undefined | Better HN

0 pointskybernetikos8y ago0 comments

Nowhere do I say that I don't care at all about the quality of my staff. In fact I'm often told my hiring process is pretty rigorous.

What I am claiming is that work is generally done by teams and optimising for high performing and highly capable teams is not the same as optimising for high performing and highly capable individuals (my understanding of what most people mean by 'meritocracy').

It's not merely word games. I've observed poorly performing teams built entirely of highly capable people. That kind of dynamic can hobble a company.

0 comments

ubernostrum8y ago

Don't just look to companies for examples -- look to sports.

There are professional sports franchises who go out and just throw money at "the best" players in their leagues. And the track record of doing that is pretty mixed; it turns out that just hiring a bunch of top individuals easily loses to putting together a group of players who are each objectively "worse" but whose play as a team is superior.

5thaccount8y ago

That's pretty rare! Almost all great teams have great players - and the teams that don't, usually have chronically underrated players, e.g. the Pistons with Ben Wallace - one of the greatest defenders ever.

HOWEVER, I will say that, rather than a great team, strategic / tactical innovation can cover for flaws. The Sydney Swans pioneered "flooding" and made a grand final with a sub-standard team. Next season though, the league caught up and the Swans did poorly. It wasn't the team or the players that got there, rather it was a tactical innovation, and that is usually short lived.

In similar ways, a coding change - new library, microservices etc can all be short term gains. Ultimately, though, when everyone starts using those tactics, what you want is the best people, fullstop.

ubernostrum8y ago

That's pretty rare! Almost all great teams have great players

You're disagreeing with something I never said.

Imagine you're a baseball GM. You decide to build a winning roster by taking an unlimited amount of money, and then identifying the statistically best left fielder, the statistically best center fielder, the statistically best right fielder, and so on through all the field positions. You also identify the five statistically best starting pitchers, etc., and sign all of them.

There are franchises which try this "just sign a bunch of superstars, they have to win because they're so good" approach, and the track record of that approach is very, very mixed. But "just sign a bunch of superstars" is basically how tech companies claim they try to hire.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointskybernetikos8y ago0 comments

Nowhere do I say that I don't care at all about the quality of my staff. In fact I'm often told my hiring process is pretty rigorous.

It's not merely word games. I've observed poorly performing teams built entirely of highly capable people. That kind of dynamic can hobble a company.

0 comments

ubernostrum8y ago

Don't just look to companies for examples -- look to sports.

5thaccount8y ago

ubernostrum8y ago

That's pretty rare! Almost all great teams have great players

You're disagreeing with something I never said.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse