>> I believe the most capable person for any position isn’t necessarily the person with the most amount of experience. Great companies are built by people with drive and intensity, not by people with years of experience doing the same thing.
Hiring should be based on soft guidelines, not hard lines of gatekeeping. I'm glad some companies are aware of this.
But to state you want people with "drive and intensity" can potentially lead to people with large egos, conflict of goals, and unrealistic expectation of others (which can cause burnout). In worst-case scenarios they get promoted using this "drive" combined with contrived outcomes and over-inflated results. Be prepared for this.
I also wonder, when companies post these mandates, if they are looking for 10x workers, because they need a big win, quickly, for cheap.
Drive and intensity can also read as “young person willing to work 14 hours a day plus weekends” vs “older experienced person with a family and who is no longer as willing to sacrifice themselves and their family on the altar of work so some shareholder can make more $$.
Here at CrapCorp, we are looking for intensely driven individuals who will eagerly sacrifice their health and happiness (and, in some cases, their very lives) to bring increased wealth to our executives and shareholders.
For those that do make the ultimate sacrifice, we offer a commemorative "thanks for your effort to increase shareholder value" plaque, which may be displayed with pride at your interment site, or by your next of kin.
I read 'drive and intensity' in a far more nebulous 'passion' that is thrown around by companies to attract true believers who will dedicate 90% of their waking hours to The Mission whatever that may be.
That would require the ability to recognize and reward excellence, which you don’t see very often. Instead, they tend to go out of their way to try to make everyone feel replaceable and temporary.
The variance varies widely, but you're incorrect according to my salary negotiator who has hard data in hand. I was an IC6 at MAANG and 400k was only attainable by the top end of IC6+. Most people were paid around 250-300k.
There are a few rare birds (ICs) paid 500k-1.2M, but they're either core contributors to a key tech the company uses, a main person of a core FOSS project, or some sort of tech celebrity. Managers also make quite a bit more. I recall a 2nd-level manager for some big Google product making 2.7M TC.
Interviewing for Sr eng positions (IC5) most gave me 400k or so total compensation (about 230k in salary and 200k in stocks give or take). Then again this may be due to being in NYC.
IC6 were higher.
However I could be in an area that is above average pay rates. So I wouldn't dispute your numbers, they do seem more likely to be accurate.
> I believe the most capable person for any position isn’t necessarily the person with the most amount of experience.
Looking forward to see this applied to Doctors, Engineers, Pilots, Anesthesiologists, Teachers, Surgeons, Architects, Financial Analysts, Air Traffic Controllers, Dentists and Lawyers :-))
I find that, at least with dentists, the quality seems to be an inverse function of their experience.
I've gone through a lot of dentists recently (long story, but nothing to do with quality of dental work), and I've consistently found that the younger/"inexperienced" dentists use more modern/advanced[^1] techniques, whereas the older ones tend to favor sticking to what they learned in a medical school years ago, plus an occasional conference or such. As opposed their very foundation being based on more up-to-date knowledge.
[^1] Unlike in software, this often translates to "better", at least from my experience as a patient.
---
Apparently this is somewhat of a problem in computer science for 50-something year olds, where one can sometimes find it hard to find a job. Companies prefer younger, more "malleable" candidates.
---
There is also the general fact of life that experience often brings hubris & arrogance. This is definitely not always true, but it's another case where more experience is actually worse.
The following is anecdotal but I have to mirror your observation.
I've seen both sides of the coin where a son followed in his father's footsteps. The Father was an old stodgy pain in the ass with ancient practices.
The son opened his own practice with modern offices, a lot of software based systems both for office work and patient care.
The son was decent and the technology helped but the best dentist ive had was another super old dentist who ended up adopting some of the tech while also being an absolute magician in his work due to his experience. His ability to ascertain edge cases from things such a cavity xray really made him a top tier dentist. Thats something tech cannot always make up for. Its raw intuition from years of experience. It was a heartbreaking event when he decided to retire. :/
There is a good argument to be had for younger dentist adopting new technology and learning the latest skills but it isn't always a perfect fit.
The best dentist seems like the old person open to new ideas(in my experience).
I always imagine that people working in dentistry end up getting incredibly jaded. There's only so much neglect of basic personal care that anyone can face. Over and over again. And people don't listen to the recommendations because it is all going to be fixed by the dentist.
The younger dental professionals I have come across tend to have real passion and make me go "oh wow, they are really into this and inspiring!". Which seems to wear off over time. Maybe it's just me projecting from what it's like to work with computers because it certainly feels familiar.
I've more less accepted that dentists and other related fields are mostly licensed so they
1. don't kill you doing something stupid
2. if they make a big mistake, know how to deal with it and get help immediately
This isn't a jab at dentists at all, as I feel like I've been lucky enough to have good dentists that did great work at reasonable fees.
I'v also dealt with
1. an orthodontist that apparently just ground the enamel off my teeth while I was a child, for cosmetic reasons
2. a dentist that somehow cut a square pocket into my tooth to treat a tiny cavity. This caused stress fractures in the tooth originating from the corners. The dentist who repaired it even said "I do not understand how this was even done. It should not be possible to do with normal dentistry tools"
I don’t have a dog in this fight. (There are benefits of experience and also benefits of fresh ideas) but in no way does the parent comment prove the reverse of what they’re arguing. It is not an example of an exception proving the rule.
Anecdata ahead: I'm about to leave a dentist after 15 years because I feel more and more like a cow with insurance payout for udders. She used to be good, but now seems like she's just making sure there is not a penny of insurance money left at the end of the year. Still got $50 left? Hey, how about some fluoride goo before you go, because "insurance pays for it".
One thing to consider if there is a shift in this behavior at a small independent practice you use (like dentist or veterinarian offices) is the aggressive acquisition of these firms by private equity over the last few years. Oftentimes the owners / partners get a huge payout and stay on as the face of the practice while taking marching orders from the new owners to maximize profit over quality of care. This acquisition is often invisible to patients / customers except insofar as quality of care declines, people at the office seem more stressed out, and more procedures get ordered that you don’t have the expertise to assess the need for.
I'm wondering if a similar progression is happening with MDs. OneMedical <-> Amazon (corporate rather than PE), for example. Current provider was solo, then went to OneMedical, and now is an Amazon employee (indirectly).
Familiarity breeds contempt. 3rd to last DDS drilled a cavity freehand in like 5 minutes without being all that careful. Seemed like it was maximizing the number of procedures while minimizing the amount of care and time spent.
Perhaps technical interviews should blind resumes and experience and instead focus on phased filtering to a point of realistic performative tasks close to the work rather than 20 minute mad dashes to solve theoretical puzzles. But if a shop optimizes for leetcode winners, then they're only hurting themselves.
Hiring should be based on soft guidelines, not hard lines of gatekeeping. I'm glad some companies are aware of this.
But to state you want people with "drive and intensity" can potentially lead to people with large egos, conflict of goals, and unrealistic expectation of others (which can cause burnout). In worst-case scenarios they get promoted using this "drive" combined with contrived outcomes and over-inflated results. Be prepared for this.
I also wonder, when companies post these mandates, if they are looking for 10x workers, because they need a big win, quickly, for cheap.