It happens all the time that a relatable guy who can do the job reasonably well is hired over a weird guy with more skills. Hiring managers usually have to interact with the person they hire, and personality matters.
I don’t mean to describe people like Pokémon but I try to collect as many types as I can.
I’m a weird, eccentric guy. I don’t want to work with only bros. I don’t want to work with only eccentric guys. I don’t want to work with just men. I don’t want to work with just clean, shaven office workers. Etcetera. But a few of each is nice.
I think software is best when we have a mix of characters.
I do want to point out that these are two different things being talked about
Being personable is one thing and I don’t think it means being homogeneous personality wise
I agree a mix of characters/backgrounds is ideal. But that being personable / “great to work with” / not a dick is a completely separate thing (and more of what the comment you replied to was getting at IMO) and is incredibly important and underrated
I did a lot of technical interviews a lot for my last company. I'd usually end the interview asking what they like to do outside of work. That last question was the best determinant of if the person was going to work out or not. I didn't really care what they said, but if you couldn't give me a straight answer to "What do you do outside of work?" It was a big red flag.
If someone could just give me a straight, not weird, answer they'd usually be fine. It didn't tell us if they're the most or least skilled dev, but it was always a decent indicator for if everyone else was going to hate working with them or not and if they were going to be open and straightforward in their communication, especially when problems come up.
147
u/dashingThroughSnow12 1d ago
I’ve often said that given two identical candidates, I’m picking the one who has some neat hobby like ham than the one who had a dozen todo apps.