[dead]
Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
101–110 of 139 posts
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#102Sounds like boomers crap, lemme guess, when you were a noob, was there any of this crap? Highly unlikely, probably no one even noticed you were sitting in the corner talking your sweet time to learn. Don’t make it harder on the new generation it’s already hard on them, thanks to you, mr.boomer. It is a job that’s making someone’s else wealthier, not a lifestyle, stop treating it like that or adding yet another source of stress. Even if they don’t perform the best that’s ok, it’s job, we are not supposed to be “maxxing” every category in life, mediocrity is mostly accepted in a lot of life categories. The crazy demands I see sometimes in job descriptions..
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related, but the best quality to have in a startup is knowing when and what corners to cut instead of going on these side quests.
I used to think this but you only know which were the right corners to cut after the fact. And most things are not obviously right or obviously wrong, instead it’s a slow zombie death by a thousand fuzzy signals. And the management tier of the startup will too easily color the signal by the flavor they want to see. My latest take on this matter is to separate speed as in fast from quick. Quick is the thing you want a…
Which is exactly why you need people who have a good gut feel for such things.
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#104[flagged]
If I hired a full time programmer and found out they had two other jobs I'd probably let them focus on those other two. If they were showing the "C" behaviors in all three jobs, they have no job security, unless they work where they can't be let go.
Shouldn't you measure output instead of hours spent on the job?
People could be productive or not with one job as well as there.
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I hired a full time programmer and found out they had two other jobs I'd probably let them focus on those other two. If they were showing the "C" behaviors in all three jobs, they have no job security, unless they work where they can't be let go.
Shouldn't you measure output instead of hours spent on the job? People could be productive or not with one job as well as there.
LOL
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#106So much of this is written with an air of superiority over the noob. Indicates a bit of an ego problem. Yes, the noobs are noobs, but the goal isn't to exercise your status over them. Or even to waste that much time trying to categorize between A, B, C. The goal should be to boost everybody's productivity instead of treating them like a game.
Yeah, the author clearly has his head up his own arse.
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#107I work at a place that is actively hiring juniors. While they don’t have an explicit rating system I feel like we unconsciously follow a similar pattern with new coders and it’s unfortunate. Given that older staff generally have a legacy of responsibility they don’t always have the time required to coach people who lack that self-starting spark. The quality of the questions and how much effort they have put in to ans…
Not to sound soulless but why would you want to invest on the C’s? Unless we have no options I don’t see why so that. I’ve had to deal with people like that and it’s a tar pit.
Because it's not blatantly obvious what is a B versus a C until after the fact.
So you
1. Reduce morale of Bs with potential. Layoffs or just reducing opportunity affects the whole team 2. Enforce stereotype threat on Bs you've miscategorized, reducing their performance and turning them into Cs.
It probably affects the As too, but I know I'm not there yet, so I can't speak on it.
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#108So much of this is written with an air of superiority over the noob. Indicates a bit of an ego problem. Yes, the noobs are noobs, but the goal isn't to exercise your status over them. Or even to waste that much time trying to categorize between A, B, C. The goal should be to boost everybody's productivity instead of treating them like a game.
The seniors are superior to the noobs. Kind of by definition.
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related, but the best quality to have in a startup is knowing when and what corners to cut instead of going on these side quests.
I used to think this but you only know which were the right corners to cut after the fact. And most things are not obviously right or obviously wrong, instead it’s a slow zombie death by a thousand fuzzy signals. And the management tier of the startup will too easily color the signal by the flavor they want to see. My latest take on this matter is to separate speed as in fast from quick. Quick is the thing you want a…
Yes, but it does get easier with experience and some battle scars. Telling a startup to stick to the problem and not go wild with microservices and event sourcing is not exactly a hot take.
Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I hired a full time programmer and found out they had two other jobs I'd probably let them focus on those other two. If they were showing the "C" behaviors in all three jobs, they have no job security, unless they work where they can't be let go.
Shouldn't you measure output instead of hours spent on the job? People could be productive or not with one job as well as there.
Measuring output is what this whole post is about.
1. "If you have poor output, you won't last long. Here's what 'poor output' looks like..."
2. "But what if they have poor output because they're working three jobs?"
3. "Then I'd let them go."
You: "Cruel! Shouldn't you be measuring their output!?"