It mainly has to do with the fact that this is the second article from SVN to make the HN homepage today, and we can expect to see a continuous stream of articles being submitted until the book launch.
>> When I hire designers, I look for future perfect people. Some people have the potential, but they haven’t had the opportunities. Their portfolios are full of mediocre work, but it’s not because they’re mediocre designers. It’s because they’ve been given mediocre opportunities.
How? How do you figure out someone is "future perfect" and not mediocre? If things were that easy, wouldn't all of us be hiring "future perfect" people anyway?
I don't think he's implying that it's easy, but that he actually looks for diamonds in the rough instead of purely people who are amazing in the now.
Hockey is hobby that I follow a lot and despite metrics and scouting, a LOT of prospects who blossomed into all-stars ended up falling into later rounds while there are notable top ten draftees who ended up as huge busts.
> I’ve also made bad calls on future perfect people in the past. I saw potential that never materialized. It’s an art more than a science. I just hope I continue to get better at it.
I think his point was just to remind everyone how they should keep in mind the growth potential of people they hire, not to share actual information.
One time I read an article pointing out that more men tend to be hired for their potential, while more women are hired for their experience. Not 100%, but as a tendency.
Might be worth a gut check if we're looking for "future perfect people" who are both men and women.
Everybody is an investor. Always. Either with their own money or with their own time.
There are good and bad investors. The good investors find the people to invest in early on by seeing what person they will be within five years before everyone else does. The bad investors...don't, they only invest in the people that are already amazing.
However, amazing people want to give the return to the ones early one who believed in them when nobody else did. They do so, because they know that by rewarding their early investors(this can be a girlfriend, friend, investor, co-founder), they skew the world a little more to rewarding the visionaries who can look into the future, which enables them to do the same thing all over again, just with an even bigger impact.
Although I agree with Jason's article, his way of thinking of a minority. Most of the people/interviewers see what they have currently and make a split second judgement on the person as to whether they will be able to perform or not.
This is not just for designers but also for coders. Just because someone cannot perform in the interview does not mean they cannot perform in their day jobs.
I hope the hiring mentally changes their image of this.
This is a worthwhile, yet lacking perspective in our conversation about tech workers. No, the answer is not issuing millions of new STEM immgration visas, the answer is investing in supporter employees so they can reach their full potential.
It is completely normal to hire someone you're willing to invest in.
If you're going to a job interview, and don't get the impression that they're willing to invest in you. Then you should take that as a warning.
