3 ms·

I’ve been a hiring manager on multiple teams and it’s not that straight forward…Yes, I don’t need John Carmack for my non-Carmack-level technical challenges. B

by ido 3y ago

I’ve been a hiring manager on multiple teams and it’s not that straight forward…Yes, I don’t need John Carmack for my non-Carmack-level technical challenges. But I’ve seen “ok” programmers perform “adequately” (the project got made to acceptable level) but also seen better programmers work 5x faster (without working 5x the hours, or even more hours at all), be able to mostly self-manage, not need constant qa support to make sure the tickets they set to “done” are actually done and able to solve problems creatively (and not need me to untangle the git repository for them if something goes wrong). They don’t need brains the size of a mountain but a good/great programmer makes a huge difference (even if enough management can make mediocre programmers work out) even on projects that to me seem technically pedestrian.

higeorge13 3y ago
Curious but how do you identify these 5x engineers from a couple interview rounds?
- ido 3y ago
  Not that easy! A valid technical test needs to be custom made for the position and project (or type of project) you hire for and takes a while to both prepare and “grade”. It also then helps in giving you something very specific to talk about at the interview (I always find something to talk about when reviewing the code they submit for the test). It still won’t have a 100% success rate, the best you can do is hire people you/someone you trust in the team have worked with before and know is good.
- cybrox 3y ago
  In our process, we use almost the simplest possible tasks like making an HTTP request to our API and displaying the data im some form and ask people to solve them 'just as they would as part of a project they are working on'. They get a timeframe and have to quickly elaborate on their process, what they got done and what they didn't get done. There are drastic differences between candidates. Some barely manage the task or are satisfied as soon as it works. Some over engineer to no end and reason about all the bells and whistles and others write abstracted code without overdoing it, add some tests and rudimentary docs. The way people approach this simple task and what their threshold for 'solving' it is has told me more about people than any difficult interview question.
  - ido 3y ago
    This is similar to what I do (details depend on the specific position).
ponector 3y ago
Really smart programmer will work x5 faster but report as if he did x1.3 faster than peers, using rest of the time for personal development or other activities.
- ido 3y ago
  I will probably not keep an engineer that performs at 1.3x of a mediocre programmer for long (unless they’re junior and I see potential, I.e. I’m investing in the future). It’s also not about “smarts” but about being a good fit for the job (which includes stuff like being motivated and interested in the work). That is - an “ok” developer that performs “adequately” is not actually sufficient and it’s have to be specific circumstances for me to compromise on keeping them (e.g. I can’t find anyone better, but historically this hasn’t been the case).
  - ponector 3y ago
    I said x1.5 of their peers. Meaning you will fire first other half of your developers. Also, you may not keep, but there are million of other managers who will be happy to have someone reliable even at x0.9 performance.
    - ido 3y ago
      Sure but in my original example the “1x” guy was not actually an acceptable performer. I just meant someone great could easily be 5x better, not that 1x is the average (their average peer would be >>1x). I’ve learned from experience that it’s not worth compromising on a mediocre developer (even if in some situations I’d have to). Better take the short-term hit of trying to find someone good. Also the 5x ones would mostly not be genius level, just actually motivated and talented. I think a lot of people that can do well are stuck in jobs that aren’t a good fit for them.
      - cxr 3y ago
        > but in my original example the “1x” guy was not actually an acceptable performer It actually was. You said so yourself: > perform “adequately” (the project got made to acceptable level) You need to figure out whether you're talking about someone who is acceptable or not.

by ido 3y ago

higeorge13 3y ago

Curious but how do you identify these 5x engineers from a couple interview rounds?

ido 3y ago
Not that easy! A valid technical test needs to be custom made for the position and project (or type of project) you hire for and takes a while to both prepare and “grade”. It also then helps in giving you something very specific to talk about at the interview (I always find something to talk about when reviewing the code they submit for the test). It still won’t have a 100% success rate, the best you can do is hire people you/someone you trust in the team have worked with before and know is good.
cybrox 3y ago
In our process, we use almost the simplest possible tasks like making an HTTP request to our API and displaying the data im some form and ask people to solve them 'just as they would as part of a project they are working on'. They get a timeframe and have to quickly elaborate on their process, what they got done and what they didn't get done. There are drastic differences between candidates. Some barely manage the task or are satisfied as soon as it works. Some over engineer to no end and reason about all the bells and whistles and others write abstracted code without overdoing it, add some tests and rudimentary docs. The way people approach this simple task and what their threshold for 'solving' it is has told me more about people than any difficult interview question.
- ido 3y ago
  This is similar to what I do (details depend on the specific position).

ponector 3y ago

Really smart programmer will work x5 faster but report as if he did x1.3 faster than peers, using rest of the time for personal development or other activities.

ido 3y ago
I will probably not keep an engineer that performs at 1.3x of a mediocre programmer for long (unless they’re junior and I see potential, I.e. I’m investing in the future). It’s also not about “smarts” but about being a good fit for the job (which includes stuff like being motivated and interested in the work). That is - an “ok” developer that performs “adequately” is not actually sufficient and it’s have to be specific circumstances for me to compromise on keeping them (e.g. I can’t find anyone better, but historically this hasn’t been the case).
- ponector 3y ago
  I said x1.5 of their peers. Meaning you will fire first other half of your developers. Also, you may not keep, but there are million of other managers who will be happy to have someone reliable even at x0.9 performance.
  - ido 3y ago
    Sure but in my original example the “1x” guy was not actually an acceptable performer. I just meant someone great could easily be 5x better, not that 1x is the average (their average peer would be >>1x). I’ve learned from experience that it’s not worth compromising on a mediocre developer (even if in some situations I’d have to). Better take the short-term hit of trying to find someone good. Also the 5x ones would mostly not be genius level, just actually motivated and talented. I think a lot of people that can do well are stuck in jobs that aren’t a good fit for them.
    - cxr 3y ago
      > but in my original example the “1x” guy was not actually an acceptable performer It actually was. You said so yourself: > perform “adequately” (the project got made to acceptable level) You need to figure out whether you're talking about someone who is acceptable or not.