3 ms·

I'm sure there is periodic work that you could tear off that fits the description of tedious and simple. That doesn't mean you'd want this particular person. Ar

I'm sure there is periodic work that you could tear off that fits the description of tedious and simple. That doesn't mean you'd want this particular person. Are you going to have him be a traveling coder, hoping in on only the tedious boring word? Are you going to have him travel with warning that he shouldn't be trusted to have to think about a problem because he'll do poor work? I agree that Google doesn't make enough room for truly specialist skills. They should loosen up a bit. You should also recognize that there are advantages to keeping the bar consistent. You essentially know that everyone you work with is smart and able to solve a problem well. Hiring someone fairly unintelligent without any specialist knowledge into a company too big to allocate appropriate work wouldn't be a good idea. It works better in a smaller environment where you can ensure that he's getting appropriate work.

vonmoltke 12y ago
> I'm sure there is periodic work that you could tear off that fits the description of tedious and simple. That doesn't mean you'd want this particular person. Are you going to have him be a traveling coder, hoping in on only the tedious boring word? Are you going to have him travel with warning that he shouldn't be trusted to have to think about a problem because he'll do poor work? I would reorganize work so there is full-time tedious but necessary work to be done and put him on that. I would also use him for spec work, sort of like an in-house subcontractor. It works very well with electronic and mechanical engineers. I see no reason it would not work for software engineers. > You should also recognize that there are advantages to keeping the bar consistent. You essentially know that everyone you work with is smart and able to solve a problem well. Consistency can be taken too far, which I think Google does. It is one thing to only hire smart problem solvers. It is another thing to only hire people who are smart problem solvers in a specific domain and in a specific way. I feel like Google is trying to diversify their line of business but not diversify the types of problem solvers they hire. > Hiring someone fairly unintelligent without any specialist knowledge into a company too big to allocate appropriate work wouldn't be a good idea. It works better in a smaller environment where you can ensure that he's getting appropriate work. I would think it would be the opposite. A small company is less likely to have sufficient appropriate work to allocate.
- gaylemcd 12y ago
  > A small company is less likely to have sufficient appropriate work to allocate. Maybe so. But this isn't just any random small company. This is a specific 50-person company.

vonmoltke 12y ago

> I'm sure there is periodic work that you could tear off that fits the description of tedious and simple. That doesn't mean you'd want this particular person. Are you going to have him be a traveling coder, hoping in on only the tedious boring word? Are you going to have him travel with warning that he shouldn't be trusted to have to think about a problem because he'll do poor work? I would reorganize work so there is full-time tedious but necessary work to be done and put him on that. I would also use him for spec work, sort of like an in-house subcontractor. It works very well with electronic and mechanical engineers. I see no reason it would not work for software engineers. > You should also recognize that there are advantages to keeping the bar consistent. You essentially know that everyone you work with is smart and able to solve a problem well. Consistency can be taken too far, which I think Google does. It is one thing to only hire smart problem solvers. It is another thing to only hire people who are smart problem solvers in a specific domain and in a specific way. I feel like Google is trying to diversify their line of business but not diversify the types of problem solvers they hire. > Hiring someone fairly unintelligent without any specialist knowledge into a company too big to allocate appropriate work wouldn't be a good idea. It works better in a smaller environment where you can ensure that he's getting appropriate work. I would think it would be the opposite. A small company is less likely to have sufficient appropriate work to allocate.

gaylemcd 12y ago
> A small company is less likely to have sufficient appropriate work to allocate. Maybe so. But this isn't just any random small company. This is a specific 50-person company.