| I think that's an idealization of what it should be. I think that's what would be best for business. So, back at a company called Buzzr, we had an opportunity to hire a very talented programmer known in the Drupal community. Many many accomplishments, it's safe to say if we took him on, it'd radically change our day to day operations (we needed to do something, in my opinion). He really did espouse the best of the concepts of Drupal, which was perfect, since we were a Drupal SAAS platform. We didn't take him on. There wasn't much chat - but I was able to scoop up hearsay of why: He'd shake things up too much; too opinionated. Here's the thing though: who would he be butting heads against? Nobody really had strong technical opinions. I was really junior at the time, and would be honored to work with him. If you're somebody that has accomplishments and a track record, you're going to have opinions and a style. And for some reason, even startups where there is open room for delegation, decision makers lean toward protecting their turf. Even in situations where they couldn't do better themselves. Even when they're desperate for help. We're making the mistake of viewing organizations being game theorists that make the most optimal decision - that's not always the case. Organizations don't hire, divisions and teams within them do. In practice, it's more nuanced and political. It's safe to say, the decision maker's self-preservation overshadows the business making the best decisions. Sometimes irking the decision maker's pride - disdaining something superior to them - is enough to end the process. It's less cognitive dissonance to just move to the other 999 applications in the pile, than worry how we're going to manage a generative, creative force. The narrative shifts to finding the most "appropriate" candidate based on the hiring manager's sense of safety. That's my anecdote. |