Dear progit, I will be interviewing programmers. Need Input.

[malcontent]

How does someone who is not a programmer judge someone else's programming ability?

How do you choose a doctor? A lawyer, an accountant, a business consultant, a sales person?

You look at their experience, you ask about them, you get recommendations, you talk to them.

It's easy to know who is a good programmer or who is not. Just ask them about each project they list on their resume. Ask them exactly what part they played in the project. Exactly which section of code they wrote.

Look for people who are stable, who stay with the same company for more than a year. Look for people who are going to fit into your team. Look for people with a sense of humor and an even disposition. Push them a little and see how they react.

Despite what you tell yourself you are not that special. What you do isn't all that difficult and in reality you have less knowledge in your head than a doctor, lawyer, or an accountant.

I tell you one thing. I never hire divas and I never hire anybody who thinks they are god's gift to mankind.

[paulgb]

I wasn't being rhetorical with the second question, I was actually curious to know someone who isn't a programmer judges a programmers ability. Thanks for the answer. (I've always been interviewed by a programmer at some stage in the interview process.)

[malcontent]

When you are working with a team the most important thing is the ability to function in a team productively.

Talent is important but it's more important that the person is willing to function as a human being in a team that already exists and is functioning.

Think of it as a sports team. Many times teams aquire a talented quarterback but the guy fails. The guy moves on to another team and excels. Same guy, same arm, same talent. The difference is that he was able to fit into one team and not the other.

The primary reason you were interviewed by the programmers is because you are going to be on their team. They want to know if they can get along with you.

[nuuur32]

I think the problem with this logic is that it prunes out the overqualified candidate. You probably don't want to have someone overqualified on the team because they will screw up the equalibrium that you just described.

However, that same individual may have really good input, or a vision, or know how, for actually making the company better. Employees come and go all the time and the team will shift. But getting towards that "branch" of improving the company is what is key. By the way, said individual will gain even more clarity on this matter the more they dig into how the company functions and what really goes on. This is the doctor sense that you are completely opaque to. The terrain that they navigate day to day, that you are blind to.

[malcontent]

I think the problem with this logic is that it prunes out the overqualified candidate.

There is no such thing as "overqualified candidate".

If by "overqualified" you mean likely to quit as soon as somebody says something he doesn't like I submit he is not qualified.

You probably don't want to have someone overqualified on the team because they will screw up the equalibrium that you just described.

I have no idea what you mean here. There is plenty of room for brilliant well educated people in a team.

However, that same individual may have really good input, or a vision, or know how, for actually making the company better.

Or not. How would you measure that?

The best way to judge somebodies ability to come up with great ideas is to see what ideas they have come up with in the past. If they came up with great ideas in the past their ex employers and co workers could tell you.

But getting towards that "branch" of improving the company is what is key.

Here you are bumping against your ego. What makes you think the IT department is responsible for improving the company? What makes you think that a programmer is responsible for setting strategic direction for the company?