

Building Teams: Hire People, Not Skills - chezral
http://bostinnovation.com/2011/04/13/building-teams-why-i-hire-people-not-skills/

======
meterplech
I definitely think this is the best long term solution. I think culture is
incredibly important to an organization. And, I liked the article overall.

But- there is some glossing over of technical ability. I am one to believe
that the best software engineers and programmers are 10-100x better than the
average. I think that is a belief shared on this site. Would I rather have a
programmer who is 100x better who doesn't match the culture I want exactly, or
the average programmer who does? Within reason, I think the 100x better guy.

It's easy to say I want the 100x programmer who matches the startup culture
and also doesn't want to get paid a lot or take a ton of equity. But, hiring
isn't that easy.

------
jswinghammer
What typically differentiates the people I get excited about versus the people
I'm indifferent about is their answer to: "So what books are you reading now
or what's the last book you've read?" Everyone who I have worked with has had
pretty good answers for this question and has gone on to be pretty impressive.
It's sort of sad but most people don't bother to read anything at all.

------
Peroni
This is real 'back to basics' stuff but the issue is how do you figure out who
will be a good cultural fit in an hour long interview where nine times out of
ten the person is going out of their way to impress you anyway.

The final paragraph really nails it. A candidate will fulfil the stereotype of
an interviewee when in an interview scenario, meet them at a hacker meet-up or
even for an informal coffee chat and the candidate will feel less obliged to
act like your potential employee and more inclined to be themselves.

It's just as important for your potential employee to like you as it is for
you to like them so you have a reciprocal duty to try and be yourself when
meeting a candidate. Formal, stuffy interviews tend to generate formal, stuffy
conversations.

~~~
Killah911
I agree with the article. Hiring based on skill alone doesn't work. I usually
look for the most agile person. Someone comfortable wearing many hats.
Unfortunately, there's no quick way of figuring this out. After many painful
lessons, I've changed how I hire. I used to put candidates thru grueling
interviews. I now instead, show the candidates the what I do, hire based on a
quick interview on a contract to perm basis. In the ensuing probation/contract
period, I get to see actual work, and if the whole team likes working with the
new hire, they go perm with a pay bump & some benefits. Working out well so
far.

~~~
danilocampos
Do you operate in a demanding market? As a candidate, I'd be very skeptical of
such an arrangement, assuming another company I liked equally was standing by
with an offer for a real position right off the bat.

~~~
Killah911
Yes, I do operate in a demanding market. As such I've had to really figure out
how to make this work. I started out by offerring "rockstars" loads of money &
potential equity. This was unsustainable. I mean, they were rockstars and the
quality of their work was awesome, but there was no way I could compete with
well established companies. (Yes, I run a very humble, mostly self funded
startup). My proposition is simple. It's like "dating", we both have some
risk. But the benefits I offer, is a place where you'll love to work, (we have
lots of "unconventional" benefits). Also, once you're perm, you'll make above
market salary+bonus+equity+... It's not everyone's cup of tea. If money and
security are your thing, you wouldn't be happy with my company anyways. We're
a startup, we take risks and love the thrill. That's why when one of your
ideas make the company money, the bonus you'll see on the next paycheck will
make veterans' paychecks look like chump change & if it's something that'll
help us long term, you'll get the bonus in terms of equity. So far, our team
is like family. We love what we do & look forward to Monday...

------
Duff
This stuff is a great demonstration of the type of advantages that a small
organization has over a larger one.

The problem with weighting more subjective assessments of people like
"cultural fit" higher than more objective assessments like "experience" is
that the assessor's bias will become a problem. By problem, I mean that you're
going to get successfully sued for some form of discrimination.

~~~
jdp23
The key here is "You need a mix of people with differing perspectives but
shared values." to which I would also add differing demographic backgrounds.
As the article says, you need at team that is cohesive because of its
differences.

~~~
Duff
Absolutely. That's where the small organization shines. Once you get big,
where big == more than a couple of hundred people, subcultures start to
develop that may not share positive values. A few key negative people can
poison an organization.

------
erin_bury
Love the breakdown - "scrappiness and drive" at 35%. To me resourcefulness is
#1 - I don't care if someone has the experience, I care that they can go out
and figure it out on their own.

~~~
kemiller
You don't think experience helps with that?

It frustrates me that our profession seems to have no real career path. It's
great that you can hit the ground running, but we do seem to systematically
devalue experience. And it DOES matter, though it's obviously not just about
years. (I've certainly known plenty of folks who had been doing bad work for
decades.) But we don't have any kind of formal mentoring system like you'd see
in other professions, and I think we're worse off for it.

~~~
kenjackson
_but we do seem to systematically devalue experience_

Yes, it does seem like the only mainstream profession where having 20 years of
real experience means virtually nothing.

IOW, our profession is so shallow that virtually anyone can do your job if
they want to.

------
spartanfan10
I'd really enjoy seeing a follow up post on this with more detail on the
process. This article describes the general feeling I've had, even outside of
start ups. I do feel like the "actually coming through" part of scrappiness is
the most important, especially when it comes down to coming up with solutions
that are elegant and not just hack work. There has to be some middle ground
that mixes this approach with a set of skill/intelligence factors in the
interview.

~~~
codeglomeration
Mark Suster has a more in depth post about hiring based on attitude not
aptitude. [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/03/17/whom-should-
yo...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/03/17/whom-should-you-hire-at-
a-startup-attitude-over-aptitude/)

------
waynecolvin
I don't think these guidelines would apply the same way at a larger
established company instead of a startup. Skillset would have comparably more
interest to a company already invested in legacy systems which wouldn't be the
case with a start-up.

------
gaoshan
There needs to be a certain level of skill but frankly, looking at the long
term and with the right individual, I'd take a carpenter over a rockstar any
day.

------
lysium
I like the focus on people.

I'm wondering if salary is also selected according to this breakdown and not
on skills (as it is usually done).

