6 ms·
The lesson was that sometimes the interviewee can be more competent than the interviewer and they should run.
by wildekek 7mo ago
The lesson was that sometimes the interviewee can be more competent than the interviewer and they should run.
- oblio 7mo agoOr maybe this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47247719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47247719
- travoc 7mo agoSo nobody can ever hire someone better at particular skills than they are? Oh boy.
- Cthulhu_ 7mo agoRun or email their seniors and ask them if they're hiring for higher-up positions. But this is connected to another thread on HN about engineer/manager titles and how they basically have no value if you try to compare them between employers.
- nomel 7mo agoThe interviewer should be less competent. That's the goal. The only alternative is that everyone trends dumber as the org grows. Usually you're trying to hire an expert in something. It can't be a necessity that the interviewer is an expert in all things they need to hire for, or even most competent in their field! You want your org to increase competence. And, I think that's what causes the slow demise of corporations: the "hire dumb" is much easier. It's hard to get a read on intelligence/competence/skill if you're less of any of those, so, on average, orgs do get dumber. What's the best shield against stupidity? Bureaucracy! :D