Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/opinion/sunday/guess-who-doesnt-fit-in-at-work.html
176 comments
It's tough on an interview to get a feel for how a person is in day-to-day conversation. So the interviewers are looking for areas of common interest to talk about. If they are young, they may have a limited repertoire of topics that usually work; if you shut down all of their ideas for conversation, I hope you at least tried to come up with some topics of your own. Otherwise, you won't have a conversation, and they won't get a feel for you, and that's a bad thing.
I don't know if you've ever actually said "I don't have hobbies" in an interview, but that could likely come off as negative. Your hobbies are your kids, or your house, or reading, or cooking, or watching TV, or whatever you do with your time at home. And all of those are at least something that might start a conversation, which is the whole point. Hell, even saying "I used to play PC games, here are the classics I liked" could be a conversation starter.
I don't know if you've ever actually said "I don't have hobbies" in an interview, but that could likely come off as negative. Your hobbies are your kids, or your house, or reading, or cooking, or watching TV, or whatever you do with your time at home. And all of those are at least something that might start a conversation, which is the whole point. Hell, even saying "I used to play PC games, here are the classics I liked" could be a conversation starter.
Thank you for illustrating what is wrong with "culture fit". There is no need to require candidates to be buds with the team. " maturity" "Professionalism" used to be a virtue that adults aspired to, until young adults decided to hack the system and turn the "Good ol' boys" club into a "good youn' boys" club.
Professionalism can be dehumanizing just as camaraderie can be alienating. I don't think either, alone, is a virtue. We need both to communicate and work effectively.
Kids and house aren't hobbies. They're responsibilities.
I guess you could stick to the strict definition, but then you're sitting in the lunch in awkward silence.
Or you could say "I love fixing up my old house. I'm a big fan of Bob Villa, and he inspired me to get a fixer-upper. Most recently I've been putting in a new hardwood floor. It's a lot of trips to Home Depot, and a lot of reading old Time-Life books..."
Which person seems like they will be easier to work with, and an efficient communicator?
Or you could say "I love fixing up my old house. I'm a big fan of Bob Villa, and he inspired me to get a fixer-upper. Most recently I've been putting in a new hardwood floor. It's a lot of trips to Home Depot, and a lot of reading old Time-Life books..."
Which person seems like they will be easier to work with, and an efficient communicator?
They can be both.
> an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation:
You're basically positing a definition of "hobby" that encompasses everything that isn't working. Caring for children is a basic life function and an obligation. It can be relaxing and pleasurable, but so can showers and eating--that doesn't make it a hobby. Hobbies are things you do optionally.
You're basically positing a definition of "hobby" that encompasses everything that isn't working. Caring for children is a basic life function and an obligation. It can be relaxing and pleasurable, but so can showers and eating--that doesn't make it a hobby. Hobbies are things you do optionally.
> Caring for children is a basic life function and an obligation.
Contraceptives exist and work (for the most part), so caring for children is an opt-in activity. And even if it wasn't - it is totally possible to turn cooking or eating into a hobby by going beyond what's necessary to survive, and the same applies to caring for children.
As a late-twenties programmer without children, I'd have a lot of respect for anyone who mentions his/her kids as his/her hobby.
Contraceptives exist and work (for the most part), so caring for children is an opt-in activity. And even if it wasn't - it is totally possible to turn cooking or eating into a hobby by going beyond what's necessary to survive, and the same applies to caring for children.
As a late-twenties programmer without children, I'd have a lot of respect for anyone who mentions his/her kids as his/her hobby.
I understand not drinking and not playing video games, but saying that you have no hobbies would be pretty weird in an interview. They're just trying to get to know you. Hopefully you follow it up with some personal detail that distinguishes you from a robot.
I hate the hobbies question in interviews. I work 60 hours a week and have a toddler. My hobby is sleeping. What the hell else else do you want from me?
I have a bike which I rarely ride. My interview hobby is cycling (reading books also works). Silly questions deserve silly answers.
I use hiking and reading.
This is a lot easier to explain to a stranger who forming a judgement than "in the rare moments I'm not watching my kids, working, cleaning, or sleeping, I like to go shoot guns that I built."
This is a lot easier to explain to a stranger who forming a judgement than "in the rare moments I'm not watching my kids, working, cleaning, or sleeping, I like to go shoot guns that I built."
I was interviewing Java developers for Booz Allen when I rant into a candidate that was super-smart but had no hobbies except for coding in his spare time.
I thought it was a negative because the hiring managers and recruiters were pressing for a well-rounded person with "hobbies" and interests outside of work. However, the team lead for Java developers considered the super-focus on coding a plus.
In retrospect, all of these different factors were just subjective and not a good way to evaluate candidates potential effectiveness on the job.
I thought it was a negative because the hiring managers and recruiters were pressing for a well-rounded person with "hobbies" and interests outside of work. However, the team lead for Java developers considered the super-focus on coding a plus.
In retrospect, all of these different factors were just subjective and not a good way to evaluate candidates potential effectiveness on the job.
Distinguishes you from a robot, WHEN?
After the 80 hours a week spent at work, 56 hours a week spent sleeping (going to work while sleep deprived is like going to work drunk, so they do expect you to sleep!), 3.5 hours a week spent showering (and they do expect you to come to work clean, wonder why), 10 hours a week spent in commuting to work, 7 hours a week spent on feeding yourself (and they do expect you to eat so you can work (I can spend weeks without eating, but then I won't be productive)), 4 hours a week to buy the groceries, and 7 hours a week spent on the internet or TV, there remains NO time for any hobby.
So if they want hobbies, they will have to reduce drastically work time.
After the 80 hours a week spent at work, 56 hours a week spent sleeping (going to work while sleep deprived is like going to work drunk, so they do expect you to sleep!), 3.5 hours a week spent showering (and they do expect you to come to work clean, wonder why), 10 hours a week spent in commuting to work, 7 hours a week spent on feeding yourself (and they do expect you to eat so you can work (I can spend weeks without eating, but then I won't be productive)), 4 hours a week to buy the groceries, and 7 hours a week spent on the internet or TV, there remains NO time for any hobby.
So if they want hobbies, they will have to reduce drastically work time.
Let's start from 80 hours a week spent at work. Red flag #1. Don't know why you would assume that's necessary
3.5 hours/week showering. Red flag #2. Even if you shower every single day, if you're spending 30 minutes in the shower each time you might as well call it a hobby. Unless you've got long luxurious hair, you should be able to get everything done in 10 minutes.
10 hours commuting, so 1 hour each way? #3 How much do you value your time? Clearly if you can't think of a hobby, not very much. If you did, you'd pay extra to not waste 2 hours every day wasted. But wait...why are you wasting that time? Can you read? Listen to audio books? Work on a side project? Even day dream and think? If you have to drive, can you switch from driving to motorcycling, and make that a hobby?
It sounds like you WANT to throw yourself into work, and spend all your energy and time into it as an excuse for lacking the ability to become a fully developed multi-faceted human being. And that is on you, not on your employer.
3.5 hours/week showering. Red flag #2. Even if you shower every single day, if you're spending 30 minutes in the shower each time you might as well call it a hobby. Unless you've got long luxurious hair, you should be able to get everything done in 10 minutes.
10 hours commuting, so 1 hour each way? #3 How much do you value your time? Clearly if you can't think of a hobby, not very much. If you did, you'd pay extra to not waste 2 hours every day wasted. But wait...why are you wasting that time? Can you read? Listen to audio books? Work on a side project? Even day dream and think? If you have to drive, can you switch from driving to motorcycling, and make that a hobby?
It sounds like you WANT to throw yourself into work, and spend all your energy and time into it as an excuse for lacking the ability to become a fully developed multi-faceted human being. And that is on you, not on your employer.
He used the word "shower", but I think he meant the time it takes to look respectable - so please add drying after shower, shaving, toilet trip(s), dressing, etc.
I have long, luxurious hair. Hair only stays long and luxurious if you don't wash it daily. My showers go from 5 minutes to 10-15 minutes on hair wash days.
If these are honestly the amounts of time you devote to these things, then you need to make a big change. If you're working 80 hours per week and can't afford to live closer to work, you're working the wrong job. Unless you're a founder (and really, even then it should be temporary), 80 hours is an unreasonable expectation from management. Showering shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. Groceries shouldn't take 4 hours per week to buy. Conversely, you should probably spend more than 7 hours per week eating, and hopefully with other people who you care about. You could easily free up ~40 hours to spend time with your friends and family or developing a hobby. It would be good for your long term health and happiness too.
I would never hire someone who overworks. There's too much risk of bad quality work in the short term, upset/grumbling workers in the mid term and depressive people in the long term. Brains need refreshment and creativity needs a full life outside work. When you build your company, your own ecosystem is a healthy as the lifestyle of the people who make it.
But again, this is valid in Australia and France. I know that people work too much in SF/US.
But again, this is valid in Australia and France. I know that people work too much in SF/US.
I don't know anyone who actually works 80 hours a week and I'm in NYC. They're all exaggerating. Most I know of is 60 and he loves it (finance). I'm in one of the most prominent coworking spaces in the city full of startups and the place is a ghost town after 7pm and before 9:30am.
I would subtract 20 hours from being at work. And you can shorten your commute if you choose to move. Many places are fine with you working on the train while commuting, or just working from home some days.
"Hopefully you follow it up with some personal detail that distinguishes you from a robot."
He mentioned having a family. That pretty much means he's not a robot.
He mentioned having a family. That pretty much means he's not a robot.
Which an employer may not want to ask for or know about since family status is a protected class in some jurisdictions.
"On May 11, 2014, Governor Mark Dayton signed the Women’s Economic Security Act (WESA), which amended the prohibitions against employment discrimination in the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Now, discrimination based on “familial status” in hiring, promotion, retention and other employment decisions is illegal in Minnesota." [1]
[1] http://mn.gov/mdhr/employers/familial_status.html
"On May 11, 2014, Governor Mark Dayton signed the Women’s Economic Security Act (WESA), which amended the prohibitions against employment discrimination in the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Now, discrimination based on “familial status” in hiring, promotion, retention and other employment decisions is illegal in Minnesota." [1]
[1] http://mn.gov/mdhr/employers/familial_status.html
I have a life that I put down hobbies for. It would be unfair to call my kids, my love life, social events with friends, and keeping up with my necessary life (bills, laundry, groceries, etc.) hobbies. But that's all I have time for, after I hold down a regular job. It's just plain ignorant for younger teams to expect a rockstar in AND out of the office.
Actually, I think those would be acceptable answers. As a young person who works with older coworkers, I'm perfectly willing to talk to you about your kids or buying groceries. I just want to relate to you in a conversation that isn't about work.
It's fine to relate, and I'm pretty sure we all need that. That's why I list hobbies/interests, as a point of departure from strictly relevant professional topics in a résumé. But it's also against most HR policies to ask about family-anything because few can do it without crossing some liability boundaries. This is a good conversation to have.
Talking about a hobby as if you still do it, in order to get the job and provide for your family, is not a lie anyone sane would say matters. Next time, don't sweat it.
Seriously? You'd take a job that requires that you lie about your personal life?
I wouldn't defend hiring based on hobbies, but it's pretty easy to make a comment like "I really like X, but these days I mostly do stuff with my family..." and it's a lot more human sounding than "I have no hobbies."
Agreed on your incredulity. I've never understood ethics behind such type of advice.
File it under Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people".
If there could ever be a treatise on psychopathy, that'd be it.
File it under Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people".
If there could ever be a treatise on psychopathy, that'd be it.
No job requires you to lie about your personal life, but if they're willing to give you credit for a lie that doesn't matter at all - why the hell not?
Although having said that, judging you so much on your "fit" is a pretty big red flag.
Although having said that, judging you so much on your "fit" is a pretty big red flag.
It may not matter to them at all, but shouldn't it matter to you?
With this stance, you and the OP are uncompromising on this issue which can be viewed as good or bad depending on context but I think in this case it's very unfavorable.
Everyone has hobbies just take the time to think about it and you will come up with something better than "none" which is not really exciting to hear and might send the wrong signal to the recruiter that you are not interested enough in the opening position.
Everyone has hobbies just take the time to think about it and you will come up with something better than "none" which is not really exciting to hear and might send the wrong signal to the recruiter that you are not interested enough in the opening position.
Thanks. I'm aware it's always an option, but I've been lucky so far to never be in a position where I need that job.
The greater implication of my post, IMO, is that as I age I'm more experienced but less attractive to some employers solely based on my age. I already look about five years older than I am, so perhaps my career will be much more short-lived than I anticipate and I will have no say in it. That actually terrifies me.
The greater implication of my post, IMO, is that as I age I'm more experienced but less attractive to some employers solely based on my age. I already look about five years older than I am, so perhaps my career will be much more short-lived than I anticipate and I will have no say in it. That actually terrifies me.
Sure, we all know how to get the job. That doesn't make the expectation or the question less specious.
I guess I'm insane, then.
If beer is an interview subject, the "brogrammer" culture has gotten out of hand. Now what, the three-martini lunch of the 1950s? (See "Mad Men".) No wonder we see so much crap code.
Here's a comment from an Ask HN I started pertaining to hiring: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9760639
I think it addresses the issue of not getting an offer because the existing team doesn't connect on as private/personal level.
I think it addresses the issue of not getting an offer because the existing team doesn't connect on as private/personal level.
Yep, I've always believes that there are times when you find yourself in a place you shouldn't be in. It isn't their fault and it isn't your fault, just different people who don't mesh and it's best to admit to it and walk away.
The cultural fit thing can be important in that a negative nancy can seriously cause problems in a group, to the point of people leaving due to getting such a negative view of management/business over time from the constant negativity.
It's a hard thing because there are definitely people you don't want to hire due to 'fit', but it's so hard to get it even fairly right.
The cultural fit thing can be important in that a negative nancy can seriously cause problems in a group, to the point of people leaving due to getting such a negative view of management/business over time from the constant negativity.
It's a hard thing because there are definitely people you don't want to hire due to 'fit', but it's so hard to get it even fairly right.
> a negative nancy can seriously cause problems in a group
I consider a negative Nate an attitude issue not a cultural fit issue. If I picked up on a negative attitude during ht interview, the candidate probably won't be offered the position.
I consider a negative Nate an attitude issue not a cultural fit issue. If I picked up on a negative attitude during ht interview, the candidate probably won't be offered the position.
How is a person's attitude not relevant to culture? Change everyone's attitude in the company: has the culture not changed?
Not to sound insulting, though this might be, but without knowing more details I'm going to assume you're failing at the soft interview questions. In an industry where creativity is just as important as engineering knowledge, it's absolutely critical that you nail your soft interview questions.
Don't be afraid or insulted by them, OWN them. Spend time this weekend thinking about what exactly your hobbies are. You definitely have them, even if it's spending time cleaning up baby mess. Think about things that bring a smile to your face and can project to others what your passions are in life.
Never lie and it bothers me that some replies below mention that as an option. However, do MARKET yourself.
The reason these interviewers are mentioning craft-beer to you is because they're trying to get inside your head and see what makes you tick. Beer is an easy way in SF to connect with a lot of people. So yea, no one cares you don't like beer, and I know plenty of people don't drink at all. I promise that that's not why you're not getting an offer. :)
Don't be afraid or insulted by them, OWN them. Spend time this weekend thinking about what exactly your hobbies are. You definitely have them, even if it's spending time cleaning up baby mess. Think about things that bring a smile to your face and can project to others what your passions are in life.
Never lie and it bothers me that some replies below mention that as an option. However, do MARKET yourself.
The reason these interviewers are mentioning craft-beer to you is because they're trying to get inside your head and see what makes you tick. Beer is an easy way in SF to connect with a lot of people. So yea, no one cares you don't like beer, and I know plenty of people don't drink at all. I promise that that's not why you're not getting an offer. :)
I would disagree that they are soft questions and just say that they're just bad and useless questions. The expectation tends to be that the candidate takes whatever is thrown at them, and in practice it does make a little sense: once you're in the interview, you're in the interview. But here, commenting on a forum, I'd rather push back and ask interviewers to stop asking questions that don't achieve anything useful, and won't achieve the insights they might imagine.
So instead of soft questions asking about hobbies, and excluding all the many examples of people families, why not talk about interesting on-the-job experiences? As one example. Interviewing well is a tough gig, but that's no excuse for continuing to do it poorly.
So instead of soft questions asking about hobbies, and excluding all the many examples of people families, why not talk about interesting on-the-job experiences? As one example. Interviewing well is a tough gig, but that's no excuse for continuing to do it poorly.
I would immediately hire you - just based on what I read. Seriously. I hate stereotypes, and not allowing people to differ from the average.
I also don't drink alcohol, and I don't watch TV or sports. Every time someone says something cryptic I assume it's baseball-related, and I'm right about 40% of the time.
Well, you're just doing the same exact thing. Instead of hiring someone who might watch a bit of baseball or grab a beer every once in a while, you'd prefer to hire someone just like you. That's still not good.
notNow(12)
> until we discovered the changes he had made to how things were stored in the database without considering the full implications.
sounds like he found the faults in your infrastructure, you should be thanking him
sounds like he found the faults in your infrastructure, you should be thanking him
Companies have to be very careful how they define cultural fit. If they leave it open, it can impart personal bias that are not at all beneficial to the company.
Maybe "value fit" should be used instead of cultural fit. Do your values align with the core values of the company.
The top NYTimes comment below illustrates some of the warts of a "cultural fit".
"Hiring managers who would never in a million years describe themselves or even privately consider themselves to be racist or sexist or ageist commonly use cultural-fit criteria to perpetrate racism, sexism, or agism in the workplace. I was recently in a meeting with two other managers to compare notes on a group of candidates whom we'd all just interviewed for a mid-level job. My top pick was a supremely well-qualified 45-year-old black woman who outscored all the other candidates on the skills test, was the only one to arrive on time for the interview, and was the only one who dressed professionally for the interview. It's a corporate job in Midtown. She was poised, amiable, and direct during my conversation with her, asked well-informed questions about the work and the company, and she was also the only candidate who sent a thank you letter after the interview. The other two hiring managers - both of whom, incidentally, were white women who were wearing Black Lives Matter pins - didn't think my top candidate "would be a good fit" or "feel comfortable." We hired a young white guy for the gig. He fits in the gang really well at happy hour, but his job performance is extremely poor. My two managerial colleagues have scheduled a meeting for next week to discuss what we're going to do about him. The good candidate is working for someone else now."
Maybe "value fit" should be used instead of cultural fit. Do your values align with the core values of the company.
The top NYTimes comment below illustrates some of the warts of a "cultural fit".
"Hiring managers who would never in a million years describe themselves or even privately consider themselves to be racist or sexist or ageist commonly use cultural-fit criteria to perpetrate racism, sexism, or agism in the workplace. I was recently in a meeting with two other managers to compare notes on a group of candidates whom we'd all just interviewed for a mid-level job. My top pick was a supremely well-qualified 45-year-old black woman who outscored all the other candidates on the skills test, was the only one to arrive on time for the interview, and was the only one who dressed professionally for the interview. It's a corporate job in Midtown. She was poised, amiable, and direct during my conversation with her, asked well-informed questions about the work and the company, and she was also the only candidate who sent a thank you letter after the interview. The other two hiring managers - both of whom, incidentally, were white women who were wearing Black Lives Matter pins - didn't think my top candidate "would be a good fit" or "feel comfortable." We hired a young white guy for the gig. He fits in the gang really well at happy hour, but his job performance is extremely poor. My two managerial colleagues have scheduled a meeting for next week to discuss what we're going to do about him. The good candidate is working for someone else now."
I agree with the point being made, but that story sounds made up. It ticks all the boxes, in a way that real-life stories rarely do.
" it can impart personal bias that are not at all beneficial to the company."
Beyond lip service, most people are more concerned with their own dept or team vs the entire company.
Beyond lip service, most people are more concerned with their own dept or team vs the entire company.
And this company that didn't hire the most-competent candidate: Would you say that they are now some how measurably worse-off within the market? At the very least, in relation to a potential competitor that did snag up that candidate?
If you're asking whether they "learnt" their lesson ... I very much doubt that cultures that entrench such biases are ever shaken up to reconsider the harmful effects (financial or otherwise) of their adopted attitudes. Don't underestimate the power of the "backfire effect" on the minds of middle-managers who don't want to be revealed as having made mistakes.
It takes a bold and courageous leader to admit mistakes in the corporate environment. Or a stupid one.
It takes a bold and courageous leader to admit mistakes in the corporate environment. Or a stupid one.
> If you're asking whether they "learnt" their lesson ...
I don't think that is the question. I believe the point being made was that the free market punishes this sort of behavior. You don't rely on the company's officers learning their lesson, or following the spirit of some law - you rely on market forces killing the company that passes over superior candidates.
I don't think that is the question. I believe the point being made was that the free market punishes this sort of behavior. You don't rely on the company's officers learning their lesson, or following the spirit of some law - you rely on market forces killing the company that passes over superior candidates.
The competitor that his hiring the best people in terms of skills and values (values that aligned with the companies core values); given everything else is equal will be much better off.
"Cultural fit" is just another form of discrimination, a currently legal alternative to racism, sexism, and other forms of illegal discrimination in the US to keep the "unliked" and "unwanted" out of jobs. The author acknowledges this, yet still sees fit to add advice for using cultural fit; that weakens the article a bit, but not much.
The reality is "cultural fit" should never be used to make decisions. It is never right, either as a predictor of performance or ethically. Companies and interviewers already have an incredibly difficult time figuring out ways in which to judge qualifications, even when standard tests and procedures are available. To add in this nonsensical idea of "cultural fit," something that can't be measured, quantified, qualified, or identified, and to make that a selection criteria for applicants not only shirks the duty to hire the most qualified, but gives the company and interviewers an unchallengeable way to reject applicants, an option that otherwise would--and should--be illegal.
tldr: Cultural fit is discrimination, it cannot predict job performance or any otherwise meaningful information related to a candidate's skills and abilities, and should be illegal as its only use is to deny qualified applicants jobs they qualify for.
The reality is "cultural fit" should never be used to make decisions. It is never right, either as a predictor of performance or ethically. Companies and interviewers already have an incredibly difficult time figuring out ways in which to judge qualifications, even when standard tests and procedures are available. To add in this nonsensical idea of "cultural fit," something that can't be measured, quantified, qualified, or identified, and to make that a selection criteria for applicants not only shirks the duty to hire the most qualified, but gives the company and interviewers an unchallengeable way to reject applicants, an option that otherwise would--and should--be illegal.
tldr: Cultural fit is discrimination, it cannot predict job performance or any otherwise meaningful information related to a candidate's skills and abilities, and should be illegal as its only use is to deny qualified applicants jobs they qualify for.
Cultural fit can definitely impact performance. Imagine a luddite working for a biotechnology company, or an anarchist working for the government, or a muslim working for an atheist non-profit. These people would never find the motivation to perform better than the absolute minimum required to keep their jobs because their goals and the goals of the organization are complete opposites. They could even go as far as sabotaging the performance of others by creating a toxic work environment.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of Muslims who could help an atheist non profit by maintaining their professionalism. Likewise for your other examples. By assuming that they will let their beliefs sabotage their work, you're judging a whole group by the potential actions of zero or more people. That's just discrimination against people with these various beliefs without proof. By this line of reasoning you could say that Catholics should never be hired at planned parenthood because they will sabotage it. Total load of bull shit and exactly the reason "cultural fit" should be illegal. It's just plain discrimination.
They can be professional all they like but if they only have money as a motivator to work at a place they hate then they'll just be poor performers. They won't have the energy to do more than the bare minimum. Motivation is just not something that you can command at will.
How is that different from the majority of people who are only motivated by money to work? You're right, motivation is not something you can command at will. Nor is it something that you can detect in others or stereotype across a vast group of people as you're doing here.
> if they only have money as a motivator to work at a place they hate then they'll just be poor performers. They won't have the energy to do more than the bare minimum.
Source?
Source?
Common sense.
Funny. It's the main thing I look for when I'm interveiwing companies that I'm looking to work for.
Nothing wrong with that. When you're interviewing, you can use any criteria you like because you're not denying people (except yourself, which is your right) jobs they're qualified for based on random, often discriminatory information.
The process of interviewing future colleagues is the same from both sides of the bench.
Best reason to visit a top school. So you become more similar to the people running the country.
Ouch.
Even if what you say could be true, is it a good thing to send our kids to institutions of learning so that they can become arse-licking sycophants? Is that even a conscious decision in parenting?
Even if what you say could be true, is it a good thing to send our kids to institutions of learning so that they can become arse-licking sycophants? Is that even a conscious decision in parenting?
Speaking as a lower-income student who went to an Ivy League university, appearing more similar to those in power is an entirely different thing than becoming an "arse-licking sycophant".
I'd argue that going to a so-called "elite" institution is more akin to learning a language by immersion.
I'd argue that going to a so-called "elite" institution is more akin to learning a language by immersion.
There was a whole article about this recently... I forget where, probably the NY Times. Have you read it? Quite illuminating for me. Didn't even realize there was this whole issue/culture about being low-income + Ivy.
I have; it was a very solid portrait of one portion of the low-income/high-achieving cohort.
What most of these articles fail to mention is that there are three aspects to the traditional socioeconomic diversity narrative: low income, race/ethnicity, and familial educational achievement. As an Asian American whose parents both had PhDs, I've been in the unique position of having only one of the three factors affecting me.
What most of these articles fail to mention is that there are three aspects to the traditional socioeconomic diversity narrative: low income, race/ethnicity, and familial educational achievement. As an Asian American whose parents both had PhDs, I've been in the unique position of having only one of the three factors affecting me.
The height of this was probably reached in Britain, where minor details of language and behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English http://www.helsinki.fi/jarj/ufy/24991_s113_150Ross.pdf were an infallible giveaway as to who had or had not been to public school.
"appearing more similar to those in power" ...
So you must possess the talent of Tom Ripley?
So you must possess the talent of Tom Ripley?
I don't think that's true; it's really more about learning the lingua franca of a different world. Style, hobbies, etc. I didn't know what "rowing crew" was until I got to college, and to be honest, I still have no idea how lacrosse is played.
Lacrosse / Field Hockey is for those who cant handle playing Rugger.
I recall one of my first Bosses who went to the same public school as one of Pres Obamas roommates at Harvard said the school sports are Rugger, Rowing and Drinking Beer
I recall one of my first Bosses who went to the same public school as one of Pres Obamas roommates at Harvard said the school sports are Rugger, Rowing and Drinking Beer
You send the kids to Stanford so their ares will be the ones licked by syciphants.
[deleted]
I hire for Attitude and Aptitude.
If you have a crappy attitude I can't do anything to help you there.
If you have the aptitude and your attitude is positive, can-do, willing to learn, we can teach you anything you need to know or you can learn it on the job.
I too worry that "Cultural Fit" is becoming the new "don't like them" excuse of the day. I try hard to hire people who think about problems differently than myself or other members of my team. My hope is to get as many angles as possible to see problems from so we together as a team can find solutions that might not have been obvious if each of us has a homogeneous view driven by some bogus "cultural fit".
What I know about my life is I was born with almost none of the skills I leverage every day. From the ability to walk and talk, I've had to learn it all. I feel focusing too much on fit and skills is like judging a baby on how cute it is. Basically useless.
If you have a crappy attitude I can't do anything to help you there.
If you have the aptitude and your attitude is positive, can-do, willing to learn, we can teach you anything you need to know or you can learn it on the job.
I too worry that "Cultural Fit" is becoming the new "don't like them" excuse of the day. I try hard to hire people who think about problems differently than myself or other members of my team. My hope is to get as many angles as possible to see problems from so we together as a team can find solutions that might not have been obvious if each of us has a homogeneous view driven by some bogus "cultural fit".
What I know about my life is I was born with almost none of the skills I leverage every day. From the ability to walk and talk, I've had to learn it all. I feel focusing too much on fit and skills is like judging a baby on how cute it is. Basically useless.
Cultural Fit is, in fact, routinely used to make discriminatory choices that aren't rooted in anything related to what it takes to succeed.
Worse, people like Peter Thiel and Max Levchin celebrate this and encourage other startups not to hire women and not to hire men who are even slightly different than themselves. These are influential people and they're purposefully using their influence to make the world a dramatically worse place. You might think I'm exaggerating, but I'm actually understating the amount of discrimination that they encourage.
Good cultural fit is about being able to perform on the team. But most SV cultural fit is about being able to party with the team. It's a different thing.
The good news for founders who aren't bigoted assholes is that this means there's less competition for diverse talent, and if you can help those folks know that they'll feel welcome in your office, they'll be knocking at your door.
Worse, people like Peter Thiel and Max Levchin celebrate this and encourage other startups not to hire women and not to hire men who are even slightly different than themselves. These are influential people and they're purposefully using their influence to make the world a dramatically worse place. You might think I'm exaggerating, but I'm actually understating the amount of discrimination that they encourage.
Good cultural fit is about being able to perform on the team. But most SV cultural fit is about being able to party with the team. It's a different thing.
The good news for founders who aren't bigoted assholes is that this means there's less competition for diverse talent, and if you can help those folks know that they'll feel welcome in your office, they'll be knocking at your door.
I'd possibly agree with you, but, can you give references for the allegations about Thiel and Levchin?
I would love to get your input on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9760203
Interview them all and get as many people on your team as possible to talk to them.
At the end of the day the most important decision a company can make is about hiring.
The second is about firing.
Do the math, which one has a better ROI?
At the end of the day the most important decision a company can make is about hiring.
The second is about firing.
Do the math, which one has a better ROI?
I think the key is to define within the company, what the cultural values are, and then talk about how to check if a person is aligned with them or not.
At the company I work for, we value creativity, independence and taking ownership and responsibility of one's work. It sounds generic but it's not - people who like structured workplaces and process, just wither and don't succeed. So we try to assess that in interviews, and we took the time actually define what are our values (it goes way beyond this example).
Over time we became better at this, and it actually contributed more heterogeneous hires. Since you don't have to assess people on your personal chemistry and how much they're like you personally - you have better tools do do that. This approach opened the door to people who fit with the work culture, even though they're not similar to the core "social DNA" of the team, and that's just fine, it works well for everyone.
At the company I work for, we value creativity, independence and taking ownership and responsibility of one's work. It sounds generic but it's not - people who like structured workplaces and process, just wither and don't succeed. So we try to assess that in interviews, and we took the time actually define what are our values (it goes way beyond this example).
Over time we became better at this, and it actually contributed more heterogeneous hires. Since you don't have to assess people on your personal chemistry and how much they're like you personally - you have better tools do do that. This approach opened the door to people who fit with the work culture, even though they're not similar to the core "social DNA" of the team, and that's just fine, it works well for everyone.
This strikes me as striving for "cultural fit" at a company that actually knows what its culture is, or at least what it wants its culture to be. That could genuinely help -- but the actual list seems like the important part. Without the list, it's just finding somebody everyone wants to be friends with.
Yep, I guess finding someone everyone likes and is similar socially to the team - is a rough approximation, before you defined what your culture actually is or should be.
BTW when we sat down and defined it, we tried conveying this to the whole team because not everyone was aligned with those values. One or two people actually came forward after that in private, and said something like "I get what you want from the team, I don't think I can find myself in this culture, and I think it's better for both sides that I leave". I have huge respect for that.
BTW when we sat down and defined it, we tried conveying this to the whole team because not everyone was aligned with those values. One or two people actually came forward after that in private, and said something like "I get what you want from the team, I don't think I can find myself in this culture, and I think it's better for both sides that I leave". I have huge respect for that.
The examples in the articles are obviously bad choices though. Cultural fit should be about work behaviour, not what you do in your free time. Whether someone likes sports or whiskey shouldn't matter.
Whether they prefer to have large meetings vs one-on-ones is the kind of thing you want to know, but it's probably not a great idea to prioritize that over actual ability.
Whether they prefer to have large meetings vs one-on-ones is the kind of thing you want to know, but it's probably not a great idea to prioritize that over actual ability.
In my opinion "cultural fit" is important, but it has to be about work culture. For instance: are you comfortable with code reviews (or lack of thereof), coding standards, how are you positioning yourself with respect to pressure, etc.
I overlooked this when joining my current team and I'm already thinking about finding a new place to land!
I wholeheartedly agree with the need to make cultural fit bigger than just "happy hour" fit, but primarily on moral grounds. I haven't seen strong data to make a technical case here.
Do we observe discrepancies between company performance that are correlated with diversity? They say this is observable at the team level in controlled studies, but at the macro level do we see it?
Put another way, if diversity was a strong influence on success, why do elite institutions in banking and tech not appear to exhibit much of it?
Do we observe discrepancies between company performance that are correlated with diversity? They say this is observable at the team level in controlled studies, but at the macro level do we see it?
Put another way, if diversity was a strong influence on success, why do elite institutions in banking and tech not appear to exhibit much of it?
Hiring for cultural fit is just laziness, and interviewers should stop using it as a "metric".
Assessing for ability is extremely difficult - in the case of programming positions, technical interview processes either suffer from a large number of false negatives (e.g. the "Google filter") or a large number of false positives (e.g. "this person doesn't know how to write a for loop; how did they get hired?").
Per the article, most interviewers interpret "cultural fit" as "personal fit" - how well do you like the interviewee? The example heuristics (going out for a beer with the candidate, spending a snowy night in an airport together, etc) have very little to do with company culture and very much to do with answering the question: "Do I like this person?".
Any 4 year old can tell when they like somebody. It's one of the easiest things in the world for a human being to assess.
Technical ability, on the other hand, is one of the hardest things in the world for human beings to asses, at least in the context of an interview. Assessing for "cultural fit" - which on the face of it makes perfect sense as a hiring metric - devolves into a way to avoid doing something difficult (assess technical ability) by doing something easy (assess personal affinity).
Assessing for ability is extremely difficult - in the case of programming positions, technical interview processes either suffer from a large number of false negatives (e.g. the "Google filter") or a large number of false positives (e.g. "this person doesn't know how to write a for loop; how did they get hired?").
Per the article, most interviewers interpret "cultural fit" as "personal fit" - how well do you like the interviewee? The example heuristics (going out for a beer with the candidate, spending a snowy night in an airport together, etc) have very little to do with company culture and very much to do with answering the question: "Do I like this person?".
Any 4 year old can tell when they like somebody. It's one of the easiest things in the world for a human being to assess.
Technical ability, on the other hand, is one of the hardest things in the world for human beings to asses, at least in the context of an interview. Assessing for "cultural fit" - which on the face of it makes perfect sense as a hiring metric - devolves into a way to avoid doing something difficult (assess technical ability) by doing something easy (assess personal affinity).
For most high-exec types, cultural fit is one of the only excuses to justify their position and achievements.
The technical barriers for these jobs are very small, but as corporations have a self-reinforcing cronyist culture, "acting and being part of the wolves" is the most important thing.
Not only will qualified people not get a chance, but many sectors end up collapsing or getting stuck. For example, for a decent "banker", it wouldnt be hard to predict events in 07-09.
The technical barriers for these jobs are very small, but as corporations have a self-reinforcing cronyist culture, "acting and being part of the wolves" is the most important thing.
Not only will qualified people not get a chance, but many sectors end up collapsing or getting stuck. For example, for a decent "banker", it wouldnt be hard to predict events in 07-09.
This is exactly right. Corporations are pyramids, where each rung feeds the higher rung. Consequently, there are plenty of people with the right experience for each promotion. Who gets that promotion? Well, since it generally doesn't matter, it's decided politically.
I was once let go from a company for "just not being a good fit" after landing them a successful contract with bigTechCo here in the bay area and earning them over $1mm in services.
Further, they had showed me that my bonus was going to be over $27K one three separate occasions, then they let me go before having to pay me the bonus because I had to be actually employed there to receive my share of the money earned from me doing 100% of the work.
People should not be able to be fired for "not being a good fit" they should have concrete documented issues on which to fire someone.
Further, they had showed me that my bonus was going to be over $27K one three separate occasions, then they let me go before having to pay me the bonus because I had to be actually employed there to receive my share of the money earned from me doing 100% of the work.
People should not be able to be fired for "not being a good fit" they should have concrete documented issues on which to fire someone.
This sentence:
"Crucially, though, for these gatekeepers, fit was not about a match with organizational values. It was about personal fit."
For all of you defending hiring on fit, which fit are you thinking about?
"Crucially, though, for these gatekeepers, fit was not about a match with organizational values. It was about personal fit."
For all of you defending hiring on fit, which fit are you thinking about?
[deleted]
I think of my work in terms of seeing unexplored areas to go with software (e.g. support self-insight or personal growth). I prefer to work with people having a similar perspective and aesthetic sensibility. A lot of the examples in this article seemed absurd to me - fit or misfit because of your preferred sports teams?
As a Myers-Briggs "intuitive", maybe I "fit" with people having a similar outlook and values, while "sensory" folks fit with people who've had similar experiences and hobbies. I wonder if similarities in this dimension dominates the other MBTI dimensions in accounting for fit (e.g. introversion/extroversion, thinking/feeling, perceiving/judging).
Any research on this? Seems like a worthwhile question.
As a Myers-Briggs "intuitive", maybe I "fit" with people having a similar outlook and values, while "sensory" folks fit with people who've had similar experiences and hobbies. I wonder if similarities in this dimension dominates the other MBTI dimensions in accounting for fit (e.g. introversion/extroversion, thinking/feeling, perceiving/judging).
Any research on this? Seems like a worthwhile question.
When interviewing, one of things I deliberately look for is people who are not like the current team. People who are not a "cultural fit", whatever that even means.
I need people with different ideas, different experience; people who will approach the problems in a different way, fill in the blind spots and vulnerabilities the current team has.
There's a trade-off to be made, sure, but professional adults can work together with people that are not the same as them, and a team composed of people who think differently and have different approaches and different experience is far more advantageous than a team of people who all think and work in the same way.
I need people with different ideas, different experience; people who will approach the problems in a different way, fill in the blind spots and vulnerabilities the current team has.
There's a trade-off to be made, sure, but professional adults can work together with people that are not the same as them, and a team composed of people who think differently and have different approaches and different experience is far more advantageous than a team of people who all think and work in the same way.
What dimensions of difference do you look for?
Some examples off the top of my head:
Desktop applications experience vs. embedded software experience
(I say "vs"; I don't mean they're opposed, but that someone with a lot of experience in one of those will think about things in a different way to someone with experience in the other; it's a spectrum along such a dimension).
Pure software experience vs. designer/seller of hardware+software
Computer Science degree vs. other technical degree (Maths, Physics, Engineering)
Technical degree vs. arts degree
Degree vs. on-the-job/self-taught
Experience in big megacorps vs. experience in small companies
Experience in established companies vs. experience in new businesses or startups
Experienced vs. inexperienced (this one is more broadly "life " experience, and it could roughly translate to older vs. younger, but it's not quite that simple)
Consumer apps experience vs. business-to-business
Mobile devices experience vs. supercomputer number-crunching
And so on. More, I expect.
So, for example, if I had a team of Computer Science graduates, I might wonder if they're all thinking about problems through the lens of their classes on algorithms and data-structures and so forth, and maybe a mathematician would think about these same problems in a different way.
If I had a team with a lot of people from global defence industry megacorps used to spending a decade on a project and ensuring that all reqts are solid up front, I might think that someone from a startup might bring a different approach to the software life-cycle (and, of course, vice-versa).
Adding another person to a team who thinks the same just gives me more of the same. If I want to make fewer mistakes and have more novel ideas, I need to fill in gaps. Not every gap, and there's always a balance, but a professional adult can work effectively with people who are not the same as them. I'm not hiring in the hopes of creating a group of people who really like each other.
Desktop applications experience vs. embedded software experience
(I say "vs"; I don't mean they're opposed, but that someone with a lot of experience in one of those will think about things in a different way to someone with experience in the other; it's a spectrum along such a dimension).
Pure software experience vs. designer/seller of hardware+software
Computer Science degree vs. other technical degree (Maths, Physics, Engineering)
Technical degree vs. arts degree
Degree vs. on-the-job/self-taught
Experience in big megacorps vs. experience in small companies
Experience in established companies vs. experience in new businesses or startups
Experienced vs. inexperienced (this one is more broadly "life " experience, and it could roughly translate to older vs. younger, but it's not quite that simple)
Consumer apps experience vs. business-to-business
Mobile devices experience vs. supercomputer number-crunching
And so on. More, I expect.
So, for example, if I had a team of Computer Science graduates, I might wonder if they're all thinking about problems through the lens of their classes on algorithms and data-structures and so forth, and maybe a mathematician would think about these same problems in a different way.
If I had a team with a lot of people from global defence industry megacorps used to spending a decade on a project and ensuring that all reqts are solid up front, I might think that someone from a startup might bring a different approach to the software life-cycle (and, of course, vice-versa).
Adding another person to a team who thinks the same just gives me more of the same. If I want to make fewer mistakes and have more novel ideas, I need to fill in gaps. Not every gap, and there's always a balance, but a professional adult can work effectively with people who are not the same as them. I'm not hiring in the hopes of creating a group of people who really like each other.
The obvious solution is complete freedom of association. (To the extent that "fit" doesn't help companies succeed, it is its own punishment.) But this would make for a short article. It would also make for simple laws, and would prevent busybodies from making other company's hiring practices their business. But we couldn't have that—not in the Land of the Free.
I don't fit in! Then again, I am a genuine feminist, which to me means I am happy to let the missus (who does fit in) focus on her career, which she prefers anyway, while I, as a dad, stay at home and parent the kid(s). Feminism, f* yeah!
All I can do now is wait until they're old enough to learn a thing or two about computers if they are so inclined...
All I can do now is wait until they're old enough to learn a thing or two about computers if they are so inclined...
[deleted]
How about remote teams?
At previous startup we had guys from: Germany, Russia, US, Romania, Brasil, Ukraine, Philippines.
Our "cultural fit" was just about: Be a Hacker (innovative, open-minded).
At previous startup we had guys from: Germany, Russia, US, Romania, Brasil, Ukraine, Philippines.
Our "cultural fit" was just about: Be a Hacker (innovative, open-minded).
And be able to communicate well in a shared language - most likely English.
Good point. Not knowing english well enough is a good technical barrier. I've been working on a project in english for the past two months, and although I speak and write sufficiently good and fluently, I still see a huge distance in front of me. I can't think, express and discuss so easily. It's like I've slept badly for some days. It's frustratingly. And it takes time to overcome, so any test period that you have with a candidate won't be enough for that to be overcome (not that I propose hiring people for a couple of years to see whether their english levels improve, mind you)
[deleted]
Our "cultural fit" was just about: Be a Hacker.
Why did you put "cultural fit" in quotes? Your criterion is just as poorly defined as everyone else's "cultural fit" criteria and, just like theirs, acts as a way to simply exclude people because they're not like you.
Why did you put "cultural fit" in quotes? Your criterion is just as poorly defined as everyone else's "cultural fit" criteria and, just like theirs, acts as a way to simply exclude people because they're not like you.
I believe using quotes like he did is shorthand to indicate that you think the term is illegitimate and a bit silly, so you may be in agreement with him.
[deleted]
"Be a hacker" is not cultural though. It's skill.
He's saying they are just using skill as a criterion.
He's saying they are just using skill as a criterion.
Being a hacker is very cultural. From the Jargon File:
"Except in some relatively minor respects such as slang vocabulary, hackers don't get to be the way they are by imitating each other. Rather, it seems to be the case that the combination of personality traits that makes a hacker so conditions one's outlook on life that one tends to end up being like other hackers whether one wants to or not (much as bizarrely detailed similarities in behavior and preferences are found in genetic twins raised separately)."
"Except in some relatively minor respects such as slang vocabulary, hackers don't get to be the way they are by imitating each other. Rather, it seems to be the case that the combination of personality traits that makes a hacker so conditions one's outlook on life that one tends to end up being like other hackers whether one wants to or not (much as bizarrely detailed similarities in behavior and preferences are found in genetic twins raised separately)."
For me "Be a hacker" is kind of innovative & startupish spirit, the way of life and doing things different, open-mindness, never ending learning.
Well then please, say that. You'll note in the comments below that there's someone who defines "hacker" as "person who can code".
If what you seek is open-mindedness to new ways of thinking and new ways of doing things, a positive attitude to learning, a desire to explore the software and hardware beyond the level purely necessary to meet the requirements, then say all these things so people know what you mean (and so that you do get applications from people with two decades of experience applying all these values to their life - some of those applicants can blow you away, if you can look past the smart suit; twenty years as a working adult with an attitude of never-ending learning can create some seriously skilled people).
You started your definition with "For me"; clearly, you already know that this is your definition. I bet there are people you work with who actually have a different definition but because you all use the same word, you don't realise it (cf. the common political phrases "our common values" and "hard-working families" - everyone has a personal definition of this that they simply project onto the phrase).
If what you seek is open-mindedness to new ways of thinking and new ways of doing things, a positive attitude to learning, a desire to explore the software and hardware beyond the level purely necessary to meet the requirements, then say all these things so people know what you mean (and so that you do get applications from people with two decades of experience applying all these values to their life - some of those applicants can blow you away, if you can look past the smart suit; twenty years as a working adult with an attitude of never-ending learning can create some seriously skilled people).
You started your definition with "For me"; clearly, you already know that this is your definition. I bet there are people you work with who actually have a different definition but because you all use the same word, you don't realise it (cf. the common political phrases "our common values" and "hard-working families" - everyone has a personal definition of this that they simply project onto the phrase).
WTF are you talking about? "Hacker" is entirely cultural.
It was in its infancy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(programmer_subculture) ) and it is now. Part of it's current culture is the pretence that it's all about skill; it's not. The completely lacking in skill won't get recognised as part of it, but it's attitude and style that buys admission to that club.
These days, software places that are looking for "hackers" generally mean they're looking for inexperienced youngsters who have dabbled in a handful of currently trending web frameworks, but have "Agile" written on the crumpled t-shirt they will wear to the interview. The world's finest software engineer could turn up but because that person has decades of experience, plans their software before they write it, children in college and a liking for going home at five, the world's finest software engineer will be rejected on grounds of "culture fit". HN is heaving with people who have immersion baptised themselves in this particular kool-aid.
It was in its infancy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(programmer_subculture) ) and it is now. Part of it's current culture is the pretence that it's all about skill; it's not. The completely lacking in skill won't get recognised as part of it, but it's attitude and style that buys admission to that club.
These days, software places that are looking for "hackers" generally mean they're looking for inexperienced youngsters who have dabbled in a handful of currently trending web frameworks, but have "Agile" written on the crumpled t-shirt they will wear to the interview. The world's finest software engineer could turn up but because that person has decades of experience, plans their software before they write it, children in college and a liking for going home at five, the world's finest software engineer will be rejected on grounds of "culture fit". HN is heaving with people who have immersion baptised themselves in this particular kool-aid.
A subculture that requires you to have a specific skill...
Any skill. There are bio-hackers. Lock-hackers. Engine-hackers. Clothing-hackers. On and on and on. The skill has become irrelevant. Just any skill. Attitude and style is now what makes it "hacker".
Must be a changing thing. I've always thought "hacker" without qualifiers meant "person who can code".
At risk of showing my age, it never meant that; or at least, if that's what it means now, it's a very modern interpretation and the word has basically become meaningless.
I've got a copy of Levy's "Hackers" on my desk, printed in 1984. The first chapter opens in the late fifties (i.e. almost sixty years ago) in the MIT model railway club.
"Hackers" are (or at least, were) people who solved problems in a particular way. A good hack involved some clever dodge around a limitation, or some new creative technical thinking to achieve a task. In code terms, someone might find a way round a memory limitation by reusing something in a non-standard way, or perhaps someone might hide some extra calculation in the fly-back time of a CRT monitor. Hacks show a knowledge and understanding beyond the standard methods, a knowledge and understanding often gathered through exploring deeply and chasing personal itches; creativity based on a more thorough understanding than just knowing the syntax. The skill good hackers tended to have was just a base knowledge that allowed their creativity to fly; sometimes someone would churn out a creative, non-standard solution purely because they didn't have the skill needed, and didn't know the elegant standard method.
A "person who can code" is not a hacker (under the traditional definition, at least). That's simply a person who can code. Some of the finest programmers are not hackers. Some of the finest hackers are not outstanding programmers. Yes, there's a broad correlation; good hackers tend to be good programmers (although certainly not the other way around), but the two terms are by no means synonymous.
If you've not read Levy's "Hackers", it's a good read.
I've got a copy of Levy's "Hackers" on my desk, printed in 1984. The first chapter opens in the late fifties (i.e. almost sixty years ago) in the MIT model railway club.
"Hackers" are (or at least, were) people who solved problems in a particular way. A good hack involved some clever dodge around a limitation, or some new creative technical thinking to achieve a task. In code terms, someone might find a way round a memory limitation by reusing something in a non-standard way, or perhaps someone might hide some extra calculation in the fly-back time of a CRT monitor. Hacks show a knowledge and understanding beyond the standard methods, a knowledge and understanding often gathered through exploring deeply and chasing personal itches; creativity based on a more thorough understanding than just knowing the syntax. The skill good hackers tended to have was just a base knowledge that allowed their creativity to fly; sometimes someone would churn out a creative, non-standard solution purely because they didn't have the skill needed, and didn't know the elegant standard method.
A "person who can code" is not a hacker (under the traditional definition, at least). That's simply a person who can code. Some of the finest programmers are not hackers. Some of the finest hackers are not outstanding programmers. Yes, there's a broad correlation; good hackers tend to be good programmers (although certainly not the other way around), but the two terms are by no means synonymous.
If you've not read Levy's "Hackers", it's a good read.
It only means that today because so many people idolize hackers and so many people want to hire hackers that everyone just calls themselves hackers as a political move.
The only skills a "Hacker" needs is to be able to learn new things quickly and curiosity.
You seem to be confusing "hacker" with "hipster".
It wasn't me who pushed those two words so close together. I sometimes wonder when those who were known as "hackers" back when it meant something will find a new word, but then I remember that they tend to love word games and will never decide on anything, and they've got better things to do with their time anyway.
"Guys" is an exclusive label.
Usually, but it depends on cultural context.
For example, where I'm from (West Ireland), the term "Lads" is often used for everyone regardless of gender. One might hear a lady say she's "Going out with the lads" when describing a night out, with even a mostly female group of companions.
Basically, we should try to not use language which excludes others, but in some cases the person is actually using gender-neutral language from their culture and does not intend to exclude anyone.
For example, where I'm from (West Ireland), the term "Lads" is often used for everyone regardless of gender. One might hear a lady say she's "Going out with the lads" when describing a night out, with even a mostly female group of companions.
Basically, we should try to not use language which excludes others, but in some cases the person is actually using gender-neutral language from their culture and does not intend to exclude anyone.
It all depends on context. "I'm going to go hang out with the guys." yes, exclusive. "Hey guys, I'm going to work." not exclusive. Try focusing on the meaning being conveyed and not the glyphs representing it.
I don't think the issue is as simple as that. Here is more on the topic: https://subfictional.com/2012/07/02/language-matters-stop-us...
Douglas Hofstadter wrote a classic essay on this as well: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
This one is right up there with A Modest Proposal.
The strangest part of that article is this:
I understand how ingrained the “guys” habit might be for
some of you. It was for me. After several months of
concerted, conscious effort, I still slip and say it on oc-
casion.
Not really. She is conciously trying not to use it, and admits to accidentally slipping up when she reverts to unconciously choosing biased terms. She seems to want others to do the same thing, and think about the words they are using, and their potential impact, which is a Good Thing generally.
[deleted]
What the author is trying to say is that this label is deeply ingrained into our cultural stereotypes but we should strive try to change the situation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't know where this author comes from, but obviously not the Northeast or West coasts of the US where "guys" has been used to refer to mixed gender groups for decades. It's no different that "y'all" which is more popular in other parts of the country. Words and phrases change meaning all the time. The essay fails to understand such a simple concept and is just plain stupid because of it.
Triggered!
I'm often hired exactly because I do not "fit" within the culture, but because I am apparently African American, it becomes important to trial a litmus test.
I think "culture fit" is generally opportunity for both sides to determine if their brands of humor are compatible.
If you cannot laugh with your coworkers, why work there?
A large part of the "human-centric" modality of web design, for instance, involves writing less code and solving human needs. If you do not have hobbies, etc., why participate in what is inherently a social activity? You are writing code for humans, and humans are likely those wherein you will craft and discover solutions.
I think "culture fit" is generally opportunity for both sides to determine if their brands of humor are compatible.
If you cannot laugh with your coworkers, why work there?
A large part of the "human-centric" modality of web design, for instance, involves writing less code and solving human needs. If you do not have hobbies, etc., why participate in what is inherently a social activity? You are writing code for humans, and humans are likely those wherein you will craft and discover solutions.
so if you don't fit, what options are available to you?
Find a company that doesn't work to exclude you? I wouldn't say I fit anywhere, but I'm not unemployed.
I also don't remember questions about anything outside of work during the interview either.
I also don't remember questions about anything outside of work during the interview either.
[deleted]
I've also had it happen to me that I pass every technical interview, and then when I meet the team, we'll go for lunch and they'll order beer and I get an orange juice. Drinking comes up as a subject and since I don't drink alcohol my lack of craft beer knowledge somehow becomes the subject of my interview. Needless to say, I've always been rejected at these jobs. Another one is hobbies. I've a family and my commute is LONG, to the point that I don't even play PC games anymore. Hobbies come up, I have none, and I have no intention of lying to get the job. I've learned since that these are companies I don't want to work for. I've gotten along with everyone at every job I've had, so I'm not intimidated by these, but every one I've had has been utterly pointless.