There's this old, old joke:
Q: What's the difference between an introverted programmer and an extroverted programmer?
A: The extroverted programmer looks at your shoes.
[obligatory rim shot]
Needless to write, reality is considerably more nuanced than that. The reason largely being that "computers" are no longer multi-room behemoths that eat data by way of punch cards or tape and spit it up again--like some digital ruminant--in greenbar-paper reports. In other words, it's a lot easier to chat them up nowadays.
My boss proudly refers to us as "The Island of Misfit Toys," and that actually gives me warm fuzzies, even years on. Because it translates to the kind of place where the rules of the recess playground largely do not apply. Ultimately, that's one of the most efficient work environments I can think of, one where you're not distracted by having to put the periscope up every half-hour to see whether the alliances or pecking-orders have shifted. That's assuming you're not wasting even more energy and attention on trying to fathom them n the first place. Which would be me.
But as important as it is to be ruthless in hiring people who will fit into the overall culture--if you need a particular skill-set Right This Very Nanosecond, well, that's why consultants are made--it's important to understand what, personality-wise, the potential new hire is bringing to the mix. The last time I was hired by someone who didn't already know me, behavioral interviewing was only starting to come into cant use. In the years since my abysmal performance on the guinea-pig interview I did for the experience, I've arrived at a much higher appreciation of its nuances.
Hiring for skill is important, but for me, it comes in third after cultural fit and personality type. When I talk about personality type, I'm not talking about the Myers-Briggs or whatever pidgeon-holing glorified Facebook quizes are out there. (Although if someone is so reckless as to let me interview people again, I might not be above something like "Which Harry Potter character are you?" 'Cuz I'm just evil that way.) I'm more interested in specifics like
- What was the last thing they had to argue against their peers (or superiors) to have done a certain way?
- On a scale of 0% to 100% true, is "'Good' the enemy of 'Done'?"
- If we come to loggerheads, will they shoot me in the face or stab me in the back (metaphorically speaking)?
- What's their preferred learning style (structured classroom vs. O'Reilly University vs. Find something close on the internet)?
- What makes them "weird?"
- What was the last easy, medium, and hard problem they had to solve, and how did they attack the problems? How would the solve them more quickly/efficiently next time?
- Which professionally-germane columns or blogs do they keep going back to and why?
- What types of co-workers make them less effective?
- How many people could they be responsible for?
- Where do they fall on the doggedly single-minded vs. flibbertigibbet spectrum?
The list could go on, and it still wouldn't address the central issue of what holes need to be filled in the team at the moment. Do you have too many people willing to take orders and not enough willing to give them or vice-versa? Is the get-it-done-now faction outnumbered by the i-dotters and the t-crossers? Are the champions of shiny new things being unduly grounded by the Old Guard? Those sorts of things. And I don't think that it strictly applies to technical folks, either.
All of which makes me glad that I'm not in management, and thus can bloviate from the comfort and safety of my own untested opinions. (In the same spirit, can give reams of advice on child-rearing, too. Just ask my sister.)
