

I Wouldn't Hire a Programmer With No Interest in Programming Outside of Work - raganwald
http://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2009-10-08/no_hire.md#readme

======
smakz
What I do outside of work is none of my employers business - period. I'm
surprised I'm the only one that finds this practice offensive?

For the record I have known many, many engineers who devote themselves 100%
passionately to their 9-5 jobs and when they get home, they relax and do other
things. These people are the type of people I would hire in my organization in
a heartbeat.

I have also known the 'entrepreneurial' type of developers who have side
projects and while they are generally good workers, a few of them are more
interested in their side project then their actual day job and their work
quality has suffered.

Hire the people with the skills and aptitude to do the job, leave their
personal lives out of it.

~~~
skolor
You're right: what you do outside of work isn't your employer's business.
However, I would not hire a programmer who will not program at home. That's
not to say I would expect them to be contributing to so Open Source project,
or to be running a side business, but that they can and do put together code
in their own time, for their own reasons.

For example, the guy who runs a personal blog, and put together his own widget
to display some sort of stat, seems like a good idea. The guy who runs a
personal blog, and spends a day (off) hunting down a widget that someone else
made, that kind of does what he wants, and costs $20 to use, would not be a
good fit.

My view on it is something similar to: I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic
who takes his own car to the dealer. Why would I hire a a programmer who, when
he needs a program written for himself, goes and finds someone else's work?

~~~
earl
Maybe because the programmer is an adult and isn't wowed by the prospect of
spending more than 5 minutes writing something (s)he can buy for $20?

Also, this is seriously nasty ageism. Once you grow up the same thing will
happen to you: significant others, friends, activities, hobbies, pets, kids,
etc, most of which don't involve sitting on your ass in front of a computer.
In fact, having put 10 years into this industry, I work a lot harder and
better at my actual job if I don't spend all my off hours in front of a
computer.

~~~
thwarted
It doesn't sound like much fun to just buy something for $20 rather than
create it yourself. Obviously if you're going to buy it, you don't consider
creating it to be fun. Some people like to create things for fun, and that is
their activity or hobby. I'm not sure why doing what you do professionally
can't also be your hobby. Why is buying something rather than creating it the
"adult" thing to do?

~~~
Hipponax
Did you read the post your replying to? The poster pointed out that he's got
other things in his life. When you grow up you might decide that $20 to spend
time with your kids when they're young is cheap.

~~~
thwarted
Yes, and how you spend your time is personal decision. Just because one person
decides to code in their free time doesn't mean they aren't an adult nor that
that's a blanket bad decision. The wording in the comment I'm responding to
("Once you grow up", "sitting on your ass in front of a computer") is kind of
inflammatory and seems to imply that only non-adults have time to do coding or
hacking, that it's a "kids activity", and that coding can not be a hobby
(since "hobbies" is called out as another possible thing that "adults" do).

In the context of this discussion, however, if you were to ask during an
interview "Talk about a personal programming project you've worked on
recently" and you heard back:

Candidate A: "I don't do or think about coding outside of the office, but I
did just recently spend $20 purchasing tool to upload images to flickr and I
had to read the docs to configure it to work with my firewall."

Candidate B: "Well, I wanted to upload the 2,000 pictures of my son to flickr
to share with my family, but doing that with the flickr web UI manually was
taking a long time, and there isn't a good flickr uploader for Linux, so I
hacked out a shell script that gets invoked when automount mounts my camera or
flash drive that uploads the images to flickr with their API"

Is anyone seriously going to consider Candidate A, just based on this
question, as more valuable for a coding/hacking/technology position?
Obviously, other factors come into play, as techiferous points out elsewhere
in this thread, but this is meant to show someone's passion, not if they have
good judgement as to if something is worth doing (hopefully, you've got a
battery of other interview questions that help determine that).

~~~
rikthevik
I know a lot of people like Candidate B and I would not like to work with any
of them. Life is a balance. Passion for programming is good, obsessive
compulsion is not.

~~~
thwarted
Wow, that seems kind of extreme. We have both "adults don't program in their
free time" and "programming in your free time is possibly obsessive
compulsive" in this thread.

If passion is a good thing to have, how do you measure it other than with a
question like this? And what would be a good way to measure unhealthy
dedication to a hobby that could be obsessive compulsive?

------
techiferous
As a developer, I take it as a red flag whenever I hear a prospective employer
categorically state "I would never hire a programmer that X."

First of all, it's a heuristic. If a programmer doesn't program outside of
work, it could be that they are not passionate and don't take the time to keep
their skills sharp. It could also be that they are a polymath genius, and
simply can't function unless their life is full of a variety of interests.

Hiring heuristics are appropriate when there are too many applicants. For the
sake of efficiency, you need some way to narrow down the huge stack of
applications. However, if you are having a hard time finding developers,
that's not the time to use heuristics.

It tells me something about a prospective employer's problem-solving skills
and imagination when they would not consider interviewing someone for a single
reason, such as not having a blog. That's like being a one-issue voter.

Also, these heuristics have a way of confirming themselves. The person who
hires only programmers who do X will probably end up finding decent
programmers anyway, but they will be oblivious about the ones that got away.

~~~
swombat
What if the employer says: "I would never hire a programmer that sucks"?

Seems pretty reasonable to filter out people who are bad at their job.

So your argument is really one of breadth - breadth of the filter. From my
point of view as a programmer, I certainly do believe that programming outside
of your job is an extremely good predictor of passion, which is a great
predictor of ability as a developer, particularly for younger people. I might
consider a 40-year old who doesn't program for fun anymore, maybe. I wouldn't
bother interviewing a 25 year old who never saw a point in coding outside of
university/work.

~~~
techiferous
"I certainly do believe that programming outside of your job is an extremely
good predictor of passion"

Yes, I think that's the point. Is this a good predictor? If you are a young,
single male, then maybe so. There are many other reasons besides lack of
passion that can prevent a passionate programmer from programming outside of
work.

~~~
swombat
Actually, no. I think that's almost the definition of a passionate programmer:
there's very little that cna stop them from programming outside of work - not
even a full time programming day job.

~~~
techiferous
You are a mother with two kids.

~~~
elptacek
Yep. I am. And I program, but rarely outside of work. I leave work at 5 and,
when the schedule permits, I start coding again after they go to bed. This is
likely to happen 2 or 3 times a month. So far I've read nothing in this thread
that doesn't make the assumption of no other demands on one's time. Maybe I'd
get the job if I just said, "I wish"?

Not that it matters. I have a great job.

------
tolmasky
The answers to this are so ridiculous. "Well too bad because as it turns out
when he goes home he cures cancer, with paper and pencil!"

Is it really necessary to explain that the point is that this person clearly
isn't passionate about his work, as demonstrated by having zero outside
interest in the subject. Clearly if he is a genius and has some amazing reason
this doesn't apply.

More importantly the point of this article wasn't so much that he wouldn't be
hired out of spite or something, but that he would never even get to know
these people and thus get a chance to interview. This is of course obviously
true and has nothing to do with "privacy" concerns. If you are an active
member of the community, then you will inevitably meet other people in this
field and get opportunities that just won't show up in the classifieds,
there's nothing controversial about it.

------
azanar
This post actually presents two premises.

The first, that programmer hacking on their own projects, I agree is a very
positive indicator. If they don't, it may or may not be a negative indicator,
depending on the circumstances. However, I've found the combination of someone
who really has the itch to hack in their own time, and that same someone who
honestly _can't_ find the time is rare. More often, after enough prodding,
they'll admit they just aren't that interested, and that it is "just a job
like any other".

The second, that selecting candidates based upon social connections is an
optimal strategy, I approach with some caution. This is not to say that it
isn't the best way for raganwald to do things, but I have seen people develop
insurmountable confirmation biases simply because someone they know gave a
candidate the thumbs up. A lackluster interview performance wasn't enough to
overcome this; poor performance once hired wasn't enough either. The trust the
hirer puts in their network to suggest the right people _must be for the right
reasons_. This, in a person's profession network, is rather rare. More often,
two people knowing one another _is_ the basis for a referral, rather than what
the two people know _about_ one another. This works ok in situations where the
primary goal is to find a good social fit, but it is like throwing dice when
determining if the candidate is capable of performing the required duties. In
a lot of cases, both parties just don't care; the referral is a social, not
economic or professional, transaction. Luckily for both parties, many
companies don't care that much either. Mediocrity is not really affected by
the introduction of more mediocrity, so neither party ends up with a tarnished
image. This sort of politicing sucks.

My perspective on this is much the same as Joel Spolsky's -- or at least the
perspective he used to have. If a particular candidate comes pre-recommended
by someone, I'm really hesitant to know that. If I'm the person doing the
recommending, I always wonder whether I'm doing it because this person is a
genuinely good fit, or if I am just feeling the pressure to be a good friend.
If I was both introduced to him and one of the one's vetting him, I'd be
really concerned that my bias is way too strong for me to make an honest,
objective decision. Hiring people based on a blind resume submission sucks,
too, and I don't know of any other alternatives. But I worry we have a blind
spot to the biases of this method of finding candidates, simply because we
want to believe the best in everyone we know.

~~~
raganwald
Elsewhere, Giles Bowkett described hiring through networking, HN, blogging,
twitter, and so forth as being "inbreeding" and would produce "retarded"
results.

I <3 Giles!

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/raganwald/3488885664/>

p.s. Giles was positively kind in comparison to discussions elsewhere. It
really shows that individual communities do have a very strong cultural bias,
which I think supports your point and his:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9s5pd/no_i_woul...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9s5pd/no_i_wouldnt_hire_a_programmer_that_has_no/)

------
gaius
On the other hand:

<http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html>

 _It's strictly an 8-to-5 kind of place -- there are late nights, but they're
the exception. The programmers are intense, but low-key. Many of them have put
in years of work either for IBM (which owned the shuttle group until 1994), or
directly on the shuttle software. They're adults, with spouses and kids and
lives beyond their remarkable software program._

~~~
dmoney
How can one be intense but low-key?

~~~
Retric
Don't surf the net at work. Don't take long breaks. Don't waste time on
useless things. Only show up when you are healthy and well rested. Only work
with talented people who get stuff done.

6-7 hours of real work a day x 5 days a week x 48 weeks a year x 7 people can
get huge amount of stuff done.

PS: The longer most people are at work each day, the lower percentage of the
time they are actually getting stuff done.

~~~
thwarted
Of course, the ratio of work-done to at-work is going to down as at-work goes
up, even if work-done remains constant. This is why you should go home at the
point where work-done equals at-work, so the ratio remains at 1, even if work-
done and at-work are both less than 8. Most companies don't like people
working significantly less than 40 hours a week, however.

------
protomyth
A friend of mine always asked the following question in interviews: "What was
the last program you wrote that wasn't for work or a programming assignment?"
He just wanted an answer that wasn't "I have never programmed just for
myself".

Every other craftsman will use their talents for their own purposes, so it is
generally a good sign if programmers do the same.

------
henriklied
I must say, I agree. Having _no_ interest in programming outside work begs the
question: Why is it your day job?

Although I don't work on too many spare projects on my own, I read a whole
lotta websites relating to programming (this site, for instance..) and catch
up on relevant news and technologies.

If the title was "No, I wouldn't hire a programmer who isn't cranking out code
every hour he's awake", I'd definitely disagree. But, in my opinion, in this
business, you really need to know what's going on. And unless you're in a
research position at your day job, I'm guessing your boss wouldn't want you to
spend working hours studying every interesting story on HN. Ergo, you'd read
up on your spare time.

That's not to say you shouldn't have hobbies. A three year old Norwegian study
[1] shows that IT-engineers have the largest burnout-rate of all occupations.
It's important to relax, find something that makes you feel disconnected (my
love for the moment is mountain biking, but whatever floats your boat).

[1] Google translate of Norwegian article about burnout-rates in the IT-
industry: <http://bit.ly/it-burnout>

~~~
turtle4
You ask "Why is it your day job?"

Because I spend the largest part of my life at my day job, and want to work on
something I am passionate about during that time. However I am also a person
with many additional interests and desires, such as playing sports, reading,
art, and music and since each of those are deep areas of interest themselves,
they all occupy parts of my non-working life, while being balanced with my
family.

There are plenty of people who feel this way. They are well balanced
individuals who are effective at their jobs, and passionate about them. But
there are only so many hours in a day. Working isn't just about time spent
coding. It is about working well in a team, and relating with your customers,
and understanding social issues as well as technical ones. Someone who only
codes is simply more likely to be underdeveloped in one of those areas.

It is just a stupid qualifier. If you are hiring a marketer, would you only
hire someone who telemarkets from home on their off time because they enjoy
it? That's just stupid.

Someone who has side projects at home -might- be a more experienced developer.
Or they could be a poorly rounded individual. Someone who doesn't work on side
projects at home -might- be non-passionate. Or they might be very passionate
and effective, and simply more well rounded. To say you would always require
one or the other is just dumb.

------
gorbachev
I guess he's not hiring a whole lot of people with families then.

When I was 20 I had a LOT of free time in my hands. I spent some of it doing
programming. I'm no longer 20, and I have two kids who require near constant
attention from my wife and I and I'll be damned if I spend any of my scarce
free time doing programming. I have far better ways to spend my time these
days. Mainly sleeping.

~~~
yardie
Agree. When I was younger I built this monster ESX server for all my
programming whims. Now, the server is still there, but it's primary job is a
NAS for my kids' DVD collection. I sit in front of it maybe once a week. Most
of my hobby programming is now done at work. Friday afternoons are set aside
to experimental stuff that may or may not be related to work.

------
mikeryan
I agree completely. I built a team of engineers (generally junior devs) all of
them had pretty freshly minted degrees and all of them had built something
outside of work. This team rocked.

This was the single best bar I ever set for hiring young engineers.

------
kakooljay
Paul Graham has a great post about hiring: <http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html>
[Great hackers]

Some other good links:
[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html)
<http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html>

------
aaronblohowiak
Working 6 days a week with 60-hour weeks, how is a startup employee supposed
to do anything other than chores and the occasional date outside of work?

Maids, cooks, personal shoppers?

------
hyperbovine
Too bad. If he sits around reading math books in his spare time, you just
missed out on an incredible opportunity.

Seriously, I would be supremely interested in at least getting to know him, if
not working with him. Actually managing to go off the grid at 5pm every day
takes a lot of self-control. I'll bet most of the people reading this couldn't
do it (myself included.) My guess is he spends his non-work time doing
something enriching, not just swapping the monitor out for the TV.

~~~
raganwald
If such a person networks enough to have friends recommend him for the job,
I'll meet him. If he doesn't network, I'll miss him.

I don't have the patience to sort through thousands of job posting submissions
and Indian outsource emails looking for the one incredible opportunity.

------
Scott_MacGregor
While the interviewer/writer might seem a little flippant or lacking in
eloquence with his description of the event, in the long run he would probably
be making the best decision for the company.

It seems like when he interviews he likes to hire those with a higher level of
dedication to (more love of) coding.

Perhaps as an interviewer his real concern here isn’t so much what someone
does in their off-time, but rather he looks for a good fit with the rest of
the team. If the current engineers are all about the never-ending love of
coding and the new hire was not, the overall cohesion and possibly
productivity of the group may suffer. “Ducks of a feather...”

There are complaints all over the web about new hires who are perceived as
slackers, or a know nothings, being hired on in hardworking departments (at
good companies) and sometimes even being promoted up and up the ladder to the
chagrin of the current employees. It can cause deep animosity towards the
company and increased turnover of good people. Perhaps you have worked
somewhere where this has happened and experienced it first-hand, or know
someone who has.

------
angelbob
The Hacker News title here is the opposite of the one on the article itself.

~~~
boredguy8
Yeah, I was looking forward to a good contrarian article. But it was worth
reading (and right) that hires should come from 'in network'.

------
dilap
On the flip side, how reasonable is it for an employer to claim ownership of
outside-of-work code? And how do you evaluate someone who works at such a
place -- certainly, that could be a large incentive to avoid extracurricular
projects...

~~~
mikeryan
I can't for the life of me remember the term right now. But I believe these
issues are usually actually dictated by state law.

I remember vaguely a case based in Texas where the company was able to claim
someone's home brewed work as their own.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
This also depends on the state. yay, california for protecting our rights!!

------
hal10001
So what? To any developer concerned that you'll be ostracized by a potential
employer because you don't have an interest in programming outside of work,
let me give you a piece of advice. Employers who think they can define your
work ethic on the job based upon what you do as a hobby outside of work, are
some of the worst people to work for in this industry. If you want to let your
hobby be your work, then more power to you, but you are in the vast minority.
To everyone else, take heart in knowing that just because a few managers feel
this way, it doesn't make it some industry standard we must all follow like
sheep. Programmers -- go home at night, and be home. Enjoy your family, your
friends, other hobbies, recreational pursuits, the environment... do what you
enjoy in life. More than likely you'll be the group of developers that
actually brings new, fresh insights to the table, because you're not living in
a box coding 24/7, but you're living in the real world.

------
plinkplonk
I've seen really good programmers(at ThoughtWorks for example) who didn't code
at home at all. If you have an interesting job that leads you to code eight
hours a day (typically the case at TW, if you find enterprise sw, agile, XP
etc interesting), I can understand why you wouldn't want to code at home. If
you are coding a solid eight hours a day, you are probbaly exhausted when you
get home and don't want to see more code on the weekends. Playing with your
kids beats coding any day.

That said, would I be inclined a bit more toward someone who had say Open
Source contributions? Of course, it would be foolish not to.

I guess most of the debate is centred around the binary nature of the decision
- will hire/ won't hire. Move to a more flexible non-binary judgment and it
looks more reasonable.

Personally, I am open to hire both kinds of devs, but I'd _prefer_ someone who
had a side project / Open source cred etc.

~~~
cracki
8 hours inevitably leads to exhaustion.

7 hours is the limit, for me and many others.

------
fnid
On the contrary side, it is interesting that this opinion is held of hackers,
but would be ridiculous to consider for other fields. Imagine expecting an
admin assistant to do personal admin assistant projects at home, or a bus
driver to drive around just for the heck of it.

It makes me curious which fields lend themselves well to having fun time
outside work doing the same things. I can imagine car mechanics tinkering with
their own cars after work. I can imagine chefs cooking for their friends.

Do sports commentators call out shots at home or at the local sports bar when
they are off work? How about journalists? Do they write for fun?

~~~
plinkplonk
"On the contrary side, it is interesting that this opinion is held of hackers,
but would be ridiculous to consider for other fields"

Well Imagine a musician who never played except when he was on stage. Or a
golfer who only plays at championships.

The key is (more than whether one works at home or not, which I think is a
mistaken emphasis) is to be able to see output so you can judge its quality.
You could ask a musician auditioning for an orchestra to play a few pieces or
a juggler to actually juggle 5 clubs. The problem is that there isn't a coding
equivalent.

Most developers who code only at work can't show you any of the resultant
code. An interview is too short a time to ask someone to code anything
meaningful. Having some independent work he can show makes evaluating a
candidate much easier.

~~~
yardie
If you are a professional it just might be that. A lot of artists and athletes
have insurance contracts that require them to only do work when they are
working. This is why you'll rarely hear of a basketball player doing a pickup
game. A sprained ankle or blown knee off the court and they can, really, lose
everything. Most of them do enjoy the game so they'll play in disguise or an
alias.

When millions of dollars are on the line, sometimes, your passion can become
your prison.

------
UsNThem
There seems to be a total flaw in this article.This strategy would make sense
if you are hiring someone just to code aka pure code monkey. On the contrary
it makes sense to hire someone who is "good (tending to) very good" in his 9 -
5 job and then spends time after work creatively pursing other interests.
These people have the most wide ranging spectrum of ideas / creative in their
thought and just make more interesting co-workers to have !

I find this useful - Many times, I apply my comp sci ideas and solutions to
solve other mundane ( non work )problems.

My 2 cents

~~~
raganwald
How do I go about meeting such people? the flaw in the article I see is that
it suggests there is a dichotomy between monster.com and networking. Are there
other ways to find qualified people that will locate these brilliant
programmers who don't do anything programming-related outside of work?

~~~
techiferous
You can start by not driving them away. Seriously.

There are a lot of really good programmers who don't tinker or blog in their
spare time. If they come across an employer who makes a categorical statement
that "their kind" is not employable, do you think they'll even bother to send
in their resume?

As another commenter noted, tinkering with programming on the side is a
positive indicator, but _not tinkering_ is not a negative indicator. Good
programmers notice the logical mistake here, and it is off-putting.

~~~
raganwald
Your intent is laudable, but your argument seems to miss what I actually said,
which was that I personally would never meet them, not that they weren't
qualified or weren't employable. I can't hire someone I don't interview.

My experience is that "hiring practices" is a very touchy subject. No matter
how precisely you express yourself, people will take things personally because
their self-worth is loosely connected to whether other people value their
potential inclusion in a team.

So I'm not even remotely surprised to find comments like yours.

~~~
techiferous
"Your intent is laudable, but your argument is flawed."

Yes, you are correct. In my passion I got carried away and started
constructing a strawman. My apologies!

"What I said was that I personally would never meet them, not that they
weren't qualified or weren't employable."

True. I think it touched a nerve with me because I've seen job posts
specifically state that they would not consider any programmer who does not
have a blog (!).

Thanks for bringing up the subject; it's a good one. :)

~~~
raganwald
Now that I think about it, I'm upmodding your original point. Whether the
argument was flawed or not, the very fact that hiring is a touchy subject
makes your point necessarily valid: While there may or may not be merit in my
practices, _blogging about them_ may be a poor idea.

------
maxklein
Well, maybe he would not want to work with you either? Did you consider that?
That you may be so one-dimensional that your programmer with slightly more
diverse interests would find you and your job a boring place!

~~~
raganwald
I wouldn't be offended at all if anyone finds my personal life too boring and
one-dimensional for their tastes.

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/raganwald/3983773743/in/set-721...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/raganwald/3983773743/in/set-72157622397631319/)
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/raganwald/15825489/in/set-72157...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/raganwald/15825489/in/set-72157606261432453/)
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/raganwald/525184427/in/set-7215...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/raganwald/525184427/in/set-72157606261432453/)

~~~
wallflower
You don't mess around. Thanks for being an excellent example of an adventurist
doing activities where people don't care what you do for a living.

5.0 level rock climbing. I'd be more impressed though if you were a trials
rider :)

------
TrevorJ
I think in any field that requires thought, you are much better off hiring
people who are just plain interested in _thinking_.

That is to say, if somebody is a lifelong learner and has passion for it, I'd
hire them way before somebody who lives, breathes and eats a particular
language 24/7.

People who are interested in the world around them spend their lives
increasing a well of knowledge that comes in handy in remarkable ways, not to
mention the fact that they know how to learn what they need to know, when they
need to know it.

------
known
Is this rule plausible for other professions viz lawyers, doctors?

------
indra
I understand the employer's point of view: Such mono-track, passionate
programmers will be easy to exploit to work long hours and weekends.

~~~
robotron
I think your post sums it up. I can't imagine someone wanting to actually hire
one-dimensional droids except for this.

------
RyanMcGreal
Perhaps title should be:

> I Wouldn't Hire a Programmer With [No] Interest in Programming Outside of
> Work

------
lackbeard
I worked with an extremely smart and productive programmer who only worked M-F
7-4, and never did any programming outside of work. Any company would be lucky
to have him.

~~~
cakesy
Ok, so you are no good at statistics (your anecdote means very little), why
should we trust you to judge a programmers ability.

You know how hard it is to actually measure how productive a programmer is, he
could be writing absolute crap, that just gets the job done. The projects he
has could be very simple.

And someone smart might just be someone who can switch a computer on, to a lot
of people.

------
heresyforme
Watch what questions you ask about a persons personal life in an interview.
Depending on how and what you ask, you could set yourself up for legal action.

------
msluyter
I would if I could, but my hands, back, and eyes can't take it.

I do a lot of technical reading instead.

