Slashdot Mirror
How To Hire a Hacker
itwbennett writes "If you want to hire a hacker, you need to take a more psychology-based approach to the entire interview process to determine whether he or she has changed their ways enough to be a trustworthy employee, says Mich Kabay in a recent Network World blog post. But this approach is also 'germane for highly skilled staffers, even those that don't come with arrest records or who have done something questionable in their pasts,' says David Strom. For example, in your next interview, ask a question that will suss out how much of a sense of entitlement a candidate has — or how much you or your company has. 'One time when I interviewed with Microsoft in Redmond I couldn't get over this sense of corporate entitlement — it was one of the biggest turn-offs that I had during my interviewing day there,' says Strom. 'I got the feeling that I wasn't going to fit in, no matter how smart I thought (or they thought) I was.'"
Sounds more like "how to hire a self important misanthrope" to me.
The article is about how to not hire a self important misanthrope.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Perhaps you mean cracker
"If I was a real cracker, I'd want to be topped with a real cheese, maybe a strong stilton."
And I thought "hacker" actually meant someone who (literally) hacked on things. With a hatchet or similar. Or maybe language just changes, and we need to all get over it.
The interviewee must answer: "Yes, but to fully understand it, you must first understand recursion"
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Marshall Goldsmith nailed this in "What Got You Here Won't Get You There."
In many (most?) business structures, expertise only gets us so far - after that, it's all about how we deal with people.
If you want to have a part in the problem-solving drama called "Your Employing Company," you have to get along well enough to be allowed at the table.
There's not much justice or fairness in this - just some hard reality along with enough exceptions to make the rule fuzzy.
That's a hard way to make a decent product. If Billy's app doesn't talk to Sue's service because the two never speak to one another or sit down to do a review, it doesn't matter how brilliant either of them is. Their shit still doesn't work.
I don't agree. If this were true, then the foosball table in our kitchen wouldn't be busy all the time.
I think it's a subtler truth here. Many technical folks are more comfortable on working technical problems than people problems. Tech problems have at least one right answer that is unambiguous. People problems may not.
I think the way to keep tech people happy is to give them good problems to work on, serve as a diplomatic layer to insulate them from the annoying people surrounding them in the world, and facilitate making the rules clear on the floor to minimize conflict among the team. And provide free pop.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
When it is safe to have a hacker on your IT staff
It is always safe to hire and employ a hacker. If they don't follow the hacker ethic they aren't a hacker. Maybe a cracker, hackivist, or script kiddie but not a hacker.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And i wouldn't put it on my resume either : it's like a written statement of you admitting a crime.
Slipping shoelaces ?
The folks in the first category could hurt you too. They're white/gray hat because they want to be, not because they have to be.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer