much to do with excitement. it's about expressing and developing something of your own. it doesn't have to be different, or exciting, or ground-breaking. it just has to be yours, to develop in the way you see fit, to meet the requirements you are given. i didn't know this when i started; i imagine selling "exciting" work will get you people with little experience. but i'm wiser now.