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.'"

7 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds more like by wampus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds more like "how to hire a self important misanthrope" to me.

    1. Re:Sounds more like by CAIMLAS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Calling such people "misanthrope" is a bit harsh, I think.

      Someone who is intelligent, competent, and has a difficult time finding acceptance (or even a modicum of comfort-with-others) in new environments could very easily get falsely labeled a misanthrope. If they're capable and know up from down, calling them self-important is a wee bit counter-productive - and I dare say, quite possibly why they'd be viewed as misanthropic.

      A better characteristic descriptor would probably be "socially clueless". I know a lot of guys who come across harsh - myself included. They are usually some of the most open people I've known; they're also very amiable - but havent' a clue how to relate to others unlike themselves.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    2. Re:Sounds more like by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I have a friend in the high energy physics field. Four advanced degrees. I had the good fortune to have hired him as a contractor once when I was in a narrow bind, and I know he's bright. A bloody Klieg light amongst candles.

      He's also often distressed by the stupidity of the people he works with. "Mate" I said, "Everybody you work with will be stupider than you. Get used to it."

      I don't know if it helped much, but it's indicative. In a world of so-so thinkers, any bright sparks will have trouble fitting in. And it takes a fairly bright spark to be even a mediocre sysadmin, to be honest.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:Sounds more like by Glonoinha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually that's because most 'team building exercises' suck.

      You want to build the most amazing team that ever graced your workplace? Send the three or four of them to Vegas or Miami or someplace that has TROUBLE for them to get into under the pretenses of a training class or a seminar, and only get them one car. That will insure they get in a ton of trouble together. When they get back, they will be tighter than any team you've ever seen, and they will get serious amounts of amazing work done. And the three or four of them will work so well together for the rest of their tenure - they will kick the snot out of any teams built over an afternoon playing blindfolded Monopoly and drinking non-alcoholic beverages or whatever the current fad in weak ass team building exercises is this season.

      Disclaimer - trouble in moderation. I'm talking going to strip clubs and drifting the rental car around corners, not burying a dead hooker in the desert.
      That said - a team that does the latter will be a LOT tighter than the team that does the former. Or so I've heard.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    4. Re:Sounds more like by Mr+Z · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's also the difference between "intelligent" and "informed." There are plenty of otherwise intelligent people that ignorant on topics that they're asked to weigh in on. Ignorance is a bigger problem than lack of intelligence, I'd say. This dovetails nicely into your observation.

      To see the effects of institutionalized ignorance, look at all the wasted intellectual effort of the Dark Ages. You have bright minds of the day debating over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, as opposed to advancing science and engineering. Imagine if all that effort had gone into developing the steam engine a few hundred years before James Watt got to it.

  2. In fairness by SlappyBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. The joke was too easy by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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