Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

en.wikisource.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 276 posts

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#131

Post by adamlett »

ilaksh wrote: post #17

Good writing and ok advice for someone who wants to run a grocery business. But it is absolutely untrue that "brilliant" men cannot also be careful, detail-oriented and have good business sense and skills. And certainly innovation and risk taking can be just as critical in business as following proven formulas and paying close attention to the bottom line. It depends on the business and circumstance. Overall I think…

I think you are interpretating the text a little too literally. I think the author is very much aware that the “brilliant” men he describes, are in fact only so in their own minds. The text is a cautionary tale that warns about being too impressed with someone just because they act self confidently.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#132

Post by billmalarky »

solve wrote: post #78
billmalarky wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why you incentivize salesmen via commissions and quickly fire those that are obviously showing up just for the base paycheck.

Employees still optimize for pay / effort, NOT absolute pay. In that respect, commissions are still FAR from perfectly aligning incentives. You can't really be suggesting that commissions are the silver bullet for aligning incentives, as if that hasn't been tried for thousands of years already, with very mixed success :)

I'm not suggesting there is a "silver bullet" for aligning incentives that exists (commissions can be abused by focusing on short term gains at the detriment of the companies long term goals etc etc), but commissions for goal completion is a step in the right direction compared to just writing someone a blank check because their resume looks pretty.

Additionally, employees optimizing for pay/effort instead of max pay is still a win for the company so long as the employee brings in marginally more than they cost.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#133

Post by iamwil »

deadfall wrote: post #27

"But if you blunder for words, punctuate incorrectly, spell incorrectly, and express yourself clumsily, I'm sure to believe you mind is cluttered and ill-disciplined." My mind is cluttered and I rely on spelling correction. Hard to say if I would get the position.

Clear writing is a proxy for clear thinking.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#137

Post by tokenadult »

As mathattack has correctly pointed out in a comment an hour ago, this is a parable (a made-up story). The huge salary by that day's standards should make that clear. But the unnamed author makes his hiring methods look stupid, because he should be doing a work-sample test[1] before hiring for such an expensive contract. If he doesn't know what the worker will actually do, he shouldn't put so much money on the line.

[1] My FAQ on company hiring procedures as posted earlier on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5227923

I'm now doing research to update that FAQ for posting on my personal website, a suggestion other HN readers kindly gave me.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#138

Post by pdonis »

byerley wrote: post #102
badman_ting wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but I'm saying it's the wrong counterexample. This is "I got fucked up and crashed my Ford into a tree, so I'm never buying a Ford again."

I mean, If I repeatedly get fucked up and crash Fords over the course of my life while having much better luck with other cars, I might start looking for a causal relationship.

Exactly: that's what the author of the piece is doing. He's had bad luck with a certain type of person while having much better luck with other types of people, and he's analyzing the reasons for that.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#139

Post by loladesoto »

tl;dr: look for integrity.

some of the most brilliant hackers i know are rightfully afraid of going into business with the kind of "brilliant men" described in this article.

just as non-technical founders benefit from learning to code for a myriad of reasons, hackers should do careful due diligence on a potential business partner. ask questions. require them to invest in the relationship. blow away the smoke and mirrors if you see their evidence, until you see that person in a humble light.

most of the time, this kind of salesperson is masking deep personality flaws which you can actually live with in exchange for the benefits, on one condition: the existence of abiding integrity.

so many of these relationships are predatory but they don't have to be if you find ways to get them to show you their character. see how they treat their friends. travel with them. build something together.

something a friend taught me is "H.A.L.T." = hungry, angry, lonely, tired. 1) don't make decisions when you're in any of these states; 2) it applies to choosing a business partner but here, you WANT to see them this way. you can learn a lot about a person when their basic needs are momentarily threatened, including how they treat you and others. so don't be dazzled, find them in a humble light because that's where a person's character is revealed.

the ones you want are comfortable with their humility.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#140

Post by 001sky »

tokenadult wrote: post #137

As mathattack has correctly pointed out in a comment an hour ago, this is a parable (a made-up story). The huge salary by that day's standards should make that clear. But the unnamed author makes his hiring methods look stupid, because he should be doing a work-sample test[1] before hiring for such an expensive contract. If he doesn't know what the worker will actually do, he shouldn't put so much money on the line.…

When was the last time a CEO was (ever) given a work sample test?

Serious Question.

Post reply on HN