5 ms·

When my company hires, we look for programmers who show curiosity, interest and creativity. This, I suppose, is what some PR person somewhere decided would be c

When my company hires, we look for programmers who show curiosity, interest and creativity. This, I suppose, is what some PR person somewhere decided would be called "passion". But we're not looking for some crazy evangelist and we don't expect people to devalue other things in life to prove their interest in programming. Someone mature, intelligent and curious is ideal. There's definitely a difference between that person and someone who does the bare minimum required to get the job done because they're not that interested. Your curiosity will lead you to discover new ways of doing things, to keep an eye on how others are doing things, and to persist when you can't immediately solve a problem. You'll write better code because you're interested in discovering the best ways of doing things. But you needn't be obsessive. We have seen employees who don't initially have that curiosity, and their code generally isn't very well designed and doesn't improve. It doesn't matter how many hours they work. If someone can succeed in sparking that curiosity in them, then we see their code improve. What you don't want is the attitude of "how I code right now is fine for me, and I'm not really interested in learning better ways." That's associated with "ho hum, it's just a day job" but not everyone working standard hours has an unhelpful attitude like this. It's quite possible to work 9 to 5 while being interested, curious and proud of good work.

jeremy6d 12y ago
> But we're not looking for some crazy evangelist and we don't expect people to devalue other things in life to prove their interest in programming. Well, of course you can't _say_ that. That's the whole point of the article: that "passion" is a euphemism for the signaling companies do. We want passionate developers, and we get to define "passion" for you. What makes hiring so hard is that it's a gamble. Human beings don't come with specs you can evaluate to know whether or not they will help or hurt your mission. But, you know what, companies don't come with specs that will tell an applicant whether the job will enhance or stifle one's life. I wish we could stop playing these word games that imply there are rigid patterns to what makes a successful employment relationship, and instead put that energy into getting to know human beings as they are.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Human beings don't come with specs you can evaluate to know whether or not they will help or hurt your mission. You need to find people who can perceive the workings of the group and company as a system, then actively avoid pathologies and improve the group as a whole. Most groups aren't solely composed of such people, but the ones that work well have enough of them to regulate group interactions smoothly. What makes hiring so hard is that it's a gamble. It wouldn't be if there was a way that we could try people for a couple weeks, then six months before hiring. Almost anyone can pretend to be nice for 6 months for tens of thousands of dollars. Longer than that, you're either getting a genuine glimpse, or there's a darker talent at play.

jeremy6d 12y ago

> But we're not looking for some crazy evangelist and we don't expect people to devalue other things in life to prove their interest in programming. Well, of course you can't _say_ that. That's the whole point of the article: that "passion" is a euphemism for the signaling companies do. We want passionate developers, and we get to define "passion" for you. What makes hiring so hard is that it's a gamble. Human beings don't come with specs you can evaluate to know whether or not they will help or hurt your mission. But, you know what, companies don't come with specs that will tell an applicant whether the job will enhance or stifle one's life. I wish we could stop playing these word games that imply there are rigid patterns to what makes a successful employment relationship, and instead put that energy into getting to know human beings as they are.

stcredzero 12y ago
Human beings don't come with specs you can evaluate to know whether or not they will help or hurt your mission. You need to find people who can perceive the workings of the group and company as a system, then actively avoid pathologies and improve the group as a whole. Most groups aren't solely composed of such people, but the ones that work well have enough of them to regulate group interactions smoothly. What makes hiring so hard is that it's a gamble. It wouldn't be if there was a way that we could try people for a couple weeks, then six months before hiring. Almost anyone can pretend to be nice for 6 months for tens of thousands of dollars. Longer than that, you're either getting a genuine glimpse, or there's a darker talent at play.