Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#141

Post by chris_mahan » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:22 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #93

tsunamifury wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying your boss goes to the trouble to get a working prototype going and even does the UI fronted and when he asks you to finish and scale it out as an engineer (which is your job) you take offense to this request?

It doesn't really sound like the boss is providing a working prototype. It sounds like the boss provides throwaway code that is a step or two better than a screenshot or whiteboard drawing.

And what's wrong with that? Would you rather the boss commit a fully tested code? That's your job, not his.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#142

Post by sillysaurus3 » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:23 PM UTC

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.…

This story is fiction? It's come up so many times as if it was fact.

It'd be pretty interesting to compile a list of stories which people generally believe are true, but are actually fiction.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#143

Post by greesil » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:24 PM UTC

001sky wrote: post #140

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.

Does his or her previous company count as a work sample test?

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#144

Post by robocat » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:24 PM UTC

d23 wrote: post #19

What if you aren't a finisher? How can you become one?

I teamed up with someone that keeps a very narrow focus to help prevent me wandering off track. Together we have kept very profitably focused for quite a few years now.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#145

Post by cafard » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:27 PM UTC

I should say that this is interesting chiefly as an example of magazine writing of its time.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#146

Post by vacri » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:28 PM UTC

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.…

There's a lot of things people should have been doing in 1924, but weren't. I mean, if we're judging by modern standards, allowing women and minorities into senior roles would be one of them.

How, exactly, do you do a work-sample test for a chief sales executive anyway? "Hey, can you run our global sales division for a couple of hours, then we can evaluate if your methods really bring in the sales"?

Edit: to clarify on the work-sample question, in the story, the employee has been expressly hired to teach the existing staff new methods, which they actively recognise that they don't understand. How do you make a meaningful work-sample test for a sales chief that can be interpreted by a naif?

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#147

Post by megablast » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:43 PM UTC

> My experience is that it pays to buy the best; and what applies to things applies equally to men.

This is true, but price is a poor indicator of how good something is. You need to understand the product or man, before you can judge which is the best.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#148

Post by vacri » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:47 PM UTC

Detrus wrote: post #97

benjohnson wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reference was to the 12 apostles of Jesus - they were low in standing and generally unschooled.

Yea and a curious counterpoint is the church wouldn't be built without Paul, who wasn't in the original 12, was educated and a "brilliant" charmer.

Also, at the time of it constituting 12 people, it wasn't a great organisation. That would come centuries, perhaps a millenia later. When it was only 12 strong, they didn't even have enough influence to make the local law look the other way.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#149

Post by vacri » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:55 PM UTC

tsunamifury wrote: post #30

If you want to run a solid, reliable, mediocre business hire solid, reliable, mediocre workers.

In my experience, mediocre workers are not solid and reliable. It seems strange to string those three terms together.

Re: Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924)

#150

Post by vacri » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 11:59 PM UTC

badman_ting wrote: post #28

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.

Ah yes, the school of thought that supposes the ability to distinguish between "your" and "you're" is the essence of intelligence.

Not 'the essence of intelligence' but 'one indicator of self-discipline'.