Buried in this tweet by Gergely Orosz is an interesting quote: “Team matching was very frustrating for hiring managers.” Briefly, team matching is the process where hiring an employee is separated from the decision of which team the new employee will join. Back when I was a wee engineer, I was always interviewed & approved by the team I was to join. When I got to Facebook in 2011 I was surprised to find that 1) I would be hired without having a team assigned and 2) I had significant control over which team I would join.
I'm curious about the impact team matching has on the teams.
In the article, you said "One theory behind team matching is that engineers work significantly better if they are excited about what the problem they are addressing."
I can see the sense in that.
Is it reasonable to expect a team to work better if they're excited about the people that are joining them?
What I'm really asking is how much say does the team get in who joins them? How do we weight how much say each party gets? (The new engineer, the team, the team's manager, the executives).
What if a manager is told to work on a part of the product/business that uses a technology that nobody wants to work on?
I suppose a talented manager can make lemons out of lemonade when it comes to a tough situation.
I'm curious about the impact team matching has on the teams.
In the article, you said "One theory behind team matching is that engineers work significantly better if they are excited about what the problem they are addressing."
I can see the sense in that.
Is it reasonable to expect a team to work better if they're excited about the people that are joining them?
What I'm really asking is how much say does the team get in who joins them? How do we weight how much say each party gets? (The new engineer, the team, the team's manager, the executives).