No offense taken, but I'm curious as to why you hate that phrase.
"Getting work done" is essentially what we're hiring people for right? As long as you can get done what you were hired to do, it shouldn't matter whether you suck at algorithms, are not a "ninja", don't fit "culturally", and whatever other weird things companies look for in candidates. It's as prosaic as it gets, and IMO it's the absolute correct metric to use.
It's as different as it gets from "changing the world", which honestly very few companies are actually doing, and is hence a source of irritation for me as well.
It's important to make a distinction between two different types of "get things done" here. There is one type where the candidate figures out what needs to be done to complete a feature in an application and does it. Then there's the type where the candidate figures out what is the least work (ie fastest way) and does that without trying to understand the potential outcomes. Given that the slapdash candidate is great at patching bugs I would maybe consider him/her, but frankly I prefer people who measure twice and cut once. I know that sounds like a separate concern --it is-- but some business cultures confuse work ethic and results along the lines of "gets things done".
"Getting work done" is essentially what we're hiring people for right? As long as you can get done what you were hired to do, it shouldn't matter whether you suck at algorithms, are not a "ninja", don't fit "culturally", and whatever other weird things companies look for in candidates. It's as prosaic as it gets, and IMO it's the absolute correct metric to use.
It's as different as it gets from "changing the world", which honestly very few companies are actually doing, and is hence a source of irritation for me as well.