The question is should the technical competencies and smarts outweigh the annoyingness?
I think Branson has written about 'hiring for attitude, training for skills' which is along the same vein.
Annoying team members are bad. If you have a bad performer who is disruptive, it's bad for your business; if you have a good performer who is disruptive, it is many multiples worse as their behavious starts to become accepted by others who want to also perform at their level.
But definitely be open about the 'non-match' on your organisation's culture - there are possibly other businesses there where he would fit better, and at least it gives him a chance at become more aware of those hardwired elements.
A hotshot employee is great and all, but if his personality problems negatively affect the rest of your crew, it's a net loss. Bad attitudes are infectious.
If you hire this person, you must be ready to deal with other managers and other team member's reaction. If they trust you and you trust your ability to work with the person, then it can be an enriching experience (for instance, an outspoken person will make manifest a lot of the problems your team may have, and that others would ignore)
In the end, it's not just about that particular person, and rather about the whole group dynamics. A particular person's qualities & defects may well be mitigated by other persons's qualities & defects.
(In particular I dislike the default behaviour that team have which is not to deal with cultural or behaviourable differences at all, and only look for homogeneity. It's pure lazyness)
a) What is the size of the team that he is going to be collaborating with when writing code...If its just him or a team of two people..He could be an asset since annoying people are mostly very confident and motivated and when working alone they can be very very productive (Case in point:Linus Torvalds).But then that works the other way too.
b) Is someone smart going to be mentoring him...I feel like he needs a mentor or someone who he can learn from...the annoying attitude is mostly just a defence mechanism...once you can prove that he has something to learn from you or his boss his annoying behaviour will most likely go away.(Case in Point:Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting).
c) The culture of your company...Are you a company where you focus more on stability or you focus more on creating ....As the Steve Jobs says in the movie ,Pirates of the Silicon Valley,"Creation is messy".....and needless to say people who dont give a fuck about the status quo or what you think about them are an essential part of that mess.
d) "Not sure if feedback to him would change those things (they're hardwired/part of his personality)"...I dont know if this is an assumption you are making or this is part of the question.....Feedback to him could certainly change things...especially if you point out to him what parts of his behaviour are annoying in particular and why exactly is that counter-productive to the company and himself too.Smart people are also reasonable and if you have good enough reasons to support your suggestions he will acquiesce and will respect you for your candor.
EDIT1: Grammar EDIT2:I just got a rejection email from the company I interviewed at.So I deleted the personal note.The other points still hold.Good luck!
It may also be that this person was nervous when you interviewed him, and didn't have the forethought to say "I get loud and annoying when I'm really nervous, it will pass."
My advice: test him out. If he is truly great, and you really need a truly great developer, and the annoying bits don't go away: isolate him from your team, manage him closely, and keep him happy.
Talked to a friend today who is way, way good at polo (the horse type). The head guy at his stable picks players (in South America) as follows: (1) he asks around for "nice" people. (2) he goes and watches them play. (3) he extends offers. Screening for potential members of the team happens in that order.
He is not just smart. Smart people with annoying behavior are over-smart. Why you are killing your time on someone who would make fun of your company vision too?
When you hire, hire someone so that you would want to pay them more every month for their work/involvement in your organization.
On the other hand, in bigger company, hiring someone really smart can be done even if he is annoying because he will be one in a hundred or more.
I should declare an interest my startup (Professional You) is building a system to help you find your perfect boss, as our data shows that if you like your boss you are happier and more productive and if you trust them you are will take the occasional risk and thus be more innovative..
If no, then I would absolutely hit the pool again and find someone who's both a technical and culture fit. This post might be helpful for you: http://actionablebooks.com/culture-fit-whatever-that-means/
Also, how big is your team? If it's small enough that this person would throw off the flow and stick out like a sore thumb, then I would say no again.
Good luck!
- Can he really make a (qualitative) difference, or ships he just faster and a little more elegant?
- If yes, hire him and let him work wherever he wants but in your office (at home, an external office, ...). Communicate via email.
- if no I would'nt hire him simply because it takes energy to digest annoying behavior. So it will have a slight negative effect on my personal performance. It will be a zero sum game.
Also, I am getting that you are judging based on an interview, so you pretty much know that you have no idea what kind of an employee he will be yet.
However, consider hiring him as an on-call "consultant" for "special projects" in case the team falls behind schedule. It might motivate them to get ahead. :)
Depends on how work flows in your organization, I guess.
That said, if you're already having doubts it's probably not meant to be. If he were just working from home or something it wouldn't be much of an issue, but people who work together daily need to not hate each other =)