31–40 of 117 posts
This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination. I think it's more likely to reinforce the lack of diversity in tech than to combat it as people unlike the interviewer tend to be viewed less favorably and would be less likely to be viewed as a person who could pick up the specific knowledge he/she doesn't already know.
The problem is how to determine how someone is smart. In my company we had this very eloquent, outgoing person who implemented many features very fast. To the eyes of management he was a champ, the king of "shipping". But a little bit later things started to seem weird. Noone was productive except for this person. Only he could understand the code organization because the system wasn't well structured. Then bug repor…
The problem is how to determine how someone is smart. In my company we had this very eloquent, outgoing person who implemented many features very fast. To the eyes of management he was a champ, the king of "shipping". But a little bit later things started to seem weird. Noone was productive except for this person. Only he could understand the code organization because the system wasn't well structured. Then bug repor…
I think the bigger lesson is probably something along the lines of: First, make sure they can do the job technically, within some sort of parameters of what they can currently do and what can be learned on the job. That's your baseline. Then, try and suss out if they'd be good to work with. That will come naturally through the way they interact with you in the interview and how they answer questions (whether they are…
I have seen very prepared people from flagship universities that shine in interviews but have zero intention of learning and complying with industry standards and good practices and do not care about details.
Those people also feel entitled to be promoted as quickly as possible, even if they're still too green to understand how software works. This is how bad engineering managers are born.
The problem is how to determine how someone is smart. In my company we had this very eloquent, outgoing person who implemented many features very fast. To the eyes of management he was a champ, the king of "shipping". But a little bit later things started to seem weird. Noone was productive except for this person. Only he could understand the code organization because the system wasn't well structured. Then bug repor…
I've met a lot of people who change jobs before anyone realises this - to anyone who works on the same projects they are a nightmare, to everyone else they look like a hotshot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being friends with colleagues can lead to less enjoyable work situations, not to mention less focused work. Being friendly should suffice, not all of us want to get too personal with the same people we might need to have professional arguments with. We're all different.
I'll share a bit of wisdom my son shared when he was 4 or 5. In kindergarden they talked about what a friend is, and he said after some thinking: "A friend is a person you can disagree and fight with, and still play with later".
Agree 100%. Too much focus on happening to have encountered the particular skills you ask about in the technical grilling. Rather, hire smart people you'd like to work with (and who have demonstrated a capacity for learning).
The problem with that strategy is that all too often, "smart people you'd like to work with" equates to male, white, upper-middle-class, with a fondness for beer.
The problem is how to determine how someone is smart. In my company we had this very eloquent, outgoing person who implemented many features very fast. To the eyes of management he was a champ, the king of "shipping". But a little bit later things started to seem weird. Noone was productive except for this person. Only he could understand the code organization because the system wasn't well structured. Then bug repor…
So management also was bad at their jobs. They probably didn't get canned, though they deserved it as much as the King of Shipping.
But, congratulations, you know the "What's Bad About Working Here". Maybe there's a way to train management what their implicit job responsibilities are. I've never seen it happen in the wild, but maybe it's possible.
This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination. I think it's more likely to reinforce the lack of diversity in tech than to combat it as people unlike the interviewer tend to be viewed less favorably and would be less likely to be viewed as a person who could pick up the specific knowledge he/she doesn't already know.
You also discriminate against applicants who don't seem to be very capable in programming or seem to have really toxic personality traits (which is a good idea). How do you come to the idea that discrimination that "hiring for personality" is biased to leads to worse outcome?
This sounds like a cool idea, but I've seen where hiring for personality often leads towards hiring discrimination. I think it's more likely to reinforce the lack of diversity in tech than to combat it as people unlike the interviewer tend to be viewed less favorably and would be less likely to be viewed as a person who could pick up the specific knowledge he/she doesn't already know.
I have mixed feelings about this. I have a hard time valuing diversity for its own sake, especially since there are so many qualities to have diversity in, and especially since the ones that actually affect the organization (like diversity of perspective) are so hard to measure and quantify.
That being said, it's hard for me to sit in an interview and think, "Hmmmm... this is a diversity candidate, so I should ___________." I'm not even sure what to put in that blank. And I feel like I'm already discriminating since I'm already treating this person like a demographic.
So what's the answer? Don't get to know any personalities? Treat everyone like a demographic? I'm not sure that's an improvement.
I sort of like the sentiment but this sort of interview, at least for me, would feel a bit too personal. Look I'm not your friend so let's not pretend that's what this or you just really want to get to know me. No. You just want to know if I can do the job so just get me to do a task which meaningfully reflects what I'd be doing day-to-day then ask me questions about it.
Do you not try to be friends with your colleagues? You spend about a third of your life at work, it seems to me that you should try to make it as enjoyable as possible.
But really this is just more a case of I wouldn't be comfortable talking about my deepest desires with a random person. Sure, once I get to know someone a bit, I'm fine to do that...but a random interviewer? Eugh.
[1] That said, my Russian partner would not consider them friends. Friends in her world are people you can count on for anything and how many of us can say that about our colleagues?