Ask HN: Would you hire someone whose very smart but annoying?

No. The suggestion I give all my clients is to first pass every potential recruit through a 'Family Photo Fit' - ie, will they fit in with the rest of your team. If not, then their skills, relationships, intelligence etc won't have a chance to be leveraged.

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.

The most important question is: How will he affect office morale?

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.

Often managers are not brave enough to cope with a person with significant differences with respect to the team's culture.

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)

From the point of view of someone who is much like the candidate you interviewed(could be him too!) here are some factors you need to consider before making a decision.

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!

Being consistently loud and annoying are indications that this person doesn't adapt well to his surroundings, especially if everyone around him seems displeased. It may be a sign of poor overall judgement.

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.

Personal experience: no. It damages the entire team. I've seen how team morale improves when such a person departs.

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.

Only problem I see is. Does he talk more than work?

Not at all.

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.

Hire him on a 90 day trial period. Pay him for those 90 days, of course, but after that time, that's when you should know if his technical skills outbalance the "annoying factor." He may be a great guy once you get to know him, and he also may the be best engineer you've ever hired, but you never know.

I've done my last internship in a small startup in Paris where the 3 developers did not get along at all. Everyone was eating separately, they were not speaking to each other during the day except to talk about the project specifically and it was really hard to integrate. The software was working and was pretty good but who knows where they would have been if they all had the same goals and shared a lot except just work. In most of the interviews of startup founders I've seen (especially in the book startups open sourced) it really seems that culture, getting along, etc. is really vital for most of the startups to succeed.

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.

No I would not hire them, if I was convinced it was hardwired. A bad fit in the case of your team, would mean your happiness and thus your productivity for the whole team would go down. Also in terms of culture, values and brand you could be sending a bad message to your team and anyone outside that has to work or interact with them.

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..

Is this hire critical in terms of timing? If yes, then I would go with the other's suggestions of doing a trial period. Provide feedback and positive reinforcement.

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!

This is how would try to solve the dilemma:

- 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.

It depends whether your culture is passive or one with some teeth that will challenge this guy. If your culture is too weak to confront him, then don't let him in.

Quirky vs. a-holish are two things. If your team cannot get over minor quirks, they are the ones with something stuck up them. If the guy is an a-hole, show him the door. If he is just loud and talks too much and it becomes a problem: make quiet zones and hours in the office.

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.

Do not hire as employee. The collective cost of dealing with the annoyance will far outweigh the geek's contribution.

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 important social skills are to the position. An annoying person probably shouldn't be making initial contact with potential clients. On the other hand, if they are part of a team of smart annoying people whose job is to sit in the dark and write code, why not?

If you are sure he can be kept on task by whoever is in charge of him, and he won't affect others then I'd say something like you're on probation, please act gently and kindly.

I once, as a manager, had the most brilliant employee, who did not shower regularly. Others didn't want to work with him. When all development could go through version control, it worked fine; When there was need for interactive team work, it didn't work at all.

Depends on how work flows in your organization, I guess.

No. Everyone is replaceable, find another.

Regardless of your decision, I would ask that you find a polite way to inform this candidate what you think of his personality. Even if you don't accept him it will help him learn to control his abrasiveness so he will have less difficulty trying to find work.

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 =)