I suspect this essay is obliquely complaining about folks who THINK they're the smartest guys in the room.

"What you get if you believe this myth is a room full of highly qualified people who waste their time explaining to each other how much more qualified they are."

Excellent observation. There is also a bit of that in there. A part of working on a small team is learning to learn. It doesn't matter that you can lift mountains with your pinky if you can't deal with anyone else as a peer.

Breaking news: Don't hire people based on only one criterion, e.g. intelligence! Details as they emerge.

The qualities of the ideal candidate differ for different situations.

If someone is a very early employee, they need to have more involvement in shaping product development and corporate culture. They need some kind of vision or something and that's possibly more important than knowing how to move Mount Fuji with a toothpick or something.

Nothing earthshaking, no.

I guess my take would be that it isn't earthshaking but it's "useful" there are tons of companies that are too resume-bound and end up with smart, completely useless people. Two cents.

I think the title is slightly misleading but whats actually said in the article is very much true. In any early stage company, how well they fit together with not only you but the rest of the team members is just as important as what they know.

More surprising is how many investors I've talked to end up telling me that if I'm looking for people to help accomplish some of these more complex tasks that I should just outsource to India or just find a person who does know how and pay them for it. In reality, that's likely not going to solve anything and has a high potential to create more problems on down the road (not to mention if that person doesn't stay forever).

yeah, well, part of it depends on how smart you are.

As the article said, you need someone who fits in to the team, someone strong where the rest of you are weak.

Me, I'm kinda dumb (well, I mean, I qualify for mensa, but only just. Meaning, compared to most really good programmers, I'm kindof dumb) But I'm really good at dealing with people who are less socially able, so for me, it makes sense to hire the smartest person I can find, at least for technical positions.

If I were smarter, and/or if I had a harder time getting along with people, or if I was hiring a marketing and/or bizdev guy, hiring down might make a lot of sense.

Like most of the little essays I put together (author here, thanks everyone for reading) it was a reaction to an observation. That observation was that lots of small going on medium sized companies tend to inherit something from the Microsofts of the world, and that is resume myopia.

For everyone who said it's commonsense, I agree completely. Unfortunately, commonsense is not quite as common as you might believe. Around here, this seems obvious but I can say there are plenty of people struggling with the balance.

tptacek summed up my point really well. Thanks again for the feedback!

Hence Joel's (much more concise) hiring criteria:

Smart, Gets Things Done.

Not all your employees should be like that, though.

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/06/done-and-gets-things...

I still don't really understand what Yegge was trying to say with this essay. It seems to boil down to, "Very Very Smart, And Gets Things Done".

I have to agree. I think he might be trying to turn "Smart, and gets things done" into a two-tiered system so you can clearly decide that, in some cases, it's okay to go with the bright guy with an unimpressive resume, and in others, you really need to dig for someone who is exceptionally talented and has enough experience to teach rather than learn.

All essay critiquing aside: '''strong disagree''' on on the idea that you want/need to go past [[gets things done]] in an early stage startup. You need the mo'; you don't need the architecture you're going to run on 2 years from now.

Diggy title with common sense advice.

Hire really good people. Your concept of "good" might be flawed, so think really hard about it.

You could get more insight by just sitting your team around a table and talking about it rather than going on the word of some dude on the internet.

I don't think I used that word or explained my concept of it. But I'll try to think really hard about it anyway.

I wasn't talking about you, I meant the universal "you" ('one' as in 'one should', like 'man' in German). I was just agreeing with your assessment. :)

That makes much more sense. Thanks for clarifying :).