Right - my point being that it was one person modding you down. That's hardly hammered here. Try posting something that REALLY goes against the/. zeitgeist and you'll see the hammers fall. Angels would weep to see how much abuse you'd take then. Babies and kittens would spontaneously catch fire. Television's Ray Romano would call you at home to taunt you.
Surely their ability to work within the team is going to be important, right? Surely their ability to work with "cranky" clients is going to be important, right? Surely their ability to come up with a novel solution to an intractable problem is going to be important, right? Surely their ability to handle hiccups or other inevitable quirks in the work-flow is going to be important, right? Surely their ability to communicate clearly and ask for clarification of objectives is going to be important, right? Surely their ability to bring new ideas to the table and articulate the benefits of those ideas will be important, right?
I want to know that someone I hire can handle being part of a team. I want to know that they can deal with difficult people when they have to, and do it well. I want to know that they aren't going to waste their time on an approach that is clearly doomed and are able to balance time invested with time spent getting onto a new approach. I want to know that they are going to be able to handle a crisis WHEN (not if) it happens. I want to know that if they aren't sure about something that they will get clarification on it. I want to know that they are able examine a problem from multiple angles, and aren't afraid to defend a contrary point of view if it has merit.
I can ask someone how they'd deal with a difficult situation, or I can put them into one and see how they respond. One of those techniques is going to yield some useful information, the other will just let me know that the candidate has read a book on interviewing.
If I wanted a mere technician, I suppose that mere technical competence would be all I'd need. But short of the most entry-level work out there where there's no possibility to advance, I can't think of a job that has an interview process longer than "Can you work a cash register?" would value only mere competence.
I like that general example - I'm going to use that:)
Again, much like you in that I would go for the real-world thing. I am willing to play the interview game to the point where one of us realizes it's not a good fit, or we both feel good about the fit and go from there. I am probably lucky in that I've never been in a position where I _had_ to take a job that was offered to me when I knew I wouldn't be thrilled with it.
If I were asked too many "pie in the sky, in the perfect universe what would you do" kind of questions, I know that the culture would be one in which people tend to value fluff rather than ability to perform. Either that, or the company doesn't really care how well they screen candidates because they're wasting a lot of time on really goofy questions.
A couple of people have responded that I'm kind of a bitch because I would be hard on applicants - the fact is, I'm not, but the jobs I was hiring people for _were_ in a high stress environment, and the ability to hold up to stress was key to being able to perform. I think it would have been far worse of me to be smiles and sunshine in the interview and break people who can't deal with stress well than what I did do. (Or, maybe I'm just mean at heart and trying to rationalize:p) What I do know is that my group had the highest marks from clients as to their satisfaction with our work, ESPECIALLY emergency trouble calls, out of all the groups in the company. My group also self-reported higher job satisfaction, had lower turn-over, and a higher rate of promotion than any other group. I don't think I'm that great of a manager - but I do think that I made damn sure I got the people I felt could do a great job under the conditions. Other managers didn't do stress interviews and their groups did more poorly. Maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe there's another hidden factor at play, maybe it's just a 5 consecutive battles situation, but... I dunno, I'd say that understanding what qualities a person would need to do well and then selecting for those qualities by making them prove it was helpful.
With the expectation settings thing, I'd have to say "It depends." I would give high marks to someone who had read the situation clearly and was able to come up with the "right" answer without needing to be told all the details. Also, I would give high marks to someone who wasn't afraid to ask for clarification - a huge part of getting any job done is being able to communicate clearly and effectively, and part of that is to ask questions when you're not sure. The lowest marks, though, would be given to someone who didn't have a good read on the situation, didn't ask for clarification, and also didn't know enough technically to find workarounds.
I think it depends on the level that one is hiring at. If I'm hiring someone as a "brain investment" (as I imagine Google is) then I want someone who can play the game, who can ask questions, who can handle themselves on a higher level. I shouldn't have to set expectations - the person should, ideally, be bright enough to sort things out/redefine the situation to their strengths. It's a rare ability, but people who have it will do well.
I do agree that if someone is being hired purely for their proficiency rather than their potential - yeah, the parameters should be pretty well established.
Ultimately, the way a person is brought in should depend on what you want - do you want a cog or a motor?
Because it sees how they go about solving problems when stressed. When a person has to go out and troubleshoot a situation when a client is breathing down their neck, being able to think under pressure is a good thing.
If someone can handle the pressure of a job interview (already stressful) and the interviewer seeming to not approve of them/being intentionally difficult and STILL come up with good answers, it is going to mean that they'll likely not fall to pieces in front of the client.
Given that the primary customers of that business were financial services (predominantly type-A people who seemed to be enraged most of the time - but they paid very well), that kind of ability was very necessary.
In other environments (more relaxed but still challenging) seeing how flexible and robust a person's thinking is is also essential. Google is, from what I understand, a very entrepreneurial culture. Everyone has a pet project they spend 1/5th of their working time on. Hiring people who're able to think on their feet and who's performance doesn't degrade much (or even improves) when under pressure can be a very nice asset.
And yeah - you'd be a lousy fit for that company. Just like I'd be a lousy fit for a more structured environment. For some people, pressure impairs performance, for others, it enhances it. On the flip side, I'm _horrible_ when in a low-stress situation. Since nothing needs to get done RIGHT NOW I become unfocused.
During one interview, every time I gave a response, the interviewer responded with "No, that doesn't work - the product won't do X" so I had to come up with another option. Finally, after about 4 go-rounds of this, I said "Well, at that point I'd go find the person who was responsible for us using this product, explain how it didn't remotely meet our needs, and rather than waste 10x more time trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole, we should start from scratch and consider it a lesson learned." The guy said "I see."
He then got up, walked out of the room, and 5 minutes later came back with someone from HR and a written job offer. "Everyone else kept going on and on and on and on and on trying to solve the problem by trying to work around something that was obviously broken - you're the only one who knew when to cut your losses and move on."
The point of an interview is to figure out how well the person will fit and how well they'll do the job. Clever hacks and workarounds are nice, but only when they are more efficient and effective than something not as clever would be. It seems like a lot of geek types forget that - it isn't about showing off.
I eventually became a hiring manager at that same company, and I would go out of my way to throw the candidates I interviewed off balance. My favorite technique was to ask them what their favorite tool was, then say "That's stupid" and see how they'd react. The worst response I ever got was "Well, I guess it is, sorry" and the best I ever got was "No, your dismissal without providing a counter argument is stupid. This tool is great for this task because x, y, z. Now tell me why using a tool that can do all that is stupid, and I'll see if you make any sense." People who can think on their feet and come up with practical solutions rather than get flustered or go into some kind of "best practices" parrot mode aren't worth a lot.
You'd think he might be able to realize that there is more to a person than where they got their degree
If I have a choice between two candidates who seem equally skilled/motivated/whatever, but one of them came out of MIT and one of them came out of Michigan State, I'm probably going to go with the one from MIT.
If the one from Michigan State was clearly a better fit for the position, or I felt that they would have more potential within the company, or they were better in some other characteristic that I believed was relevant, I'd go with them. But all other things being equal? Take the one from the better school, no question.
A computer is something with a legitimate purpose and necessity, yet around here it's blasphemy to admit that you bought a pre-made system rather than building your own.
Unless "building your own" involves a soldering iron, I'd say there's very little skill necessary to build a system these days.
Honestly, I don't know why anyone bothers - it's not exactly complicated to snap together commodity components these days, and it isn't like it's hard to find a good shop that'll build you exactly what you want AND deal with any component compatibility issues, handle burn-in, RMA etc. And get you a warranty. The price difference between building your own and having one made for you looks to be about $50 (though the shop makes more than that in profit because they get volume discounts). I can be sure that I will use more than $50 of my time when putting it together, and I won't learn anything I didn't already know when putting it together.
So how, exactly, is wasting time and money and getting an inferior end result (no warranty!) an establishment of anything other than me being a dumbass?
I've had several players and they all, of course, did about the same job when it came to playing music. The difference for me is that the iPod makes it easier to get at what I want when I want it.
My 60GB iPod is full - I've got 1 season of The Office on it and the rest is music. I like being able to drag around my entire music collection in a pocket. I get into random moods and want to listen to something I haven't heard for awhile, it's there, and that makes me happy.
On my old player - an Archos - it would take, uh.... A long time to find the song I wanted. There was this one nubbin to go up and down lists (SLOWLY - I've got thousands and thousands of songs, and the speed it went through stuff was waaaaaay too slow for me. I'd guess it would take over a minute to find one particular song in the middle of the alphabet, for example) and there were 2 buttons that seemed to swap functions randomly. Sometimes you press button 1 to do something, but in certain cases, you have to press button 2 to do something, but when you're going through the menu and you press button 2 it will kick you back to the main menu (making you hunt for your song again) etc.
With the iPod, I'd say 15 seconds on the outside to find any song. And the interface is straight-forward and consistent.
I'm probably not the typical consumer either - most people with the 60GB ones probably don't have 'em filled, or if they do it's going to be mostly video instead of mostly music - but for me, until someone comes up with a way to get at what I want when I want it that is substantially better (and that would be, probably, me saying the name of the song I want or even humming a bit of it) it's going to be the iPod.
BTW - if you want a free one, just find a bank that's giving away nano's for free when you open a checking account. Open the account with $50, get nano, wait 6 months or so, and then close the account taking home $51.50:)
Interesting! I think I'll avoid working in the semiconductor industry then:) I don't mind travel, but last summer I spent 21 hours in the air in a 24 hour period and just couldn't imagine doing that more than once every few years.
Thanks for the expanded perspective on frequent flyers.
Oh, no doubt - heck, when I left one company, as part of my severance I demanded that they give me my chair in exchange for a "thou shalt not speak of your tenure here" deal. I love my Aeron!
Unfortunately, while purchasing nice office stuff might make for a comfy office and happier workers, it isn't a viable business model. Unless maybe they would allow workers from lesser-equipped offices come by and sit on them for a fee or something.
Google's making money. Actual real profits. You must be thinking of YouTube or something.
During the 90's, the companies that were being touted as being run by genius management were pretty much not doing anything but helping the manufacturers of $800 office chairs get rich.
Can England "control" Mars when it happens to intersect the space above England? No. Can China "control" what a satellite sees when it orbits over China? Aparrently.
Unless someone is willing to dispute China's control of space over their territory, I don't see this being out of line.
On the playground, they say that might doesn't make right. In the real world, it's the only thing that does.
While certainly the job of "programmer" hasn't disappeared, it is being impinged upon.
Access is not a very good tool for really big jobs, but for small ones it's fantastic, and simple enough that people who don't have any training can make something good enough to get things done.
His writers had McCoy give Kirk a pair of reading glasses in Star Trek IV, not forseeing that twenty years later the multifocus IOD would be developed.
His writers had McCoy give Kirk an antique as a gift because Kirk was too vain to admit he was aging and get it fixed.
Aside from more wiring for social situations, females tend to be better at multi-tasking and paying simultaneous attention to many sources. Much of human intuition - male and female - is likely the results of unconscious processing of background noise, and females tend to be able to take in more background noise, thus leading to improved intuition.
But then, what do I know? I'm just a girl and science is hard, tee hee! ^_^
Their proprietary attitude towards the utterly useless things they're writing is kind of amusing.
Useless? Funny, because if turnitin didn't have that database of "useless" things they wouldn't be able to sell their service. Pretty clearly there's SOME value there.
Please explain to me why making a profit on an entertainment item is "bad" - last I was aware, nobody needed new cars and tracks in a video game in order to stay alive, and Communism had failed pretty spectacularly.
If consumers are willing to do this, that's on them - they have other options. Nobody HAS to play this game.
When looked at from a particular angle, with particular lighting, then yes, it can look like a human face. But pictures shown from other angles or with different lighting don't look anything like a human face.
Heck, if you get the lighting right and go from just-so an angle, even Keith Richards seems to have a human face.
I use "disposable" phones all the time when I travel for pleasure. They're a fantastically useful thing for many purposes, and if they get stolen (NOT an uncommon experience) it isn't like it's a huge loss.
For day-to-day use, yeah, they're a dumb idea. But for certain uses, they're awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
Right - my point being that it was one person modding you down. That's hardly hammered here. Try posting something that REALLY goes against the /. zeitgeist and you'll see the hammers fall. Angels would weep to see how much abuse you'd take then. Babies and kittens would spontaneously catch fire. Television's Ray Romano would call you at home to taunt you.
You call 1 response to your comment - someone pointing out your errors in a fairly pleasant manner - and overall neutral moderation "hammered"?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Are you talking about the same world I am?
Surely their ability to work within the team is going to be important, right?
Surely their ability to work with "cranky" clients is going to be important, right?
Surely their ability to come up with a novel solution to an intractable problem is going to be important, right?
Surely their ability to handle hiccups or other inevitable quirks in the work-flow is going to be important, right?
Surely their ability to communicate clearly and ask for clarification of objectives is going to be important, right?
Surely their ability to bring new ideas to the table and articulate the benefits of those ideas will be important, right?
I want to know that someone I hire can handle being part of a team. I want to know that they can deal with difficult people when they have to, and do it well. I want to know that they aren't going to waste their time on an approach that is clearly doomed and are able to balance time invested with time spent getting onto a new approach. I want to know that they are going to be able to handle a crisis WHEN (not if) it happens. I want to know that if they aren't sure about something that they will get clarification on it. I want to know that they are able examine a problem from multiple angles, and aren't afraid to defend a contrary point of view if it has merit.
I can ask someone how they'd deal with a difficult situation, or I can put them into one and see how they respond. One of those techniques is going to yield some useful information, the other will just let me know that the candidate has read a book on interviewing.
If I wanted a mere technician, I suppose that mere technical competence would be all I'd need. But short of the most entry-level work out there where there's no possibility to advance, I can't think of a job that has an interview process longer than "Can you work a cash register?" would value only mere competence.
I like that general example - I'm going to use that :)
:p) What I do know is that my group had the highest marks from clients as to their satisfaction with our work, ESPECIALLY emergency trouble calls, out of all the groups in the company. My group also self-reported higher job satisfaction, had lower turn-over, and a higher rate of promotion than any other group. I don't think I'm that great of a manager - but I do think that I made damn sure I got the people I felt could do a great job under the conditions. Other managers didn't do stress interviews and their groups did more poorly. Maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe there's another hidden factor at play, maybe it's just a 5 consecutive battles situation, but... I dunno, I'd say that understanding what qualities a person would need to do well and then selecting for those qualities by making them prove it was helpful.
Again, much like you in that I would go for the real-world thing. I am willing to play the interview game to the point where one of us realizes it's not a good fit, or we both feel good about the fit and go from there. I am probably lucky in that I've never been in a position where I _had_ to take a job that was offered to me when I knew I wouldn't be thrilled with it.
If I were asked too many "pie in the sky, in the perfect universe what would you do" kind of questions, I know that the culture would be one in which people tend to value fluff rather than ability to perform. Either that, or the company doesn't really care how well they screen candidates because they're wasting a lot of time on really goofy questions.
A couple of people have responded that I'm kind of a bitch because I would be hard on applicants - the fact is, I'm not, but the jobs I was hiring people for _were_ in a high stress environment, and the ability to hold up to stress was key to being able to perform. I think it would have been far worse of me to be smiles and sunshine in the interview and break people who can't deal with stress well than what I did do. (Or, maybe I'm just mean at heart and trying to rationalize
I hear you about the CTO has spoken stuff.
With the expectation settings thing, I'd have to say "It depends." I would give high marks to someone who had read the situation clearly and was able to come up with the "right" answer without needing to be told all the details. Also, I would give high marks to someone who wasn't afraid to ask for clarification - a huge part of getting any job done is being able to communicate clearly and effectively, and part of that is to ask questions when you're not sure. The lowest marks, though, would be given to someone who didn't have a good read on the situation, didn't ask for clarification, and also didn't know enough technically to find workarounds.
I think it depends on the level that one is hiring at. If I'm hiring someone as a "brain investment" (as I imagine Google is) then I want someone who can play the game, who can ask questions, who can handle themselves on a higher level. I shouldn't have to set expectations - the person should, ideally, be bright enough to sort things out/redefine the situation to their strengths. It's a rare ability, but people who have it will do well.
I do agree that if someone is being hired purely for their proficiency rather than their potential - yeah, the parameters should be pretty well established.
Ultimately, the way a person is brought in should depend on what you want - do you want a cog or a motor?
Because it sees how they go about solving problems when stressed. When a person has to go out and troubleshoot a situation when a client is breathing down their neck, being able to think under pressure is a good thing.
If someone can handle the pressure of a job interview (already stressful) and the interviewer seeming to not approve of them/being intentionally difficult and STILL come up with good answers, it is going to mean that they'll likely not fall to pieces in front of the client.
Given that the primary customers of that business were financial services (predominantly type-A people who seemed to be enraged most of the time - but they paid very well), that kind of ability was very necessary.
In other environments (more relaxed but still challenging) seeing how flexible and robust a person's thinking is is also essential. Google is, from what I understand, a very entrepreneurial culture. Everyone has a pet project they spend 1/5th of their working time on. Hiring people who're able to think on their feet and who's performance doesn't degrade much (or even improves) when under pressure can be a very nice asset.
And yeah - you'd be a lousy fit for that company. Just like I'd be a lousy fit for a more structured environment. For some people, pressure impairs performance, for others, it enhances it. On the flip side, I'm _horrible_ when in a low-stress situation. Since nothing needs to get done RIGHT NOW I become unfocused.
I had some "hot seat" interviews in the past.
During one interview, every time I gave a response, the interviewer responded with "No, that doesn't work - the product won't do X" so I had to come up with another option. Finally, after about 4 go-rounds of this, I said "Well, at that point I'd go find the person who was responsible for us using this product, explain how it didn't remotely meet our needs, and rather than waste 10x more time trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole, we should start from scratch and consider it a lesson learned." The guy said "I see."
He then got up, walked out of the room, and 5 minutes later came back with someone from HR and a written job offer. "Everyone else kept going on and on and on and on and on trying to solve the problem by trying to work around something that was obviously broken - you're the only one who knew when to cut your losses and move on."
The point of an interview is to figure out how well the person will fit and how well they'll do the job. Clever hacks and workarounds are nice, but only when they are more efficient and effective than something not as clever would be. It seems like a lot of geek types forget that - it isn't about showing off.
I eventually became a hiring manager at that same company, and I would go out of my way to throw the candidates I interviewed off balance. My favorite technique was to ask them what their favorite tool was, then say "That's stupid" and see how they'd react. The worst response I ever got was "Well, I guess it is, sorry" and the best I ever got was "No, your dismissal without providing a counter argument is stupid. This tool is great for this task because x, y, z. Now tell me why using a tool that can do all that is stupid, and I'll see if you make any sense." People who can think on their feet and come up with practical solutions rather than get flustered or go into some kind of "best practices" parrot mode aren't worth a lot.
You'd think he might be able to realize that there is more to a person than where they got their degree
If I have a choice between two candidates who seem equally skilled/motivated/whatever, but one of them came out of MIT and one of them came out of Michigan State, I'm probably going to go with the one from MIT.
If the one from Michigan State was clearly a better fit for the position, or I felt that they would have more potential within the company, or they were better in some other characteristic that I believed was relevant, I'd go with them. But all other things being equal? Take the one from the better school, no question.
A computer is something with a legitimate purpose and necessity, yet around here it's blasphemy to admit that you bought a pre-made system rather than building your own.
Unless "building your own" involves a soldering iron, I'd say there's very little skill necessary to build a system these days.
Honestly, I don't know why anyone bothers - it's not exactly complicated to snap together commodity components these days, and it isn't like it's hard to find a good shop that'll build you exactly what you want AND deal with any component compatibility issues, handle burn-in, RMA etc. And get you a warranty. The price difference between building your own and having one made for you looks to be about $50 (though the shop makes more than that in profit because they get volume discounts). I can be sure that I will use more than $50 of my time when putting it together, and I won't learn anything I didn't already know when putting it together.
So how, exactly, is wasting time and money and getting an inferior end result (no warranty!) an establishment of anything other than me being a dumbass?
I've had several players and they all, of course, did about the same job when it came to playing music. The difference for me is that the iPod makes it easier to get at what I want when I want it.
:)
My 60GB iPod is full - I've got 1 season of The Office on it and the rest is music. I like being able to drag around my entire music collection in a pocket. I get into random moods and want to listen to something I haven't heard for awhile, it's there, and that makes me happy.
On my old player - an Archos - it would take, uh.... A long time to find the song I wanted. There was this one nubbin to go up and down lists (SLOWLY - I've got thousands and thousands of songs, and the speed it went through stuff was waaaaaay too slow for me. I'd guess it would take over a minute to find one particular song in the middle of the alphabet, for example) and there were 2 buttons that seemed to swap functions randomly. Sometimes you press button 1 to do something, but in certain cases, you have to press button 2 to do something, but when you're going through the menu and you press button 2 it will kick you back to the main menu (making you hunt for your song again) etc.
With the iPod, I'd say 15 seconds on the outside to find any song. And the interface is straight-forward and consistent.
I'm probably not the typical consumer either - most people with the 60GB ones probably don't have 'em filled, or if they do it's going to be mostly video instead of mostly music - but for me, until someone comes up with a way to get at what I want when I want it that is substantially better (and that would be, probably, me saying the name of the song I want or even humming a bit of it) it's going to be the iPod.
BTW - if you want a free one, just find a bank that's giving away nano's for free when you open a checking account. Open the account with $50, get nano, wait 6 months or so, and then close the account taking home $51.50
it should be noted that dysentery is one of the leading causes of death in the world.
Beauty is pain, dahling.
Interesting! I think I'll avoid working in the semiconductor industry then :) I don't mind travel, but last summer I spent 21 hours in the air in a 24 hour period and just couldn't imagine doing that more than once every few years.
Thanks for the expanded perspective on frequent flyers.
I don't consider any job that requires 40 transatlantic flights in 6 years to be "normal."
Oh, no doubt - heck, when I left one company, as part of my severance I demanded that they give me my chair in exchange for a "thou shalt not speak of your tenure here" deal. I love my Aeron!
Unfortunately, while purchasing nice office stuff might make for a comfy office and happier workers, it isn't a viable business model. Unless maybe they would allow workers from lesser-equipped offices come by and sit on them for a fee or something.
Er, except for one difference...
Google's making money. Actual real profits. You must be thinking of YouTube or something.
During the 90's, the companies that were being touted as being run by genius management were pretty much not doing anything but helping the manufacturers of $800 office chairs get rich.
I'd say it's a matter of control/effect.
Can England "control" Mars when it happens to intersect the space above England? No.
Can China "control" what a satellite sees when it orbits over China? Aparrently.
Unless someone is willing to dispute China's control of space over their territory, I don't see this being out of line.
On the playground, they say that might doesn't make right. In the real world, it's the only thing that does.
While certainly the job of "programmer" hasn't disappeared, it is being impinged upon.
Access is not a very good tool for really big jobs, but for small ones it's fantastic, and simple enough that people who don't have any training can make something good enough to get things done.
His writers had McCoy give Kirk a pair of reading glasses in Star Trek IV, not forseeing that twenty years later the multifocus IOD would be developed.
His writers had McCoy give Kirk an antique as a gift because Kirk was too vain to admit he was aging and get it fixed.
Aside from more wiring for social situations, females tend to be better at multi-tasking and paying simultaneous attention to many sources. Much of human intuition - male and female - is likely the results of unconscious processing of background noise, and females tend to be able to take in more background noise, thus leading to improved intuition.
But then, what do I know? I'm just a girl and science is hard, tee hee! ^_^
Their proprietary attitude towards the utterly useless things they're writing is kind of amusing.
Useless? Funny, because if turnitin didn't have that database of "useless" things they wouldn't be able to sell their service. Pretty clearly there's SOME value there.
If they want to sell a tool that my works are improving, then they should pay me for my papers.
Please explain to me why making a profit on an entertainment item is "bad" - last I was aware, nobody needed new cars and tracks in a video game in order to stay alive, and Communism had failed pretty spectacularly.
If consumers are willing to do this, that's on them - they have other options. Nobody HAS to play this game.
When looked at from a particular angle, with particular lighting, then yes, it can look like a human face. But pictures shown from other angles or with different lighting don't look anything like a human face.
Heck, if you get the lighting right and go from just-so an angle, even Keith Richards seems to have a human face.
No need for that, here's an ultra-low-rez image embedded directly into this post:
8^)
I use "disposable" phones all the time when I travel for pleasure. They're a fantastically useful thing for many purposes, and if they get stolen (NOT an uncommon experience) it isn't like it's a huge loss.
For day-to-day use, yeah, they're a dumb idea. But for certain uses, they're awesome.