korrents

What Charity Majors thinks about hiring

@charity-majors · 50 positions · 1 change of mind

Co-founder and CTO of Honeycomb, previously an infrastructure engineer at Parse, Facebook and Linden Lab. Co-author of "Database Reliability Engineering" and "Observability Engineering". Writes at charity.wtf about on-call, hierarchy, hiring and the engineer/manager pendulum.

Everything they publish, on ppll ↗

Charity Majors did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

6 dated positions, 2024, in their own words. Our reading of what Charity Majors has said — not written or endorsed by them.

  1. Our readingA company should always have as few employees as possible, and hiring is the lever a leader reaches for last rather than first.

    Their wordsYou should ALWAYS have as few employees as possible. Always. Hiring more people should never be the first lever you reach for, it’s what you do after exhausting your other options.

    ↗“Founder Mode” and the Art of Mythmakingcharity.wtf 2nd of 8 in this piece

  3. Our readingA CEO cannot be a calibrated interviewer for every role, so insisting on interviewing every candidate makes hiring worse rather than better.

    Their wordsCan you be calibrated as an interviewer on every single opening, for every role? My God, no, not even close.

    ↗“Founder Mode” and the Art of Mythmakingcharity.wtf 4th of 8 in this piece

  5. Our readingReference checks are more informative than interviews, and if you had to pick one you should pick references.

    Their wordsI’ve said many times that if I had to choose between interviews or references, I would pick references every time.

    ↗“Founder Mode” and the Art of Mythmakingcharity.wtf 5th of 8 in this piece

  7. Our reading · no longer heldA hiring loop should have few, well-calibrated interviewers rather than many, because extra interviewers add veto points instead of judgement.

    Recalls holdingI used to cast a much wider net, like I felt like people ought to get to interview anyone who was being hired over them.

    SaidI’ve come to realize that having too many veto points in the system is dangerous and doesn’t actually add more value.

    ↗“Founder Mode” and the Art of Mythmakingcharity.wtf 6th of 8 in this piece

  9. Our readingHire for a person’s unique strengths rather than for their lack of weaknesses, because a team exists to cover what any one person is not.

    Their wordsyou want to hire people for their unique strengths, not their lack of weaknesses. If they’re strong where you need them to be strong, it’s okay if they aren’t equally superpowered at everything — that’s why we build teams, to supplement and balance each other out.

    ↗“Founder Mode” and the Art of Mythmakingcharity.wtf 7th of 8 in this piece

  11. Our readingThere is no such thing as the best people; you are trying to hire the right people for this team at this stage.

    Their wordsHere’s one small mental hack that makes a world of difference: remember that you are trying to hire the right people to join your team/org/company. Not the “best” people. The right people.

    ↗“Founder Mode” and the Art of Mythmakingcharity.wtf 8th of 8 in this piece