4 ms·

Ask HN: Who to Hire? Proactive or Skillful?

17 points by Vishal19111999 3y ago

I run an agency where I hire part-time developers. Due to the huge cost of developers. I have to choose between developers with less credentials, less skills, but they are proactive and ready to learn but I have to cross-check all the work they do. Or Developers who have good credentials but are uninterested and I need to micromanage and push them a lot. Who amongst the 2 should I hire?

Spooky23 3y ago
Smart and gets things done always wins. Good credentials doesn’t mean much.
pestatije 3y ago
yes, both...cross-check the unskilled and micromanage the uninterested...youll be fine
ilaksh 3y ago
Maybe they became uninterested after you started micromanaging them.
hardware2win 3y ago
Motivated ppl are better unless hard or requiring exp or skills job is to be done
jodoherty 3y ago
Cross checking work doesn't scale. That'll only become more of a problem as your business grows and you have more important concerns that pull you farther and farther away from the actual hands-on work being done.
brudgers 3y ago
I need to micromanage Are you sure? Good luck.
nlpnerd 3y ago
Attitude matters more if we are talking about the longer term. 6 months to a year in the less credential-ed devs will probably be independent. The experienced but uninterested devs are unlikely to have become more interested.
mo_42 3y ago
Two comments: First, I take your claim seriously that it’s an either-or decision. Then, clearly I'd hire the "proactive" one. As a manager you simply don’t have time for micromanaging or you should be doing something else. Second, I question your either-or. Why not try to find interested and experienced candidates? Sure, I don’t know anything about your business. It may be extraordinarily hard to make it happen. But that’s the job of the manager: develop to workplace in a way so that it becomes attractive instead of micromanaging.
sircastor 3y ago
In my experience the proactive developer who is still learning rapidly learns and becomes experienced. The experienced developer on the other hand has little motivation to become interested…
- schwartzworld 3y ago
  On the other hand, if you're paying by the hour... But honestly, as a more experienced developer I don't NEED to be as interested as I did when I was a newbie. Back then I used to have to work much harder, because every task involved learning a lot of new stuff. You need the excitement to keep you motivated. Not to mention you are making less money. I build web UIs and honestly, no matter what the finer points of the design, most companies want a lot of the same things out of their UIs. Forms, tables, modals. You build these things 10 or 100 times, and it just becomes a thing you can do with or without motivation. The janitor doesn't need to be have a deep internal motivation to make sure the trashes are empty, and neither do I to implement a responsive table. The paycheck is enough to get me to come in and make sure that all the pixels show what they're supposed to show and the button clicks do what they're supposed to do.
- b33j0r 3y ago
  Ain’t that a curve. But what if… senior engineers were hired for senior engineer jobs? Junior for junior, etc? The lifecycle of a job at startup can tolerate this more than an enterprise situation, but it’s still pretty clear to me in most cases. This issue tends to be viewed as a balance-sheet salary issue in the end. You sort by (value, salary) and then (salary, value) in some spreadsheet. But if you’re firing someone for being too expensive, you hired the wrong person to begin with. I’ve noticed a trend for years of sucking up top talent because they might go somewhere else. But I myself have been on both sides. I have hired and been hired a couple of times for skill, then I or they didn’t know what to utilize the position for. They hoped good = results. In one case, my job title changed twice between the handshake and my first day. And that’s just the quippiest to relate! So I think the hiring side has some work to do on actually crafting the teams they want to build a bit better. “Awesome Python Ninja” was a funny job description for about 30 seconds 10 years ago. I keep seeing that, if phrased more professionally. Get the person you want for the job. “Picking talent” as an idea is like hoarding two of each animal on an ark. The real world is much more fluid than a Flood.
Art9681 3y ago
Didn't skilled workers become that way by being proactive about their knowledge? Managers need to manage and lead, period. In the startup world I see time and time again management defering their job to the engineers. These managers only serve as a distraction since the team can do just fine without them. The ideal answer is you hire the skilled worker and you manage and lead them to success. You dont micro-manage. You dont delegate responsibility. You are there to remove any blockers and any unnecessary cognitive load. You are there to help them, help you, reach the business goals. You work for them. So hire the best most skilled people, and if you manage and lead properly, you challenge them and utilize them, you wont have a bunch of skilled workers uninterested in doing your job for you.
- ttoinou 3y ago
  Do you have a definition of micro management ? And how is a manager supposed to react without micro management when basic things are not covered ? Like not being organized, not doing the work, not answering messages
  - djohnston 3y ago
    All of these are things you should react to. Telling someone to answer messages and execute isn’t micromanaging. Micromanaging is telling them how to do things.
pavel_lishin 3y ago
In this hypothetical, it sounds like you're having to do extra work that they should be doing themselves in either scenario. However, the proactive developer will eventually become skilled enough to not need constant cross-checks, whereas the uninterested developer will continue to coast without further intervention. (Although, I would ask - why are they uninterested?)
tacone 3y ago
Mix and match them. If problems arise, ask them to work together on the same task. Don't micromanage when they might very well support each other.

Spooky23 3y ago

Smart and gets things done always wins. Good credentials doesn’t mean much.

pestatije 3y ago

yes, both...cross-check the unskilled and micromanage the uninterested...youll be fine

ilaksh 3y ago

Maybe they became uninterested after you started micromanaging them.

hardware2win 3y ago

Motivated ppl are better unless hard or requiring exp or skills job is to be done

jodoherty 3y ago

Cross checking work doesn't scale. That'll only become more of a problem as your business grows and you have more important concerns that pull you farther and farther away from the actual hands-on work being done.

brudgers 3y ago

I need to micromanage Are you sure? Good luck.

nlpnerd 3y ago

Attitude matters more if we are talking about the longer term. 6 months to a year in the less credential-ed devs will probably be independent. The experienced but uninterested devs are unlikely to have become more interested.

mo_42 3y ago

Two comments: First, I take your claim seriously that it’s an either-or decision. Then, clearly I'd hire the "proactive" one. As a manager you simply don’t have time for micromanaging or you should be doing something else. Second, I question your either-or. Why not try to find interested and experienced candidates? Sure, I don’t know anything about your business. It may be extraordinarily hard to make it happen. But that’s the job of the manager: develop to workplace in a way so that it becomes attractive instead of micromanaging.

sircastor 3y ago

In my experience the proactive developer who is still learning rapidly learns and becomes experienced. The experienced developer on the other hand has little motivation to become interested…

schwartzworld 3y ago
On the other hand, if you're paying by the hour... But honestly, as a more experienced developer I don't NEED to be as interested as I did when I was a newbie. Back then I used to have to work much harder, because every task involved learning a lot of new stuff. You need the excitement to keep you motivated. Not to mention you are making less money. I build web UIs and honestly, no matter what the finer points of the design, most companies want a lot of the same things out of their UIs. Forms, tables, modals. You build these things 10 or 100 times, and it just becomes a thing you can do with or without motivation. The janitor doesn't need to be have a deep internal motivation to make sure the trashes are empty, and neither do I to implement a responsive table. The paycheck is enough to get me to come in and make sure that all the pixels show what they're supposed to show and the button clicks do what they're supposed to do.
b33j0r 3y ago
Ain’t that a curve. But what if… senior engineers were hired for senior engineer jobs? Junior for junior, etc? The lifecycle of a job at startup can tolerate this more than an enterprise situation, but it’s still pretty clear to me in most cases. This issue tends to be viewed as a balance-sheet salary issue in the end. You sort by (value, salary) and then (salary, value) in some spreadsheet. But if you’re firing someone for being too expensive, you hired the wrong person to begin with. I’ve noticed a trend for years of sucking up top talent because they might go somewhere else. But I myself have been on both sides. I have hired and been hired a couple of times for skill, then I or they didn’t know what to utilize the position for. They hoped good = results. In one case, my job title changed twice between the handshake and my first day. And that’s just the quippiest to relate! So I think the hiring side has some work to do on actually crafting the teams they want to build a bit better. “Awesome Python Ninja” was a funny job description for about 30 seconds 10 years ago. I keep seeing that, if phrased more professionally. Get the person you want for the job. “Picking talent” as an idea is like hoarding two of each animal on an ark. The real world is much more fluid than a Flood.

Art9681 3y ago

Didn't skilled workers become that way by being proactive about their knowledge? Managers need to manage and lead, period. In the startup world I see time and time again management defering their job to the engineers. These managers only serve as a distraction since the team can do just fine without them. The ideal answer is you hire the skilled worker and you manage and lead them to success. You dont micro-manage. You dont delegate responsibility. You are there to remove any blockers and any unnecessary cognitive load. You are there to help them, help you, reach the business goals. You work for them. So hire the best most skilled people, and if you manage and lead properly, you challenge them and utilize them, you wont have a bunch of skilled workers uninterested in doing your job for you.

ttoinou 3y ago
Do you have a definition of micro management ? And how is a manager supposed to react without micro management when basic things are not covered ? Like not being organized, not doing the work, not answering messages
- djohnston 3y ago
  All of these are things you should react to. Telling someone to answer messages and execute isn’t micromanaging. Micromanaging is telling them how to do things.

pavel_lishin 3y ago

In this hypothetical, it sounds like you're having to do extra work that they should be doing themselves in either scenario. However, the proactive developer will eventually become skilled enough to not need constant cross-checks, whereas the uninterested developer will continue to coast without further intervention. (Although, I would ask - why are they uninterested?)

tacone 3y ago

Mix and match them. If problems arise, ask them to work together on the same task. Don't micromanage when they might very well support each other.