3 ms·

Hire Candidate B. He's almost perfect. He has all the things going for him that are difficult or impossible to change in another person (reliable, loyal, happ

by edw519 17y ago

Hire Candidate B. He's almost perfect. He has all the things going for him that are difficult or impossible to change in another person (reliable, loyal, happy, team player, accepts decision, enjoy). His biggest weaknesses are in exactly those areas (not the most creative, limited experience) that make him teachable, and of course, you're a great teacher. (If you're not a great teacher, you're in the wrong business). Candidate A is problematic. You will have difficulty changing anything about him, especially those areas which are most important to change. Have an urgent project that requires Candidate A's assets? Contract him to do that project and have Candidate B make it "repository worthy". Include in Candidates A's contract the requirement that you ascertain that Candidate B will be able to maintain Candidate A's work before payment. Candidate A does great creative work, Candidate B learns something new, you have a cohesive team, an emergency resource, and maintainable code, and your project comes in on time. Everybody wins.

swombat 17y ago
I completely disagree. Brilliant people are often hard to work with (they tend to be opinionated, want to do their own thing, etc), but I'd much rather work with someone who's brilliant and hard to work with than someone who follows orders but is just average. For a start-up in particular, you find yourself relying on your early people's brilliance to make the impossible happen. Normal, easy to handle people rarely produce exceptional stuff. His biggest weaknesses are in exactly those areas (not the most creative, limited experience) that make him teachable I couldn't disagree more. You can't teach brilliance. You can teach (or manage) teamwork issues.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > You can teach (or manage) teamwork issues. That's completely opposite of my experience. My experience is rather limited (2 companies, 10 people in one, 15 in the other) so maybe that is a factor here, but I've never been able to make a loner a team player and I've managed to assist people to improve their skills with great regularity. Brilliance is not a requirement for every job out there, it may be a help to have it, it may even be a hindrance.
- iterationx 17y ago
  Sometimes following orders is not the correct thing to do and it takes an above average intellect to challenge and to put the brakes on bad decisions.
azanar 17y ago
I am in sharp agreement with swombat. You have taken candidate B and idealized him much more than I think is fair. You have made him into a fledging version of A, by assuming he can be taught to the roughly same level eventually, but without the attitude. You then offer a backhanded jab by saying if B is unteachable to nearly the level of A, it is the teacher's fault. This is an unfair conclusion to jump to. A positive attitude and a brilliant teacher aren't all that is needed for training to be successful; you also need a capable and curious student. They have to be able to learn this stuff, and they want learn it for reasons other than pleasing the teacher. Where these qualities aligns, the student is bound to do some learning on their own; unless they elect to learn the exact same things as everyone else, they are bound to have something to teach others. That the OP mentioned no one really learns anything from candidate B suggests he doesn't have the drive and curiosity; these are warning signs. Furthermore, you can't teach creativity. You can't provide someone with a list of steps to follow every time they want to create something new. The list represents the creative product, and the list is just someone following by rote. What you can do is sow the seeds of creativity; you can inspire. You can ask questions to help guide someone's thinking, and get them past mental roadblocks. You can throw in ideas and expose flaws. But you can't teach someone to be inspired and come up with new ideas. You can't draw them a map, and then expect that with that training alone they'll be able to draw the next one. You have to rely on their brain's capability to form new connections on its own.
- edw519 17y ago
  Disagreement is healthy and appropriate. How else could we discuss this. My post is based upon my own experience. I have seen enough instances of programmer behavior to appreciate patterns. They may not be fair or conventional, but they are most definitely my experience. Two of the biggest things I've observed are... 1. Senior people usually have set practices that work very well for them. That's probably how they became so senior. Unless those practices mesh well with your organization, there will always be uncomfortable potential energy, which can quite possibly have a negative outcome. 2. I have never met anyone (myself included) that performs anywhere near their potential. This applies to everyone, not just programmers. There are as many reasons for this shortfall as there are people, but the biggest ones I've seen are the belief they can't be better and the belief that "speedbumps" are "roadblocks". I have hired many Candidate B's and all have become better, often much better by improving their environment, removing obstacles, providing better tools, and most of all, getting them to believe that they could become excellent. From OP's original question, I believe that this can be exactly the outcome for Candidate B.

by edw519 17y ago

swombat 17y ago

I completely disagree. Brilliant people are often hard to work with (they tend to be opinionated, want to do their own thing, etc), but I'd much rather work with someone who's brilliant and hard to work with than someone who follows orders but is just average. For a start-up in particular, you find yourself relying on your early people's brilliance to make the impossible happen. Normal, easy to handle people rarely produce exceptional stuff. His biggest weaknesses are in exactly those areas (not the most creative, limited experience) that make him teachable I couldn't disagree more. You can't teach brilliance. You can teach (or manage) teamwork issues.

jacquesm 17y ago
> You can teach (or manage) teamwork issues. That's completely opposite of my experience. My experience is rather limited (2 companies, 10 people in one, 15 in the other) so maybe that is a factor here, but I've never been able to make a loner a team player and I've managed to assist people to improve their skills with great regularity. Brilliance is not a requirement for every job out there, it may be a help to have it, it may even be a hindrance.
iterationx 17y ago
Sometimes following orders is not the correct thing to do and it takes an above average intellect to challenge and to put the brakes on bad decisions.

azanar 17y ago

I am in sharp agreement with swombat. You have taken candidate B and idealized him much more than I think is fair. You have made him into a fledging version of A, by assuming he can be taught to the roughly same level eventually, but without the attitude. You then offer a backhanded jab by saying if B is unteachable to nearly the level of A, it is the teacher's fault. This is an unfair conclusion to jump to. A positive attitude and a brilliant teacher aren't all that is needed for training to be successful; you also need a capable and curious student. They have to be able to learn this stuff, and they want learn it for reasons other than pleasing the teacher. Where these qualities aligns, the student is bound to do some learning on their own; unless they elect to learn the exact same things as everyone else, they are bound to have something to teach others. That the OP mentioned no one really learns anything from candidate B suggests he doesn't have the drive and curiosity; these are warning signs. Furthermore, you can't teach creativity. You can't provide someone with a list of steps to follow every time they want to create something new. The list represents the creative product, and the list is just someone following by rote. What you can do is sow the seeds of creativity; you can inspire. You can ask questions to help guide someone's thinking, and get them past mental roadblocks. You can throw in ideas and expose flaws. But you can't teach someone to be inspired and come up with new ideas. You can't draw them a map, and then expect that with that training alone they'll be able to draw the next one. You have to rely on their brain's capability to form new connections on its own.

edw519 17y ago
Disagreement is healthy and appropriate. How else could we discuss this. My post is based upon my own experience. I have seen enough instances of programmer behavior to appreciate patterns. They may not be fair or conventional, but they are most definitely my experience. Two of the biggest things I've observed are... 1. Senior people usually have set practices that work very well for them. That's probably how they became so senior. Unless those practices mesh well with your organization, there will always be uncomfortable potential energy, which can quite possibly have a negative outcome. 2. I have never met anyone (myself included) that performs anywhere near their potential. This applies to everyone, not just programmers. There are as many reasons for this shortfall as there are people, but the biggest ones I've seen are the belief they can't be better and the belief that "speedbumps" are "roadblocks". I have hired many Candidate B's and all have become better, often much better by improving their environment, removing obstacles, providing better tools, and most of all, getting them to believe that they could become excellent. From OP's original question, I believe that this can be exactly the outcome for Candidate B.