Here's a note of gratitude to the people answering questions all over the world.
Thanks!
https://calebjosue.gigalixirapp.com/blog.html#gratitude
I decided that the way I'm going to hire people going forward is going to be much different. From my own work I realize the most important motivation people have is not money, but intrinsic motivation.
I think we're really looking for people who get that spark in their eyes, who are passionate and excited about something. I think my job as a hiring manager is to understand that, understand what motivates them, and align that with what we need! Haha :)
I guess what I'm asking is, in the hiring process, when exactly do you assess for this? And at times, wouldn't money be the most important motivation because maybe the person was recently laid off, or is in massive debt, etc.?
I don't think you should hire people for whom money is the most motivation, you won't get the best work, if your goal is the maximize your hiring effectiveness.
I also don't think that's the main motivation for most people, certainly not in this creative industry of software at this time.
Hire people for what excites them if you can align that with what you need is likely to lead to better results.
Getting hired is hard. Between the qualifications, experience, leetcode nonsense, low barrier to entry, and the sheer number of unemployed floating around, its hard to stand out (in a good way.)
Both sides hate the system. Good people go unnoticed. Bad people end up wasting time and resources.
I'm not sure 'randomness' is the answer (especially if you're the best person for the job but you are beaten out by random-bad-luck.)
That said there's already a lot of randomness in the system. We often have a post that could easily be filled by 3 or 4 candidates. But we only need 1. At that point there's some psuedo-randomness involved - a decision has to be made and a bunch of perfectly capable people will be disappointed.
This is an oft-cited assumption that I would challenge. Is there really that much upside, or is it just wishful thinking? Surely, if you hired Steve Jobs, they might take your company to unprecedented heights. But would Steve Jobs stick around as a senior engineer at some random company? Would you listen to his ideas? You need to hire to someone to a job, there is likely innumerable people who could do it satisfactorily.
Surely the downside to getting it wrong is high, no disputing that. But unicorns are fantasies for a reason.
It's more that getting people who fit our culture, who "get" our approach to business, who get on with their co-workers, who are going to hang around for a while, who are willing to learn.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/02/ra...
I'm concerned that interviewing may perform worse than random. The worst co-worker I had in tech, the interviewer said "in my defense, he gave a great interview".
I'm not suggesting we stop interviewing. Anyone can lie on a resume, and you need to weed those out. But:
- current technical skill set is a poor proxy for the technical skills a candidate will have after a few months on the job - cultural decisions are coloured by prejudice, not just racial and sexual
I think there's a soft limit on quality of decision that only very talented interviewers can surpass.
Most candidates underperform in this recruiting process and that uncertain feeling of not being enough(sometimes).
At OP, wish you all the best in your hunt, and here's hoping to something going your way for once. Godspeed.
Cheers to you dude.
I wish you the best I read some of your blog posts in the previous post you made.
I think it’s cool to see people like you that have passion and make website and all that. I admire that ability of people to put these works and thoughts out there for people to see.
Cheers m8 I wish you da best