Alternative take: in the hiring process education is often used as a proxy for motivation, when actually it only proves that once upon a time someone was motivated long enough to get educated, but it doesn't actually say anything about their present state in terms of motivation.
A 'Do-er' is at least at present motivated, and educating them will get them to the desired combination of education+motivation in the present, even if that education is going to be by necessity a very narrow one (typically: job specific).
Being hungry for money and creature comforts also tends to be conflated with being motivated ('ambitious'), but it doesn't really align well because once financial success (for some very modest success) is attained the motivation will vanish. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it tends to confuse people who were not aware of the driving power being the outwardly visible motivation.
The movie 'Rush' has a nice bit about that, James Hunt just wants to be WDC, once. He doesn't care about anything past that point because it will give him what he wants. But until he's got it he will be super motivated.
I hired someone well educated from a Top Ivy League university but they had no motivation whatsoever. I tried my best, gave them everything they wanted (money, work style, tools, training) but they just wouldn't want to be motivated and we failed collectively. They were very smart otherwise and definitely could learn the skills.
When I am hiring, for me the biggest things are motivation, curiosity and caring for your own career. If you don't show me those traits, I am very hesitant to hire you. I meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves but are just randomly sending their Resume hoping it sticks.
> I meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves but are just randoming sending their Resume hoping it sticks.
Yeah, well, while I'm working on that I still need to put food on the table, so I'll apologize ahead of time for faking like I give a rats ass about a career long enough to get through the interview process.
Exactly this! I cannot believe someone is naïve enough to think total strangers will start caring about some company's progress, profits and reputation just because they are being paid minimum wage.
Sorry, literally 99% of people who are seen as "do-ers" or motivated are only putting up a show to be hired and to keep their jobs. Being hungry and homeless is a great motivator. None is genuinely excited about your business as much as you are, and if you require them to be, then pay them a CEO salary.
This doesn't make sense. There are loads of people (myself included) who are intrinsically motivated to do good work.
And not just in the tech industry. Look at all the volunteer opportunities, unpajd city boards, etc that people get themselves involved in. People can be motivated by wanting to make a difference. And yes, some software companies do in fact make products and services that make a difference in people's lives.
> Look at all the volunteer opportunities, unpajd city boards, etc that people get themselves involved in.
Positions such as these often pay in increased social status. Just because the compensation is intangible doesn’t mean it’s not real. Working at an animal shelter may well raise your status with potential partners. Working on a city advisory board will definitely get you noticed and can be a stepping board toward political office. And even an unpaid senior position at a well-funded and prestigious foundation results in a great deal of clout.
> Working at an animal shelter may well raise your status with potential partners.
This sounds like an unhealthily cynical view to hold. I certainly hope it does not come as a surprise to hear that some people just genuinely do love animals. Not everything in life boils down to running laps on a hedonic treadmill.
It's not always social status, especially for people who volunteer but don't tell anyone. It can often be ideology and principles, from people who want to pay a favour forward (e.g. if they received help from the past).
I do agree there are other intangibles, though (sense of community with fellow volunteers, sense of freedom by doing something exceptional, work experience). These intangibles are good things (mutual benefit).
Some people also benefit without expectation of reward. There could be an argument of self-interest (e.g. to feel good or alleviate some past wrong), but in practice, it makes sense to just thank these people for their actions without worrying about their motivations (which they might not even definitively know).
The same often applies at work though. Someone who is known as the top 'x' in their company/field gains social status among that peer group, if they're interested in that sort of thing. After all you spend a lot of time with work colleagues when you're at work.
To add to the other comments. That is not how everyone is wired. Some good friends of mine give everything at work and often have trouble to stop thinking about work afterwards. These people worked in shitty private sector jobs, governmental positions and other career paths that will never reward their work with richness.
I personally don't get it. It actually frustrates me a little, they are talented and could achieve real wealth if they'd cared for that. But I accept that people who just work 100% no matter what exist.
It isn't that people from Ivy League universities are unmotivated, it is that those people has so many options that unless you are a top company you almost surely wont see them unless there is something wrong with them.
> When I am hiring, for me the biggest things are motivation, curiosity and caring for your own career. If you don't show me those traits, I am very hesitant to hire you.
Yet you just explained that you hired this person just because they had a Top Ivy on their resume. You might not repeat that mistake but you did do it once.
> I meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves but are just randomly sending their Resume hoping it sticks.
The problem is that finding something isn't optional, so when your dream doesn't work out, it is just a matter of finding what else might accept you.
So many people, when asked about what they want from life, are essentially asking back, "what are my options?"
I have to shake my head when reading some of the replies the parent poster is getting. It is sobering to see so many who have no love for their profession and are trapped into staying solely for money; that's a recipe for an unhappy existence, as can be seen from the bitterness evident in their words.
I personally don't care about tech and take no enjoyment out of programming. I've tried to force myself for years to do side projects and find something in here that is enjoyable. Nothing is. How much I wish I could simply alter my motivation, but no one is the master of his muse.
I don't hate programming. They money is good. Everything else I could do, would come with a serious slash to my salary. And that's just something else. Jobs that might be interesting require additional years of degrees. It's too late for that.
What remains? It is hard to keep the motivation going. I wish it wouldn't be like this. I want to give 100%, each day. But I can't force myself to care. I tried. Let's see how long I can go on like this.
This is probably running into a different issue, which is most people have a finite amount of programming (or intense concentration work) in them per day. For me that's 3-4 hours, for most creative people that number is pretty similar. Beyond that you get vastly diminishing returns and worse trying to do a "side project" involves a massive context shift that is mentally exhausting in of itself.
Once I accepted that after 3-4 hours (well realistically about 6 when you factor in breaks) I'm effectively done for the day my stress levels went way down.
Meh, there are in-betweens. I neither love my profession nor feel trapped by it. It's a decent and low-stress way to make good enough money such that I can do things I actually love, such as spending time with my wife and son, or playing sports. If I were rich I wouldn't do any coding, and I doubt there are many in the profession who would. Not because I hate coding, it's fine, I just like other things more.
You can have love for the profession and no especially additional love for the job you apply for and perhaps get hired to. I’ve settled before like that, and as long as the people you work with and for are open enough, you can make it more into the job you want.
Many people wouldn't be at their jobs if they weren't paid to do them. Many people don't do what they do out of love for the work.
"On the whole, American workers are generally satisfied with their jobs. Even so, a significant share (30%) view the work they do as “just a job to get them by,” rather than a career or a steppingstone to a career. Views about work are sharply divided along socio-economic lines, and the sense of vulnerability is most acute among workers with no college education and lower-than-average household incomes."
"In addition to job satisfaction, the survey explored what American workers’ jobs mean to them – are their jobs central to who they are, or are they mainly just a source of income? About half (51%) of employed Americans say they get a sense of identity from their job, while the other half (47%) say their job is just what they do for a living. And about half (51%) of all U.S. workers say they view their job as a career, while 18% see it as a steppingstone to a career and 30% say it’s just a job to get them by."
Sure, that's true for the general population but I don't think that applies here. While software isn't quite as demanding as say law or medicine, it still takes quite a bit of effort and skill to become truly proficient in our profession. Anyone talented enough to succeed at building software is also talented enough to succeed at other well paying professions; it cannot be said that we didn't choose the profession we're currently employed in.
Why doesn't apply here? Just because you have the intelligence and access to education to become a well paid professional doesn't mean there's a career out there that you're going to love. And as another poster also pointed out that it's not all or nothing, there's a lot of middle ground. You can have actively chose this career without 'loving' it.
Personally I find understanding how software and technology works really interesting (I enjoy understanding how 'things' work in general). I also find programming tasks reasonable engaging, if very frustrating at times. They're not my favourite type of problem solving but it's fun. So Software is a reasonably interesting profession and it comes with good money, plenty of opportunity and lot of flexibility.
That said if I had enough money to retire I'd happily leave it and stop programming. My curiosity is largely satisfied and there are other things I'd rather spend my time doing, such as acting, running or studying one of the countless other subjects that interests me. But it's hard to impossible to make a good living doing those things so I keep working as a software engineer and do those things in my spare time. And that's fine. As I say it's moderately interesting and definitely better than most of the alternatives. And I do take pride and interest in my work. But I don't love it and while my career is up there on my priority list it's never going to be top.
The career one can be hard. I typically care more than most. I thrive in environments where what I’m doing adds value and fits my own values. I love the challenge, I love building, I love working with amazing people. I’m nearer the end of my career than beginning and I’m still not too sure what I want.
"meet a lot of candidates who have no idea why they applied, what they want in life for themselves"
I feel that in this discussion we are conflating being lost and being unmotivated - they could be highly motivated and trying every opportunity, but have no clue what they are doing.
Everyone knows why they applied, but for the benefit of employers, we have created a society in which it is not acceptable to say "I'm only here for the money, I literally do not care about your company."
Imagine there are two applicants who are equal in every way, just that one genuinely likes the job and has the same goals as the company, and the other is just there for the money. It's not hard to see why anyone would prefer the first candidate. That's the one who is motivated and will go above and beyond if required.
As a secondary effect, applicants of course notice that they are more likely to be hired if they just pretend like they care. And if everyone pretends, the one person who says they are just there for the money is at a disadvantage to everyone else.
Okay, but even without the second-order effects of signaling games, selecting for enthusiasm is a risky strategy because earnest motivation is not the only or even the most important factor in their contribution. In many cases, a competent professional who gets you the best result might be someone who gives no fucks about the business inherently but does a good job because this strategy betters their reputation (or just their value full stop to their present employer) over time and thus their expected payscale, or just happens to be good at the thing and just wants a stable paycheck.
There two major reasons this matters:
1. In many cases no amount of enthusiasm for your business is more valuable than the hard skills you need. If it were, why can't you, the founder, with enough enthusiasm to start the business in the first place, simply do everything?
2. Genuine enthusiasm is *volatile*. If someone who isn't making business decisions cares deeply about the business' stated goals, they may well take a minor pivot or a strategic choice they disagree with as a slight or even a betrayal, and that enthusiasm quickly disappears or goes negative. In contrast, your indifferent professional has transparent and predictable motivations and you can stay aligned merely by continuing to pay them enough.
Personally, I think people select for enthusiasm about the business for the same reason they might select friends who tell them how cool or attractive or smart they are, and it's a not an amazing strategy for similar reasons.
> As a secondary effect, applicants of course notice that they are more likely to be hired if they just pretend like they care. And if everyone pretends, the one person who says they are just there for the money is at a disadvantage to everyone else.
I've seen people motivate this by saying that not faking it shows you lack social skills. In the end the customer is never wrong, and when you are selling your time the customer is your manager so keep that smile up! (I hate this culture, but I adapted just like everyone else)
> genuinely likes the job and has the same goals as the company
It's impossible, unless he holds a large portion of the shares of the company. One of the goals of the company is to replace the guy with someone cheaper or find a way to no need him at all.
I could agree if you're referring to low skill or some entry level jobs. For later professional jobs, this may be true for some, but a lot of people really do have professional career interests, and all things being equal, it's normal for an employer to prefer people who want to be there for more than a paycheck.
I've had a few glimpses of what it's like to hate your job and just be there because you need or want the money, and personally, I'm motivated by never wanting to be in that position.
I'd like to propose another dimension (or perhaps something that counts as a modifier to intelligence): confidence and cowardice. I would describe myself and my high school friends as, nearly universally, clever, lazy, and terrified. The difference between those who today find themselves in successful careers and those who don't is whether or not they acquired some measure of self-confidence in the interim. (If you noticed that this implies that such a personal quality is malleable - and further considered that uncontrollable circumstances might contribute to its shaping - well, yes.)
I do think Joel has some awfully insightful things to say but:
>You should always try to have at least six people interview each candidate that gets hired
Eh. I think this mindset gets taken too literally. That is not something that most companies should be putting candidates through unless they are actually willing to pay for top end talent, and are a tech company who absolutely requires it. Especially paired with:
>Each interview should consist of one interviewer and one interviewee, in a room with a door that closes and a whiteboard. I can tell you from extensive experience that if you spend less than one hour on an interview you’re not going to be able to make a decision.
Yea, no. I am not going to spend 6 hours of my time just because your company is so indecisive, especially with this current job search environment where companies will drop you like a fucking brick and ghost you even after having used hours of your time. I can't help but think a lot of the general shittiness around the hiring process is people taking parts of this article and internalizing them religiously.
Thanks for that quote about officers, it's excellent! Indeed hardworking and stupid are dangerous. I'm not sure if clever and lazy should be put at the top, but they will often find the best solutions.
I think it's probably meaning the same type of laziness that Larry Wall talked about in his three cardinal virtues of a programmer : laziness, impatience, and hubris. The type of laziness and cleverness that will get others to do useful and important work is invaluable.
And since (according to you) the educated person was motivated too at one point, there's no guarantee that a 'do-er' will remain motivated. We also know that at one point (s)he wasn't motivated.
Furthermore, how do you even tell who is a "do-er"? How do you know that that person has the capabilities of learning the task? How much are you willing to invest in education vs. "losing" on hiring the educated person?
>but it doesn't actually say anything about their present state in terms of motivation
If you take the set of all applicants with education and the set of all applicants without, would you claim there is no difference in the distributions of 'do-er'-ness?
Yes, there definitely is - in my experience - but it actually isn't in the direction that you would probably expect it to be in. I don't know how relevant my sample is and of course the sample size is going to be somewhat reduced but in my experience the people without fall into two groups: those that are not motivated at all and those that are highly motivated but in a direction orthogonal to what the education system would expect. Everybody else gets educated normally and ends up somewhere in the middle.
So the really smart people are the high end of the educated ones and the high end of the non-educated people (and with educated I mean university degree and onwards), and between those the gap isn't all that large, it's just that there are many more of those than that there are university educated ones (at least, around me).
Now, obviously if your circle is exclusively composed of well educated people then you will come to a different conclusion, and once you go outside of tech/IT the distribution will likely be a completely different one again.
So that 'set' has many subsets with very different distributions between the subsets.
I've probably done 50 interviews and hired around 10 people. The people doing them with me and I used a decently uniform process to give all applicants the same set of quite varied questions. We also gave the interview process to a decent number of existing employees to see how an existing employee fares.
I started the process thinking education would be quite independent of performance. Our data from the process showed exactly the opposite.
Quality of education, especially at entry level, made a large difference in the process and also in the long term performance of the hires.
This question is somewhat irrelevant, considering you have more information to work from. Given the other constraints you can apply, is level of education still a useful proxy?
This only applies to entry level jobs for new grads. What else do they have to go off of? After 5-10 years they don't care about your formal education.
A 'Do-er' is at least at present motivated, and educating them will get them to the desired combination of education+motivation in the present, even if that education is going to be by necessity a very narrow one (typically: job specific).
Being hungry for money and creature comforts also tends to be conflated with being motivated ('ambitious'), but it doesn't really align well because once financial success (for some very modest success) is attained the motivation will vanish. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it tends to confuse people who were not aware of the driving power being the outwardly visible motivation.
The movie 'Rush' has a nice bit about that, James Hunt just wants to be WDC, once. He doesn't care about anything past that point because it will give him what he wants. But until he's got it he will be super motivated.