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).
That's an interesting question. At Facebook, the team was given little say at first on whether someone joined. Over time it became more of a two-sided dance. Seems like many variations would be reasonable.
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).
That's an interesting question. At Facebook, the team was given little say at first on whether someone joined. Over time it became more of a two-sided dance. Seems like many variations would be reasonable.