> > Every company can't have the best engineers. They cost too much and they're a finite resource. > Your argument assumes there is an efficient market for eng

> > Every company can't have the best engineers. They cost too much and they're a finite resource. > Your argument assumes there is an efficient market for engineers, and it also assumes that an engineer’s productivity is independent of the company environment. You're arguing something different than what you're replying to. The original post asserts you should hire the "best" engineers. Best is a word with a strong connotation of there being some absolute quality scale independent of the company environment. And then you absolutely run into a problem where everybody can't hire the best, especially if you're not in a position to offer the best compensation or have the current state of your company look like the best possible destination for everyone. There's just not that many of them, after all, by definition. A smart founder (or manager anywhere, for that matter) will try to hire great engineers for their situation. This requires more self-awareness and critical thinking than just locking in on a few people and spending a year wooing them, like the article describes. How many people you hadn't fixated on could've turned out great for them in less time than that year?