Grandpa Coders

[Chillers]

I don't think I could help it. I'd be sticking my dirty paws in and micro managing even if it wasn't my job to do so.

 

Does this mean that you will have no contact with the developers and this person will be the only conduit through which you can get stuff done? If so then this is scary for a small team - a 3 level hierarchy that is.

 

Ok, so yeah - I agree if this is the case then you want the most experienced person you can get. Kinda like a force grown, memory implanted, clone of yourself so you can sleep at night. So is this an important point for running your own business - new managers, team leads, etc. MUST be super good, trustworthy, and reliable so older is almost always better?

[Chillers]

Yeah - thanks for that.

 

I've been reading Paul Graham myself for a while now (Slashdot has had a couple of articles on him). One important point that he does not go into is how hard it is to actually get these "uber people" he talks about to buy into your idea and stick with you while the money is thin.

 

I know plenty of ubers - some of whom are interested. But when it comes to the crunch they all want the financial security of a big firm.

[Chillers]

People who were successful academically tend to continue to outperform their peers at the professional level, but not always. In my experience people pulling 3.8 gpa's out of 4 run circles around the others. At one point in my career when we were near a university I set the bar at 3.8 for applications we would accept from human resources. We had an objective to build a crack team that performed at a world class level. I couldn't have been happier at the greatness this team achieved, though of course we didn't accept just anyone with a 3.8, that was just one ingredient as it showed a level of diligence and smarts. It made a very nice pool to choose from. In this team, the two 4.0 guys coincidentally turned out to be top dogs. Being good academically does not mean you have to be a geek.. One of my best peers through the years was academically brilliant from an ivy league university. He was our starting middle line backer and a horse. He could do anything.

 

Yeah, look I agree - academic performance is such an obvious indicator of talent that it is just lame to ignore it. But many people do, possibly because they feel threatened or maybe because they didn't do well themselves academically. Now this may seem strange but I have noticed a curious trend in a substantial number of the "mega-computer-gods" (MCGs) that I know. At one stage or another they were a total failure (high school, first undergraduate degree, etc.) but later they excelled academically. I'm not sure why this is but this kind of person is almost impossible to identify in their early 20s as this is usually the time at which they are in (or just coming out of) their "failing stage". Another good reason to get older staff.

 

-The expensive guys are the cheapest. That's right. Anyone in the trenches of the software industry knows there are monumental differences in productivity and quality. A guy charging $500/hr saves you money over someone charging $20/hr. Big guns can solve problems in a few hours with brilliant solutions that work. Cheap charlies will struggle for weeks and you'll have a buggy, inflexible solution that is nothing but problems and drags down the organization. So you spent more money on the cheap guy and get less and it took longer to get. This is perhaps the most difficult thing for people to understand. Shopping around on price for a warm body or opening a ?$20/hr? position is stupid. But the caveat is don't include people who have just been around longer collecting gradual raises over the years as high earners.

 

Yes and No. I've dealt with some thoroughly ineffectual high paid consultants. Actually the majority of them have been a waste of money - and this is from the big, respectable firms. But when they do perform they REALLY perform. You are right, its almost impossible to quantify how much better they are... the scale is certainly not linear. The way I think companies get burned by the expensive guys is they take the consultancy's "recommendation" and they hire a whole team from them. The team usually consists of one or two hefties and a bunch of people doing training or something. I just want the hefties! not the other 10 people for an extra 2500 US each a day!

 

The last and most important thing to remember is everyone is like a tool in a tool chest. Different people are good at different things. Don?t look at people as being good or bad, look at them as a set of characteristics. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes you need a screw driver. Use your best screw driver as a hammer and it won't work. Use the right tool for the job and you will get the most out of it.

 

Yes, this sounds correct - but how do you identify that the screw driver you have 45 mins. to interview is really a spankingly talented hammer?