11–20 of 112 posts
That's not a surprise really. A typical competition may be won by a programmer scoring 90/100 on four out of five tasks and 20/100 on the last one. Such performance at work would likely result in a quick termination.
How did they quantify "being good on the job"?
For a marathon run exactly this behavior is negative, that makes you win a sprint run. When you start fast and are eager to have fast successes, you are likely to loose the marathon.
In my experience, software development (in larger scale) needs a lot patience, planning and great staying power.
I imagine people that win this type of competitions capable to work obsessively on what they like, but also to be prone to ignore other things they find less challenging.
I mean, job interviews are very competitive, they are time constrained, and they result in a binary decision made by some external authority, just like competitions.
A machine learning system was trained at Google as an attempt to do "scientific hiring." As their ground truth, the team used the performance reviews of people who had already been hired at Google. To optimistically give it the benefit of every doubt, this study says that Google put too much emphasis on success in programming competitions when it was making hiring decisions in the early 2000s.
To look at it more pessimistically, the possibility of correlations between the features cast doubt on that conclusion as well.
Target applications, time limits, thinking, documentation, help usage differs in both conditions and better results for business can not be accomplished with artificial/inorganic restrictions.