There is no "the best". There are only people. Some people work wonderfully at one shop, but horribly at another. This can have nothing to do with their skill or even their personality. Each working environment is unique as is each candidate. You simply cannot tell which will work perfectly until long after someone is properly hired.
So why bother interviewing? The goal is not "we only hire the best". Hiring is only half the battle and a short term goal at most. The long term goal should be "we only retain the best". Sometimes that means firing people, but more often it means going to the mat to keep the people who work best: Treating people like human beings and, most importantly, paying them. Pay well and the good people will not leave. Actually fire those who don't work out in the long term and even they will do nearly anything to stay.
Or do what most startups do. Pay next to nothing. Treat everyone like widgets in a great machine. Fire only those whose admit having a life outside of work. And hire only those who share similar opinions on ultimate frisbee because culture!
For engineers a working with them to solve a real issue is pretty telling. GitLab is a young company but so far we never had to fire an engineer and I largely attribute it to this.
Totally agree that retaining is the other side of the story. We actively encourage people to tell about their life outside of work and celebrate the diversity in cultures.
The article also talks about geographic diversity which I think is a great help in getting good people to apply, we have people in 4 continents now. If we only had to hire in the bay area we can't have been as selective as we're now.
> Or do what most startups do. Pay next to nothing. Treat everyone like widgets in a great machine. Fire only those whose admit having a life outside of work. And hire only those who share similar opinions on ultimate frisbee because culture!
I think there is "the best in context", and that's what people should strive for. The "best in all situations" is what most people like to chase after however.
Someone who has 20 years of knowledge in a dozen different languages doesn't matter as much if you just need someone with 2 years of very deep knowledge in one very specific language. On paper the former is "better" (even if one can learn/adapt), but in context someone who fits the latter is a better fit.
People can also learn. I'll take a junior developer over a senior developer who's an asshole any time. In a team, over time, the junior developer can more easily become an asset than the senior can change his/her ways.
>There is no "the best". There are only people. Some people work wonderfully at one shop, but horribly at another.
Well, sure, but from the employer's perspective different people have differing amounts of potential productivity. You definitely want to at least limit your hiring to people who at least have the potential to be star performers.
So why bother interviewing? The goal is not "we only hire the best". Hiring is only half the battle and a short term goal at most. The long term goal should be "we only retain the best". Sometimes that means firing people, but more often it means going to the mat to keep the people who work best: Treating people like human beings and, most importantly, paying them. Pay well and the good people will not leave. Actually fire those who don't work out in the long term and even they will do nearly anything to stay.
Or do what most startups do. Pay next to nothing. Treat everyone like widgets in a great machine. Fire only those whose admit having a life outside of work. And hire only those who share similar opinions on ultimate frisbee because culture!