Way to be! It's silly how often employers overlook the "I just really want to be part of/build this" factor. People with that make for excellent teammates.
> It's silly how often employers overlook the "I just really want to be part of/build this" factor. People with that make for excellent teammates.
Every startup I've been a part of has picked up a few extremely passionate but not necessarily fully qualified people along the way. It's hard to turn down an enthusiastic candidate who really, really likes your company, so they're often given a chance.
Some of them turned out to be excellent teammates who did everything necessary to grow into the role.
But sadly, many of them just wanted to be startup people without doing the startup grunt work. Worst case, someone with a lot of passion that goes in a different direction than the founders can become a drag on the company or create a lot of conflict. (NOTE: I'm speaking generally, not implying this is the case with the linked author)
Passionate people are generally good when their skills and wants align with the company, but if they're not well-aligned then the passion just amplifies every conflict.
> Passionate people are generally good when their skills and wants align with the company, but if they're not well-aligned then the passion just amplifies every conflict.
I'm starting to see where my original comment was definitely oversimplifying the depths of this topic.
I agree completely. I have a pattern of joining projects because I really love the idea and the concept, but upon landing find out they are doing it _all wrong_.
and generally in these situations I find my criticism to be too deep and cross cutting to really be accepted or be really actionable.
so yeah, I think dialing up the passion just increases the magnitude of the risk or reward.
It's complicated. At my last startup (web application) I was in charge of hiring for the technical team. I've got an application from a guy who really really wanted to work there. But the truth is that he didn't have basic coding skills (in that, he couldn't do FizzBuzz level of coding). I really tried to get him in but in reality we would not have been able to put him in any position.
I was sad because he sent the best "cover letters" I have read ever. And I almost never care about cover letters.
People that show that they want to be there often make for excellent teammates, because they actually care (the old missionaries vs mercenaries idea), and will often be willing to put in the effort to fill whatever gaps they lack, while creating a positive work environment.
Plus, they might have a really good feel for the product and market, because they're genuinely interested in it. You want people like that on your team.
Now, of course - businesses are not a charity that only employ people because they want to be there. There is a minimum bar of skills required and plenty of other traits that matter. And on the employer side, there's a ton of factors there too (budget, existing skills of the team, etc etc).
So yes, I was generalizing. But in general: I'd take someone who wants to be there with high aptitude who has things to learn over someone who has skills but doesn't actually give a crap about the product or company any day of the week, for the types of companies I'm trying to build. That doesn't mean my or your companies needs/goals are the same.
Someone that passionate can probably be mentored into the skill set necessary to do the job.
I spent a year at a TA at a University and in that time I had two students who were really stellar. They were outstanding programmers. They paid attention detail and wrote elegant but easy to read code that worked. I took the time to offer both of them my assistance if they needed any help after graduation.
I play video games with one of them. The other one got out of CS and changed her major to something art related.
If you're still measuring candidates with leetcode and fizzbuzz, I'm afraid you're part of the problem in with broken hiring in tech. I just hope the candidates you pass up trickle down my way.
He did qualify that: he said "FizzBuzz level of coding", which might not have been the actual FizzBuzz test. But his point was that the guy couldn't write code at the level they were hiring for.
> "I just really want to be part of/build this" factor. People with that make for excellent teammates.
Not always. You want to be a part of something/build something, and then you want to build it YOUR way. Or you see an obvious hole and then an ugly battle between your ego and that of the chief architect ensues.
Also, there may be cases when you want to be a part of something, meet your heroes, and then it all goes pear-shaped. Because you shouldn't meet your heroes.
And sometimes it's better to have mercenaries who don't necessary believe in the same thing as you but care a lot about their own reputation and take pride in having done a good job.
I agree, sort of. All things being equal, you want someone who has that sparkle, that enthusiasm.
But things often aren't equal and people are really prone to hiring who they like, over who will get the job done and it's a real problem.
It's tough, really. There are many highly disagreeable software developers I've met who are good at their job, but you just want to get away from, and then there are starry eyed social people who are fun but terrible at their job.
A software dev that's good and still has some sparkle in them after being in the industry for a decade is like a unicorn in my experience. I don't know what it means but it does make me sad.
Sorry but anyone who comes with that attitude is extremely naive and cannot be trusted. And is NOT a good teammate. How can you want to be part of something when you don’t even know what it’s like on the inside?
What happens when you are given a task you do NOT want to be part of? What happens when a task has moral gray area? What happens if you suddenly decide you really want to be part of something else?
Fuck people like that, if you’re hiring someone you want someone with valuable skills who is ready to be of service, ready to do whatever you ask, and will remain loyal so long as they are paid. You don’t want people to be nice, you want them to be predictable. That’s true value.
Ah yes, obedient workers. But also creative and open minded. And autonomous. Well as long as they are autonomously doing the thing I want. Scratch the creative part, I‘m already creative enough! Also loyalty is super important - for them of course. I reserve the privilege to lay them off or fire them - business is business after all.
I believe he put it in a wrong way but he has a valid point. How can you be so passionate about working in a place you never worked at? there's a big risk you're just in love with the idea and you'll be deluded once you experience it first hand. It's a risky hire if the day to day job doesn't match his big expectations.
I agree with the point. Fully. I think this would be a good thing to try and clear up during hiring if the candidate is inexperienced or seems to have trouble with commitment.
However when reading the above the tone seemed ridiculously over the top, which is why I tuned in.
Every startup I've been a part of has picked up a few extremely passionate but not necessarily fully qualified people along the way. It's hard to turn down an enthusiastic candidate who really, really likes your company, so they're often given a chance.
Some of them turned out to be excellent teammates who did everything necessary to grow into the role.
But sadly, many of them just wanted to be startup people without doing the startup grunt work. Worst case, someone with a lot of passion that goes in a different direction than the founders can become a drag on the company or create a lot of conflict. (NOTE: I'm speaking generally, not implying this is the case with the linked author)
Passionate people are generally good when their skills and wants align with the company, but if they're not well-aligned then the passion just amplifies every conflict.