Comments on: Who to Hire

By: Dwayne - creative

Dwayne - creative — Thu, 27 May 2010 05:35:57 +0000

I think ownership would be up on the top for me. If I am taking on a partner for any project I just want to know that we are equally invested. Contractors might be better in this area though. Something about being an employee is fundamentally less enabling. A contractor might have more incentive to do better work to keep the work coming in. Like the texture on the side there BTW.

By: Marie Poulin

Marie Poulin — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:11:09 +0000

Always interesting to see how other studios "hire"... At my old studio we used to send out a very "random" questionnaire that would give us a very interesting perspective on our new hires. Questions like, "write an article headline about yourself from the future", "write your obituary", and "Brett or Gemaine?" Some people would respond with "I'm sorry I don't understand the question", which gave us a pretty good idea that they probably wouldn't fit so well into our studio dynamic. And man were there ever some creative answers! We were far more likely to bring in someone who had creative, interesting answers but had slightly weaker portfolios than those that had strong work, but very uninspiring answers the the questions. If they had done their research, and checked out our website, they probably would have gotten an idea that we were a small studio with a sense of humour. It's all about context... i think the process of hiring will probably always be a bit of a learning process :)

By: Claudia

Claudia — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:10:52 +0000

I just found your blog and this was an interesting entry to read. Looking forward to read more.

Best!

By: J. Pedro Ribeiro

J. Pedro Ribeiro — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:26:18 +0000

I believe it's not only hard for the ones hiring but for the candidates as well.
If you go to deep on your details the company might think there are too much irrelevant information there and go for the next CV. Otherwise, if you filter to only show what they want they won't get your full personality.

It's always a joy to read your posts.
Can't wait to get my hands on your book.

By: Eric Karjaluoto

Eric Karjaluoto — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:54:49 +0000

@Andy: I appreciate the response, but I want to counter you on what makes this productive and interesting. Anything is open here--aside from offensive or derogatory comments.

That's why we've enabled the comment thread: to encourage open dialogue. Sometimes people respond with comments that I don't agree with, but overwhelmingly we've found the discussion to be quite enlightened. Plus, I believe most readers here are quite responsible. I suspect they're all reading your post before making comments about it.

@Clayton: That's how it generally shakes out. Just like everything in life. ;-)

@Knox: My grammars is whack.

By: Knox

Knox — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:34:56 +0000

"Whom" to hire. Not "who."

By: Clayton Misura

Clayton Misura — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:55:22 +0000

So, 'Who to Hire' really just depends on who is doing the hiring.

By: Andy Rutledge

Andy Rutledge — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:06:18 +0000

I don’t want to take anything away from what Eric has put forth here from his own ideas, but as to those questions about my motivations, observations, and perceived myopia: Uncompromising values are just that, and a lack of relevant, shared experience does not provide the firm footing that some seem to believe it does here.

It matters not how good someone is at their job (as a recent-graduate coder or a CEO) if they lack the character components that my experience proves to me matters more than other things. I appreciate that some are comfortable overlooking certain character issues and divorcing mores from mundane or professional activities. I am not.

Mores and values can never be separated from even the most mundane of activities. Uncompromising standards cannot be equated with relative standards. Those who do not grasp these facts clearly have no common ground on which to have a discussion or a disagreement with me (or anyone else). It is nothing more than trolling to ignore these facts and venture irrelevant opinions in the face of them.

I agree that it is unfortunate that Eric chose to present his comments in the purposeful context of direct, visible contrast to my own. However, unless there is someone here who understands how morals are directly linked with a person’s every act and who holds with my experience and with uncompromising values, there is not context here in which one can take issue with my expressed standards. Being out of one’s depth and experience is not the proper platform for legitimate debate.

So with due respect to Eric, there will likely be a far more productive and interesting discussion here if the comments are directed toward Eric’s thoughts on whom to hire rather than my own, which are not represented here. Thanks.

By: Eric Karjaluoto

Eric Karjaluoto — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:53:29 +0000

I can't speak for Andy, but it seems to me that he's confused his personal moral sensibilities as a measure for good hires. I suppose you could say the same about my list, though. Ostensibly, some would be great designers without being curious, but in my experience that's quite rare.

I agree with your observation. I have a "gut" in part because I'm working my ass off in front of this computer. That certainly could prove problematic for me (personally) in the long term; nevertheless, I'm still a pretty capable designer.

While most of Andy's comments seemed more grounded, that one felt more judgmental in tone. It may be just me, but I think he put himself on a somewhat slippery slope.

By: Gabe da Silveira

Gabe da Silveira — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:22:27 +0000

In response to your Andy quote. Did it ever occur to him that the thing that makes some people absolutely amazing at their jobs might be very serious flaws in other arenas? Why do top CEOs have such troubled marriages for instance?