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

You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

otherbranch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 326 posts

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#231

Post by janalsncm »

guywithahat wrote: post #103
fitzn wrote: post #13

> The best engineers make more than your entire payroll. They have opinions on tech debt and timelines. They have remote jobs, if they want them. They don’t go “oh, well, this is your third company, so I guess I’ll defer to you on all product decisions”. They care about comp, a trait you consider disqualifying. They can care about work-life balance, because they’re not desperate enough to feel the need not to. And ho…

The only addendum to this I'd add is the best engineers rarely have to go through the hiring process in a meaningful way, it's usually someone recognizes them from a previous job and vouches heavily for them. I say this because if you're going through the hiring process like a chump, I'd leave the ego at the door and not talk about compensation or try to demand remote work on a desirable position.

> leave the ego at the door and not talk about compensation or try to demand remote work

This makes it sound like these things are written on stone tablets and we just need to accept them as is. They are businesses buying labor. Everything is negotiable.

Talking about those things is not “ego” it’s a perfectly rational thing to do. Whether you should be paid $50k or $500k is not a law of nature but a compromise between buyers and sellers of labor.

Similarly, if you’re willing to trade remote work for a lower salary it’s perfectly rational to bring that up.

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#233

Post by swiftcoder »

littlestymaar wrote: post #120
binary132 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like you’re talking about distinctions within “the best” to me.

Except if you put any of the above names in an environment that doesn't suit them, they will likely be mediocre at best, and even damaging at worse. The “best candidate” depends a lot on your existing organization.

> Except if you put any of the above names in an environment that doesn't suit them, they will likely be mediocre at best, and even damaging at worse.

In the immortal words of Jobs, "real artists ship". Those names are well known precisely because they have a proven track record of shipping products - very few of those would let a challenging environment get in the way of shipping.

That said, as their employer, you may well not like the way they go about it. Name-brand engineers don't take shit from management, and if you get in their way, they won't be shy about airing that publicly.

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#234

Post by mixmastamyk »

rachofsunshine wrote: post #92
mitchitized wrote: post #41

Although I agree with the overall sentiment of the article, the reality in 2025 is that it is a totally dead market and we are still trying to figure out WTH is going on. Some companies are holding their breaths due to political instability, others are in sectors that are already getting decimated (likely from the same instability above), yet others have reached a point where they (and "they" appear to be in a majori…

The market is definitely not dead. It started warming up last summer and has continued to do so throughout 2025. But the market is two-tiered in a way it hasn't been before, particularly w.r.t. remote hiring. Almost all engineers want remote jobs and a small number of employers offer them, so the remote job hunt still puts employers in the driver's seat. But (good, senior) engineers hold the cards right now for in-of…

No offers here, local or remote. Hoping Section 174 fix helps.

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#235

Post by creer »

Not mentioned enough: watch out for engineers (or any hires) who will take zero interest in helping the business succeed.

You can try and hire for brains and experience, say. And have your business constantly undermined by empire building, "just collecting a salary", resume building, and other popular nuisances. Attitude and alignment matters.

If you are yourself "empire or resume building", nevermind, carry on.

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#236

Post by sokoloff »

glimshe wrote: post #116
Centigonal wrote: post #37

There is no such thing as "the best engineers." Some engineers are definitely better than others, but once you pass the bar of "really smart, great work ethic," the tech tree diverges pretty dramatically. Some engineers (like Notch) are amazing at quickly putting out vast quantities of mediocre code, prototyping ideas, maintaining a clear product vision, and bringing something into reality quickly. Other engineers (l…

Sometimes I'm just happy to avoid the worst engineers. They do exist. Bad work ethic, poor foundational skills, hard to work with. I feel that if I can weed them out, I've done 75% of my job as a hiring manager.

This is under-appreciated, very rarely talked about, and spot on!

I am personally guilty of being far too lenient and tolerant in overlooking "hard to work with". Bluntly, as an engineer, I enjoyed working with a few particular "brilliant assholes" (as their brilliance was often but their AH nature rarely directed at me) and so I tended to tolerate them too much when I transitioned into leadership roles. I don't know if that was biggest mistake as a leader, but it was for sure in the top five.

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#237

Post by goopypoop »

j45 wrote: post #162
rgbrgb wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree that there's a lot of diversity in what makes the engineers good. My only quibble is with the conclusion: "identify the specific skills for which you need exceptional talent". Any of these people would be great for your company. When you're small, you can be flexible... if you can get any of those archetypal great engineers, get them and adjust your workflow to work productively with them.

There are likely still some more universal aspects of good engineers. Curiosity, resourcefulness, empathy, being user-centric are all things to never stop developing.

> Curiosity, resourcefulness, empathy, being user-centric are all things to never stop developing.

those qualities were over-developed by e.g. the cenobites

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#238

Post by sokoloff »

bluGill wrote: post #222
hobs wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the hard part to figure out is how to fire those people without causing a lot of unintended consequences. I have been through layoffs 6 times now, and what I have seen often times they are high up in the food chain with a lot of power, and lay offs are pretty random because they are not telegraphed to everyone so you lose good people. The people in power circle the wagons around their preferred cliques, becau…

Right, what you need are a, b, and c players- and no d or f players.

I think most significant sized operations are built and succeed or fail based on the quality and leadership of the B players. You just can't find enough A players to build an entire [large] company of them and hopefully the C players contribute in a steady, no-drama fashion, leaving the B players* as the differentiating aspect of your particular company.

* - and the focus/determination/consistency with which you part ways with the D and F players.

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#239

Post by sokoloff »

goopypoop wrote: post #217
osullivj wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One consistent red flag I look for after the hire is a refusal to learn anything outside their own narrowly defined scope.

Do you mean outside their job description?

Most job descriptions contain some version of "other duties as assigned", IMO with good reason.

No job description can realistically capture every responsibility; this language helps prevent bad-faith disputes when new tasks or responsibilities arise that aren’t explicitly mentioned but are 5 millimeters away from those mentioned and entirely reasonable to be considered as in-scope for an existing employee.

Re: You don't want to hire "the best engineers"

#240

Post by rachofsunshine »

janalsncm wrote: post #231
guywithahat wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only addendum to this I'd add is the best engineers rarely have to go through the hiring process in a meaningful way, it's usually someone recognizes them from a previous job and vouches heavily for them. I say this because if you're going through the hiring process like a chump, I'd leave the ego at the door and not talk about compensation or try to demand remote work on a desirable position.

> leave the ego at the door and not talk about compensation or try to demand remote work This makes it sound like these things are written on stone tablets and we just need to accept them as is. They are businesses buying labor. Everything is negotiable. Talking about those things is not “ego” it’s a perfectly rational thing to do. Whether you should be paid $50k or $500k is not a law of nature but a compromise betwe…

Rationality on an individual level is not the same thing as what produces the best long-term outcomes for both parties. On an individual level, bringing up comp immediately significantly reduces your chances of being moved forward. It shouldn't, but it does.

See this other post from us: https://www.otherbranch.com/shared/blog/would-you-still-hire...

Post reply on HN