Hiring story - why technical skills aren't all you need.

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
When interviewing right before I graduated, I intentionally signed up for interview slots right after the biggest losers I knew. I seemed that much better by comparison

:beer:

 

[tyler811]

Or your lack of people skills lol

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: MaxDepth
So you hired the first person who didn't snicker at the words, "hung replications."

lmao

 

[The Dancing Peacock]

my work we do the same thing. We look for communication and people skills, and if they are in the least bit technically apt, then we can teach you what you need to know. Not everyone has linux and perl scripting skills, mostly windows.

So in interviews, if we can tell they are comfortable with a computer, and can communicate, work in a team with customer service type skills, we'll teach you Linux.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: tyler811

Originally posted by: PipBoy
When interviewing right before I graduated, I intentionally signed up for interview slots right after the biggest losers I knew. I seemed that much better by comparison

:beer:

it was the ones who signed up after me that I was worried about :Q

 

[thunderhorse]

When I put together a team for a project, I usually bring in up to twice as many people as I need. Then I start pushing and pushing. I'm looking for people that can work well together, and get in my face when they think I'm wrong or the idea looks like it will not work. And I push a little more. I take their funding away until they are pleading their loudest that we could loose the project. The ones that start arguing and fighting with others in the team are history. I want to have a team that compliments and defends each other. I want a team I don't have to stand over their shoulder to get the job done right. Because now I can go on vacation. hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Zebo]

hmmm... I always thought it was who you know. Especially the higher you go.

1. Never burn a bridge
2. Network well

 

Originally posted by: thunderhorse
When I put together a team for a project, I usually bring in up to twice as many people as I need. Then I start pushing and pushing. I'm looking for people that can work well together, and get in my face when they think I'm wrong or the idea looks like it will not work. And I push a little more. I take their funding away until they are pleading their loudest that we could loose the project. The ones that start arguing and fighting with others in the team are history. I want to have a team that compliments and defends each other. I want a team I don't have to stand over their shoulder to get the job done right. Because now I can go on vacation. hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

I like that. You are a slave driver sir, and I salute you!

 

[DaWhim]

Originally posted by: thunderhorse
When I put together a team for a project, I usually bring in up to twice as many people as I need. Then I start pushing and pushing. I'm looking for people that can work well together, and get in my face when they think I'm wrong or the idea looks like it will not work. And I push a little more. I take their funding away until they are pleading their loudest that we could loose the project. The ones that start arguing and fighting with others in the team are history. I want to have a team that compliments and defends each other. I want a team I don't have to stand over their shoulder to get the job done right. Because now I can go on vacation. hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

sound more like you are using the the Art of War in real life. heh
did you read the Prince yet? read it and learn to keep yourself in power.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: Descartes

However, it's pretty absurd to think that you can simply teach someone "programming." The converse of the argument is true: Those with more social abilities than intellect will not be a proficient programmer, and vice versa. Sure, you can teach a marketing monkey how to create Excel spreadsheets that calculate your birthday, but that's a far, far cry away from being a developer.

I think it's pretty absurd to posit a correlation between social and technical skills. While I know of many people who fit the absent-minded professor stereotype, I also know a number of individuals whom I would consider technically brilliant (as both designers and implementors) who are "normal", personable people.

I call Bullsh!t

 

[athithi]

I think people skills are over-rated. I work in a team where a couple of guys are technically very skilled, but hardly what you would call social. The rest of them are very friendly, jovial and have excellent people skills but can't code for nuts. But when push comes to shove and the work is in danger of suffering, I see that it is always the technical folks that save the project. I consider myself to be technically very proficient in my area of expertise and I don't think I lack in any ability to communicate with others, though I am not particularly outgoing. But on several occasions I've found myself gritting my teeth at the absolute waste of time it is teaching the social people technical stuff. They actually seem to believe that their wisecracks and personal stories will help them finish their job. The workload is so unevenly distributed now that the techies get assigned work at the rate of 5:1 (in terms of hours) as compared to the socialites :| - and yet both get paid the same. Communication skills help while easing into a project and during transitionary phases. But if you are skilled enough, you should be able to understand your work just fine. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but I disagree that social skills are anywhere near as important as technical skills (when it comes to a technical job).

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: notfred
I was talking to someone over AIM who works for the same place that I do, but is on the other side of the country.

Anyway, short transcript:

him: We have a contractor who is writing scripts to help us monitor hung replications.
him: I am helping him learn perl . . .
me: Seems like they should have hired a contractor who alread knew perl...
him: well . . . it was an an interesting hiring experience; we interviewed a number of people, and there was an inverse relationship between the technical expertise and the social skills of the applicants. We came to the conclusion that it would be easier to teach programming than the ability to work with a team

Anyway, consider that when applying for jobs.

More companies are taking that approach!

 

[thunderhorse]

I don't think I have ever been called a slave driver before. But I do know one thing, the same people fight to get on the team time after time. I guess it's because once the team is selected the fun begins.I seem to be the one on the receiving end. But who cares, they work hard to complete the job and they work me even harder. I can't wait for the next project.

 

[Geekbabe]

It's all about team... to quote my boss after we scored highly on a CS satisfaction survey" Our key to sucess has always been a group understanding that the whole is served best when the individual parts perform to the best of their ability and care more about the group than the self"

 

[Squisher]

Personally I don't care if a person is socially adept as long as they aren't @ssholes and are hard workers and good at what they do.

And, you know, too many people are nervous to the point as coming across as being socially inept during interviews.

 

[bleeb]

Yeah I agree. Personality is important but having the technical skills is far better imho because the guy with personality is going to take longer to learn and in the end you will end up spending more money. The guy with technical skill is going to finish the product, in lesser amount of time, saving money.

If business is about the bottom line, then why choose the guy who's going to end up making you lose more money with a lesser product?

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: bleeb
Yeah I agree. Personality is important but having the technical skills is far better imho because the guy with personality is going to take longer to learn and in the end you will end up spending more money. The guy with technical skill is going to finish the product, in lesser amount of time, saving money.

If business is about the bottom line, then why choose the guy who's going to end up making you lose more money with a lesser product?

If the job involves a lot of contact supporting end users,the tech person with minimal people skills is going to cost a company a lot of money in terms of lost accounts and time spent soothing ruffled feathers and hurt feelings.End users in my experience have very little problem with a tech who occasionally needs to take a bit more time researching as long as the tech is pleasant and supportive of them.Elitist,snobby CS people who make end users feel stupid are not good for any company's bottom line.I've never been expected to instantly know the answer to every computing problem.My value lies in my ability to quickly research problems and find solutions and in making end users feel good about themselves and the rightness of their choice in employing me to assist them.

Keep in mind that in business,most end users are usually highly educated professionals in their own field of expertise,computers are simply tools to them,making them feel stupid because they are not IT professionals in addition to being Doctors,nurses,lawyers or accountants isn't nice or smart.

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: bleeb
Yeah I agree. Personality is important but having the technical skills is far better imho because the guy with personality is going to take longer to learn and in the end you will end up spending more money. The guy with technical skill is going to finish the product, in lesser amount of time, saving money.

If business is about the bottom line, then why choose the guy who's going to end up making you lose more money with a lesser product?

If the job involves a lot of contact supporting end users,the tech person with minimal people skills is going to cost a company a lot of money in terms of lost accounts and time spent soothing ruffled feathers and hurt feelings.End users in my experience have very little problem with a tech who occasionally needs to take a bit more time researching as long as the tech is pleasant and supportive of them.Elitist,snobby CS people who make end users feel stupid are not good for any company's bottom line.I've never been expected to instantly know the answer to every computing problem.My value lies in my ability to quickly research problems and find solutions and in making end users feel good about themselves and the rightness of their choice in employing me to assist them.

Keep in mind that in business,most end users are usually highly educated professionals in their own field of expertise,computers are simply tools to them,making them feel stupid because they are not IT professionals in addition to being Doctors,nurses,lawyers or accountants isn't nice or smary.

you're right, but I'm talking about people who are in the development position rather than people who are in support. I believe its stupid to hire people for development jobs when they aren't good programmers but because they could bullshiet their way through the interview. I completely agree with you on the fact that its important to be a people person for support type of jobs but it doesn't make sense for people in the development role.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: bleeb

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: bleeb
Yeah I agree. Personality is important but having the technical skills is far better imho because the guy with personality is going to take longer to learn and in the end you will end up spending more money. The guy with technical skill is going to finish the product, in lesser amount of time, saving money.

If business is about the bottom line, then why choose the guy who's going to end up making you lose more money with a lesser product?

If the job involves a lot of contact supporting end users,the tech person with minimal people skills is going to cost a company a lot of money in terms of lost accounts and time spent soothing ruffled feathers and hurt feelings.End users in my experience have very little problem with a tech who occasionally needs to take a bit more time researching as long as the tech is pleasant and supportive of them.Elitist,snobby CS people who make end users feel stupid are not good for any company's bottom line.I've never been expected to instantly know the answer to every computing problem.My value lies in my ability to quickly research problems and find solutions and in making end users feel good about themselves and the rightness of their choice in employing me to assist them.

Keep in mind that in business,most end users are usually highly educated professionals in their own field of expertise,computers are simply tools to them,making them feel stupid because they are not IT professionals in addition to being Doctors,nurses,lawyers or accountants isn't nice or smary.

you're right, but I'm talking about people who are in the development position rather than people who are in support. I believe its stupid to hire people for development jobs when they aren't good programmers but because they could bullshiet their way through the interview. I completely agree with you on the fact that its important to be a people person for support type of jobs but it doesn't make sense for people in the development role.

Lol,I think crappy coders are responsible for a lot of misery further down the IT chain of support line.Bloated,faulty code,carelessly written increases my headaches 100 fold

 

[Spamela]

there was an inverse relationship between the technical expertise and the social skills of the applicants

pure stereotyping.

i've seen doing the software development thing for > 20 years & i've seen every
combination there is - from hardcore techies who couldn't get along with ANYBODY
to people with great personalities & minimal software development skills who
could never, with any amount of work, become competent.

that said, most people where i work have a lot on the ball technically and
have the normal range of social skills with no particular type dominating.

We came to the conclusion that it would be easier to teach programming than the ability to work with a team

what i've found is that some people don't "get" the former & know they never will, but
people with major social interaction problems tend to blame other people
or not have any self-insight.

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: bleeb

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: bleeb
Yeah I agree. Personality is important but having the technical skills is far better imho because the guy with personality is going to take longer to learn and in the end you will end up spending more money. The guy with technical skill is going to finish the product, in lesser amount of time, saving money.

If business is about the bottom line, then why choose the guy who's going to end up making you lose more money with a lesser product?

If the job involves a lot of contact supporting end users,the tech person with minimal people skills is going to cost a company a lot of money in terms of lost accounts and time spent soothing ruffled feathers and hurt feelings.End users in my experience have very little problem with a tech who occasionally needs to take a bit more time researching as long as the tech is pleasant and supportive of them.Elitist,snobby CS people who make end users feel stupid are not good for any company's bottom line.I've never been expected to instantly know the answer to every computing problem.My value lies in my ability to quickly research problems and find solutions and in making end users feel good about themselves and the rightness of their choice in employing me to assist them.

Keep in mind that in business,most end users are usually highly educated professionals in their own field of expertise,computers are simply tools to them,making them feel stupid because they are not IT professionals in addition to being Doctors,nurses,lawyers or accountants isn't nice or smary.

you're right, but I'm talking about people who are in the development position rather than people who are in support. I believe its stupid to hire people for development jobs when they aren't good programmers but because they could bullshiet their way through the interview. I completely agree with you on the fact that its important to be a people person for support type of jobs but it doesn't make sense for people in the development role.

Lol,I think crappy coders are responsible for a lot of misery further down the IT chain of support line.Bloated,faulty code,carelessly written increases my headaches 100 fold

Yup it's the crappy coders with good personalities with no programming skills that create this problem!

 

[SoylentGreen]

Thank you Capt. Obious :beer:

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: notfred
I was talking to someone over AIM who works for the same place that I do, but is on the other side of the country.

Anyway, short transcript:

him: We have a contractor who is writing scripts to help us monitor hung replications.
him: I am helping him learn perl . . .
me: Seems like they should have hired a contractor who alread knew perl...
him: well . . . it was an an interesting hiring experience; we interviewed a number of people, and there was an inverse relationship between the technical expertise and the social skills of the applicants. We came to the conclusion that it would be easier to teach programming than the ability to work with a team

Anyway, consider that when applying for jobs.

More companies are taking that approach!

because the people who do the hiring are the socialites themselves, since they brown nose enough to get into a management position. most of the managers i've ever encountered are technically inferior than their team.

of course they're going to take that approach.