undefined | Better HN

0 pointscletus5y ago0 comments

The specific list of things doesn't matter. It'll vary from person to person and project to project. The point is, there'll always be something.

My point is that if you're signaling from the outset that you want to cherrypick those things then I, as your employer, don't actually know what you will or won't do. I don't know if you'll follow up on tricky-to-reproduce bugs (as an example) because that's "boring".

That's just creating work and uncertainty in dealing with those issues.

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

groby_b5y ago· 4 in thread

If you as an employer are not able to deal with the fact that different people have different preferences, you either are running a very small shop (2-4 people) which just makes that impossible, or you're probably not an employer that will attract people who aren't deliberately choosing a "cog in the machine" path.

I want to be very clear: There's nothing wrong with that path. There's nothing wrong with wanting to employ people who follow that path. But making it clear from the outset that he's not going to be a match for you specifically is likely a feature, not a bug.

bumby5y ago

I didn’t downvote but what I suspect the OP is saying is “I want to hire someone who will get done what needs to get done whenever it needs to be done, not just when it aligns with what they want to do.”

Having just re-read Daniel Goleman’s book on emotional intelligence recently, one important aspect to high EQ individuals is having the ability to motivate themselves to do work that may be necessary, but not necessarily glamorous or fun.

thebean115y ago

This only makes sense if in aggregate preferences are proportional the amount of work in each area, which is not the case (documentation is the obvious counterexample)

slingnow5y ago

I think you're taking a very black and white view of this.

For example, ANY shop, of ANY size, is going to have issues with tricky-but-hard-to-reproduce bugs. The parent comment is highlighting the fact that they can't be sure if this sort of prima donna is going to be willing to run that issue to ground, or if they'll put up a stink about it being "boring".

Additionally, even if this person were working for free, there's a definite cost to foisting difficult bugs on your teammates.

Do you honestly believe only "cogs in a machine" should be / would be interested in fixing that sort of issue?

plutonorm5y ago

"Do you honestly believe only "cogs in a machine" should be / would be interested in fixing that sort of issue?"

No but there are many types of people for whom it has no motivational value. Like they'd rather watch paint dry.

And that's their personality not something that can just be worked around.

DiggyJohnson5y ago

I genuinely think that you are missing the author's point, and thus precisely not the target of this article.

In my reading of the article, I did not get the impression that the author is opposed to the specific, discrete components of the job that he found "lame".

If the demands of the article are truly impossible (socially and/or economically), then I believe that is the *point*, not a criticism of this post.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse