On experience and "derivatives"
Two top Google engineers leave - to Benchmark Capital
In 2007, these guys were 26 years old, they worked in Google for 3-4 years, having managed to become one of the best there.
At the same time, some of our companies give inquiries like “a project needs a middle analyst with 5-6 years of experience in our company”. Given that the office to which you send such a request, there are only 4 years, and our projects are such that a good analyst after a year becomes busy with them.
')
Building experience in the rank of an absolute measure is half the failure. And to measure it exclusively for years of work is a guarantee of complete failure.
Let's talk about it.
All my life I was very lucky with the heads. They were all amazingly clever people from whom I learned a lot. But one of them stood out especially - a person over 60 years old, with an amazing life experience, a sense of humor and a special, surprising and not at all obvious, but very logical view of life.
When I was going up, he told me how to pick people up.
- Suppose you need to appoint a person to a responsible position, you have two candidates, one has worked for 10 years and is well-versed in the subject of the task, the other has worked for 2 years and understands the subject worse. Who will you appoint?
- First, of course. - I answered, already realizing that somewhere there is a dirty trick.
- Incorrect answer. - traditionally, the head answered a little tough.
- And what is the correct one?
- The correct one: you do not have enough information to make such a decision.
And he drew this graph:
- It’s not enough for you to know who, where and how much you worked and what you can do. You need to know the derivative of this person. Here, look here. The blue chart is the first person. He has been working for a long time, he knows more than a second, but he no longer has enthusiasm. He just goes to work to earn money. It does not generate ideas. His progress is the progress of his work. He is not engaged in self-improvement, does not learn anything new. He is conservative and will always stick to the beaten track.
I looked at the picture, and gradually I began to reach what they were trying to say to me.
- Now look at the red chart. This person works less and knows less. But he grasps everything on the fly. Every day he tries to learn something new, outside of work responsibilities. He has his own projects and his own, not working, results. He generates ideas and goes to work for progress, of any kind.
- See, what is the difference between these graphics? - continued the head. - Derivative. You should always bet on a person with a higher derivative. And in order to understand the derivative of a person, it is not enough for you to know how many years he has worked and what he knows. You need to understand how regularly he is engaged in self-study, what his professional hobbies and hobbies are, how quickly he is able to master new areas and tasks, how much he is initiative and what his goals are. It will be a pity to lose the “blue” person - his experience is valuable. But losing the "red" will be a disaster, because the "red" is not enough, and if the "blue" people keep the company afloat, then the "red" will move it forward.
Several years have passed since then, I changed several places of work, but always, when I look at appointments and their results, I compare them with this schedule, and never before have the conclusions of my old boss turned out to be erroneous.
I do not want to say that experience is not important. But it is not important from the point of view from which it is customary to look at it: the number of years spent in the industry. First, experience is measured not by years, but by events. And secondly, a person is measured not by experience, but by “derivative”.
From all this I would like to draw a few conclusions.
First, of course, it all depends on the business goals. High derivative for certain companies can be overqualification, they may be interested in inert "blue" people, and then formal signs like years spent in the company, as in the headline example, come to the fore.
Secondly, I do not advocate the idea of ​​“23-year-old signor”. In our conditions, when software engineers know true American computer science, and most of them are ordinary coders, it’s even pointless to talk about “signoras”. But the "signor for long service" is no less evil. Look at the "derivative".
And third: work on your "derivative." It does not matter how many years you have worked and where. It is important that you do and what you have learned. Think of the 26-year-olds from Google - now one of them is CTO on Facebook.
UPD: During the discussion, a lot of misunderstandings emerged that there is a “red” person and that there is a “blue”. We clarified it in this thread.
In 2007, these guys were 26 years old, they worked in Google for 3-4 years, having managed to become one of the best there.
At the same time, some of our companies give inquiries like “a project needs a middle analyst with 5-6 years of experience in our company”. Given that the office to which you send such a request, there are only 4 years, and our projects are such that a good analyst after a year becomes busy with them.
')
Building experience in the rank of an absolute measure is half the failure. And to measure it exclusively for years of work is a guarantee of complete failure.
Let's talk about it.
Derivatives
All my life I was very lucky with the heads. They were all amazingly clever people from whom I learned a lot. But one of them stood out especially - a person over 60 years old, with an amazing life experience, a sense of humor and a special, surprising and not at all obvious, but very logical view of life.
When I was going up, he told me how to pick people up.
- Suppose you need to appoint a person to a responsible position, you have two candidates, one has worked for 10 years and is well-versed in the subject of the task, the other has worked for 2 years and understands the subject worse. Who will you appoint?
- First, of course. - I answered, already realizing that somewhere there is a dirty trick.
- Incorrect answer. - traditionally, the head answered a little tough.
- And what is the correct one?
- The correct one: you do not have enough information to make such a decision.
And he drew this graph:
- It’s not enough for you to know who, where and how much you worked and what you can do. You need to know the derivative of this person. Here, look here. The blue chart is the first person. He has been working for a long time, he knows more than a second, but he no longer has enthusiasm. He just goes to work to earn money. It does not generate ideas. His progress is the progress of his work. He is not engaged in self-improvement, does not learn anything new. He is conservative and will always stick to the beaten track.
I looked at the picture, and gradually I began to reach what they were trying to say to me.
- Now look at the red chart. This person works less and knows less. But he grasps everything on the fly. Every day he tries to learn something new, outside of work responsibilities. He has his own projects and his own, not working, results. He generates ideas and goes to work for progress, of any kind.
- See, what is the difference between these graphics? - continued the head. - Derivative. You should always bet on a person with a higher derivative. And in order to understand the derivative of a person, it is not enough for you to know how many years he has worked and what he knows. You need to understand how regularly he is engaged in self-study, what his professional hobbies and hobbies are, how quickly he is able to master new areas and tasks, how much he is initiative and what his goals are. It will be a pity to lose the “blue” person - his experience is valuable. But losing the "red" will be a disaster, because the "red" is not enough, and if the "blue" people keep the company afloat, then the "red" will move it forward.
Several years have passed since then, I changed several places of work, but always, when I look at appointments and their results, I compare them with this schedule, and never before have the conclusions of my old boss turned out to be erroneous.
I do not want to say that experience is not important. But it is not important from the point of view from which it is customary to look at it: the number of years spent in the industry. First, experience is measured not by years, but by events. And secondly, a person is measured not by experience, but by “derivative”.
findings
From all this I would like to draw a few conclusions.
First, of course, it all depends on the business goals. High derivative for certain companies can be overqualification, they may be interested in inert "blue" people, and then formal signs like years spent in the company, as in the headline example, come to the fore.
Secondly, I do not advocate the idea of ​​“23-year-old signor”. In our conditions, when software engineers know true American computer science, and most of them are ordinary coders, it’s even pointless to talk about “signoras”. But the "signor for long service" is no less evil. Look at the "derivative".
And third: work on your "derivative." It does not matter how many years you have worked and where. It is important that you do and what you have learned. Think of the 26-year-olds from Google - now one of them is CTO on Facebook.
UPD: During the discussion, a lot of misunderstandings emerged that there is a “red” person and that there is a “blue”. We clarified it in this thread.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/141665/
All Articles