Is It Your Responsibility, or Mine?
Just over a month ago, I found the following Tweet re-Tweeted by someone I follow [sic]:
“We want to improve so we’ll start by hiring great people”. What makes you think the(y) will still be great *in your organisation*?
I jumped on top of this. It was an early Wednesday, and I probably hadn’t had enough coffee yet. But I was immediately put off by this statement. To me, it’s kind of a contrived statement. Those things that make people “great”, in my opinion, are attributes and characteristics that transcend industry, organization, and job. Caring about quality, your fellow co-workers, and your personal performance, among other things, are not things that are strictly limited to software development. My point is that it makes complete sense to use this as a starting point (although admittedly a nebulous one). Interviews are the beginning, of course – if you use good interviewing questions and techniques, you eventually begin to get to the bottom of whether the prospect shares your perspective.
Anyway, I retorted with:
isnt that what thorough interview screening is for? For the org and the prospect. This statement feels contrived.
To which the original tweeter replied:
Quite contrary – personal performance contributes to only 5% of org. performance, so improve the other 95% first
And he tagged it with Deming. Now, I don’t know where this measurement came from, but I find it hard to believe that the ratio of personal development to an organization’s responsibility to “make people great” sits at 5% to 95%. It’s not realistic. It’s outdated and doesn’t reflect today’s development needs at all.
Spolsky says it best in his Guerilla Guide to Interviewing – and makes an important distinction between skills and aptitude. The Tweet of course misses this nuance – and I doubt it could be fit into 140 characters – but its an important point to make in my opinion. You can be a skilled [insert job title/industry here], but not have the aptitude for analysis, communication, or collaboration. Interviewers naturally look for these among a number of things; Spolsky mentions one in particular – between being “smart” and “getting the job done”.
To me, people who “get the job done” don’t have to rely on an organization for personal development. They are self-starters. They are the ones who own pet projects and are passionate about technology. They are the ones who are not intimidated by unfamiliar technology, but have the experience behind them to know the best way to approach problems. These are the people who, with proper management, are innovators and difference makers in an organization. As an interviewee, it is up to you to determine whether the management at the organization you’re interviewing at is going to support you with the flexibility and freedom needed to innovate. That’s how I know they will still be great in my organization. There’s a symbiosis that cannot be ignored here.
The bottom line is there’s a mutual responsibility, but the interview should be designed to determine just how willing the other party is to assume their fair share. As a leader in my organization, I should provide every reasonable opportunity for you to improve your skill set, your knowledge, and your career development. As an employee, I should be willing to ask for and take advantage of these rare opportunities as they present themselves. I am not entitled to anything, and I think developers today should be wary of this entitlement syndrome.
