My Passion Was My Weak Spot
jacquesmattheij.com
jacquesmattheij.com
The tricker one for me, personally, was a slight variation on this:
- We pay you decently enough - below market rate but enough - and since you have stock options...
Due solely to my own stupidity, it took nearly a decade of hard work before I realised that gambling on other peoples' success wasn't the best long-term option for me.
Gambling on your own success is also not always a good idea. See many startups.
If you're gonna take a bet, you might as well hold all the cards.
In any case, I think you are making it sound more easy than it actually is.
Usually, the way to handle this is to build a really cheap, quick & dirty prototype and put that in front of users. Etherpad did this for collaborative editing, then got bought by Google, with the functionality folded into Google Docs. Google Cardboard did this effectively for augmented reality, and I'd bet that they're taking the learning from it right now for Google's 2nd-gen AR/VR products.
Is it inconceivable that you might think a bet on someone else is better, at least in the current time?
I'd certainly value equity in a startup founded by a successful entrepreneur with previous huge exits over equity in a startup which I don't even have a good idea for.
Of course, you should still demand a good salary. Particularly because the companies with the most valuable equity are also the ones who can pay you well. The startups paying peanuts are also, in general, useless.
You might think it is, but that's probably before you realize that, even if the company does work out, you're going to get fucked by the founders and VCs.
The thing is - if this is actually the situation, it'll usually be pretty apparent. You'll get super excited just interviewing with them. If you feel like you're "taking a bet" on working with someone, you probably are, and it isn't likely to be a good bet.
That's not really true. Businesses fail for lots of reasons which are not related to the founders doing something wrong.
If asked to bump salary (paying their technical lead, me, $60K sans benefits), they'd say "we have no money to do so". If asked to provide more equity (because that's how companies have traditionally handled having little cash-on-hand), they'd say "we can't issue more options".
That continued inflexibility, plus other things, meant it was time to leave.
There's no shame in picking a suboptimal solution if it addresses stability and anxiety concerns--it's just important not to stay if things get better and you can't upgrade the solution.
To be clear unless you are running your own independent shop you are doing this by default.
You are either chasing your dreams or someone else's - it really is binary.
Surprisingly being paid bugger all + a tiny amount of equity wasn't actually motivating me.
Also, if they suggest you multi-task.
There isn't the same payoff for working nights as there is for the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur's risk can pay off big time. The employee's risk rarely pays off, and when it does, it's paltry in comparison.
My point is mostly in the studies that show that working more hours a week is less productive. The brain gets tired, it makes more errors, it gets stuck in a zone and does not choose the best way of doing things.
Yes, founders get more payoff if they are more successful, but most psychology studies show that extra hours in most activities cause a massive drop in final productivity.
More hours = poorly architected + more bugs + more frustration = less product.
Founder or Employee.
"Fuck you, pay me" is my personal, internal montra when it comes to business and especially doing contract work. I'd highly recommend Mike Monteiro's talk on this, it will save you from a lot of the pitfalls you will run into working as a creative/developer - https://creativemornings.com/talks/mike-monteiro--2/1
You might not care because you don't need the income, but other people do and they are not being greedy for asking enough to support a family.
I spent many years as a cheap developer and I will never go back if I can avoid it.
It hurts more people than just me.
There are lots of software development jobs that can be done remotely. A person living in San Francisco that wants $75,000 / year is competing with excellent developers from other countries with a cost of living an order of magnitude less. Get used to it. I don't think global competitive pressures are going to ease.
The article doesn't mention price pressure from outsourcing, that is another issue.
What I am trying to say is that we shouldn't accept a salary bellow the average of what other people in the same situation are payed because that will hurt you and everybody else by bringing down the average.
Not sure I agree with you, but "same situation" has to include developer productivity. The nature of averages means that 50% of the developer population should be paid no more than average.
But are you really that motivated by money? Have you never contributed to an open source project because you enjoy the work or want to contribute?
Jobs like porting from one framework or language to another usually succeed because the original software acts as a complete specification.
Where I'm working now, we've spent quite a bit of time changing our processes to be more remote-friendly and it has been well worth it (we were inspired by Jason Fried a great deal).
If you're a highly skilled programmer in Eastern Europe or S. America (I mention those two for my example because I see a lot of very talented programmers coming out of those two regions), and you're working for $30/hr for a successful American company, I urge you to re-think your approach. Yes, maybe for your life situation and in your country, $30/hr is not a bad deal. But if you're a highly experienced developer, with relatively rare skills, you're still being significantly underpaid vis-a-vis your skills.
I worked on a project where I was the only American (and also probably the worst programmer on the team, btw) and was paid $100/hour when my colleagues were paid $20-30/hour. The company owner (an American company that could have afforded much more) literally laughed at how good of a deal he was getting, and thought the genius programmers from country X in E. Europe were pretty naive for not jacking up their rates. I feel pretty bad for not telling my co-workers back then (it was 5+ years ago), so I'm telling you now: value your labor properly, no matter where you are.
Charging a fair rate not only helps you, but it also helps your colleagues in more expensive countries, who cannot afford to work for $20/hr and pay rent.
I can understand these sorts of complaints, since stuff like outsourcing has put a lot of people out of work. But then couldn't you argue that people in countries with lower costs of living are affecting the salary of those in places which cost more? If company A is based in say, China and hires their programmers at a reasonable living wage for Beijing and company B is based in say, Silicon Valley and offers a living wage there, company A can release cheaper software for obvious reasons. If most companies in the US decide to use company A's software, are they affecting the salary of US programmers as an indirect result?
Seems like to some degree, you can make the same complaint about everything from Uber esque crowdsharing services to globalisation to hobbyist projects.
A modern definition that encapsulates the old definition might be, "your passion is the thing you are willing to suffer for."
Something to think about when companies seize on "passion" as a buzzword.
The conscientious (i.e. me) will end up doubling down and going into burnout mode, trying to keep on top of all the work. This prevents one from thinking at a higher meta-level about what is going on. I should have asked the sales guys their view of things, and then I would have heard more company gossip and the real picture would have been clearer (they were getting screwed, too, on deals)
Live and learn. The people who control the money should never be trusted.
There's a healthier way of looking at this. Here it is: you learned something about yourself in this process and you were adequately compensated. You were compensated by your passion. In consulting there's this school of thought that you put a high price on work you don't want to do and a lower price on the work you do want to do. That way you can target other goals, like experience and passion, and still feel compensated (by money) for the work you aren't as passionate about or won't learn as much from.
You can blame the people you struck deals with in the past, but that doesn't help anything. It's better recognize that you learned something about yourself and how you value your work. Once you "own that" you can make better decisions going forward based on your convictions and values regardless of how other people want to deal with you.
If they are lucky, everyone has experiences like this. Unlucky people get locked into bad deals that cause them to lose time and money past the learning experience. Music is an area where this happens all the time. Young musicians, because of their passion, often end up in long term deals that are not in their best interest.
Key life lesson - don't commit to long term contracts based on hope. Look for opportunities to indulge your passions with minimal long-term complications. That's a healthy learning cycle.
Cool. Let me pay my landlord with passion. Let me pay that car repair bill with passion. Let me buy food with passion.
Your passion was not your weak spot. Your weak spot was allowing others to exploit it. Passion can be exploited just like anything else. Those who are looking to exploit will exploit anything.
Clearly they were looking to cover their bases, which they did. You were free to also, but you didn't. The mere willingness to take low paying jobs is partially responsible for you not getting higher paying jobs. You made yourself unavailable to better opportunities.
It's like saying, having 100M was my weak spot, after someone swindled you out of it. Passion is that valuable. You want it and need it and are better off for it. If your recent experiences made you lose it, you should try everything you can to get it back. Those with passion have a distinct advantage over those without, and you want that advantage.
If anything, you should have looked to work with those as passionate as you, if not more. How could you tell? Well, for starters, if they are not willing to share the risk and financial hardship with you, that is a sign they mean business and not passion.
Anecdotally, opposite stories also exist. I'd be surprised if Jet.com and Theranos don't fall under this. Exploitations happen every which way. It's up to us to not find ourselves on the receiving end of it.
Not even an offer of equity.
We do not speak anymore :)
An offer of such a small percentage demonstrates poor judgement by the other party. If they truly want their project to succeed, they should want me to be fully invested in the outcome of the project. 15% in the early stages of a startup is just a waste of time.
Either way, same general point. Even if you're a startup, you should try and offer a competitive wage for people with the necessary experience.
If you are given options, as long as the strike price is current value, you are not on the hook for any taxes until/unless you exercise them at a higher price. (ISO vs Non-qualified affects the details on that, but the point about stock grants remains.)
I ditched my last job (70K USD a year) for a $40/hour contract position (not that great).
I work just as much (60 hours a week), but make almost twice as much.
Generally the person or entity has some idea of my abilities and so I say I'll give a maximum of 40 hours a month and it will cost this much an hour. I find the 40 hours a month thing good for both parties because they can compare it with what the currently get done in a month to what I might be able to get done in a week of man time. That is I'm shooting for roughly 4x. If I can't get 3x or greater to whatever they currently are doing it isn't worth both parties time. Consequently I charge more but they value my time more and I value their relationship more.
The thing I always remind myself is that if I die tomorrow I want to be sure I was passionate about what I was doing today. But its also good to be fairly compensated for what I'm working on :-)
https://blogs.balsamiq.com/team/2011/09/12/profitsharing/
Edit: I don't know about an update, but there was discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2986673
Who crushed Balsamiq?
<spoiler>Nobody.</spoiler>
So far, they've done just the opposite. Here's my latest yearly status update: https://blogs.balsamiq.com/team/2016/02/05/looking-back-at-2... - with revenue charts! :)
The "We started the year by building a proof-of-concept application on Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, and HTML/JS." is good for Linux support.
Any chance of BSD support as well? :)
I suppose the hard part comes when there isn't any revenue to share. Maybe that's why startups use ~~lottery tickets~~ equity to attempt to achieve the same.
I just left a job where my division (which consisted of just 3 people) produced nearly a million in profits for 2015. We were told by management that there would be no raises or bonuses for us, simply because overall company sales were flat.
The three of us left. You cannot retain talent if you make your top producers beholden to operations they cannot possibly affect.
[0] I've discussed one of the symptoms before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11167407
EVER.
What's funniest to me is that one of those companies [2] was selling stepper motor based machine conversion kits (I started with them in 1983) and had the same lack of feedback as Jacques machines. That company learned from its mistakes and is actually still in business though . I was just a kid and what impressed me most is that the technical guys who started the business, learned to run the business in the same manner as you'd debug any hardware or software project.
http://www.stylecncmachines.com/
They got sold in a panic right after I left (asset sale iirc). The software looks pretty much the way it did back in the day but it's been completely re-written behind the scenes from what I can see.
Don't let an industry take advantage of your limited time on this planet like that. It will end up not being worth it and you might not realize until it's too late.
As an investor you need to act like a real investor and look past emotional biases and constantly ask yourself... is this a good investment.
There are so many things you can invest in besides startup equity. For example you could just make a decent salary at a company and buy affordable rental property (I'm not saying its always a smart idea but there just so many things to invest and any investor would say putting all your eggs in one basket.. etc.).
I would prefer a job that pays X + $20K per year and is mostly boring and that requires me to tolerate nasty behavior (within reason) to a job where the work is so interesting that most work days, I lose track of time, I do not have to apply self-discipline to start working, everyone is always nice, and I am paid X.
If I had more financial security and didn't have a lot of health-care expenses, that $20K per year would probably go up, but as long as I feel the need for more financial security than I have, there would be some number of dollars per year in additional income that would more than compensate for nasty bosses and coworkers and boring stressful work -- as long as that work and those people are not so bad that they might cause my mental or physical health to spiral out of control -- and AFAICT working conditions that bad are rare where I live (namely, the US).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1ApyqSvm0
he also was very passionate which led to getting screwed by Motorola management, some pointless fake consulting firm, and grand daddy of scammers Jack Tramiel. He worked his whole life for other peoples success :(.
This seems to be a prevailing view here on HN and it is actually sad. There are a thousand reasons "preventing you from starting a company": family circumstances, disability, mortgage/debt, no savings, good executor but not a great businessman, etc. etc.
So dear HN, could you please stop repeating this useless, hypocrite mantra.
Mortgage/Debt/Lack of savings can be overcome. Regarding being good executor and not being great businessman, you won't really find out before actually having a business.
> Finally at "Hacker" News ran by an investment firm, how should not this hacker spirit be a prevailing opinion?
True, but as the front page shows right now the interests here are pretty diverse. Plus, purely motivational "Just do it" kind of posts are usually met with disapproval. My impression is that people here want to know more specific things about how to raise funds, how to run companies (the rules of the game), what technologies to use.
> Mortgage/Debt/Lack of savings can be overcome.
Uh-oh :)
Most positions you'll see pay ~40% less than traditional software engineering jobs and have much longer hours on average.
If you truly enjoy what you do, the value you receive from that shouldn't just be measured in dollar terms.
I'm passionate about what I do and I do it during work, after hours and on the weekend. But during work, I get paid a sensible salary to support my family. At home, I get to explore my interests.
Passion is fuel, wisdom is direction. Don't confuse the two.
All the passion in the world does not make up for the stress of barely paying off your student loans or still feeling guilty every time you go to the grocery store when you are in your late 20's. The value you are not collecting does not turn into rainbows, happiness, and sunshine, it just goes to your boss or your boss's boss or into the shareholders pockets.
My experience in healthcare shows corporations will push the "look at all the good things we are contributing to" mantra to their employees while they turn around and fight laws that would reduce medicare reimbursements (it's possible it is a sensible/good thing to do, but it wasn't even a conversation that was allowed to be had).
Nice post (as usual) Jacques. My experience is similar but my conclusion is the opposite.
Yes, I've been taken advantage of by almost everyone I've ever worked for and they got the product of my work.
But I didn't get nothing. Far from it...
I became a better programmer. A much better programmer. In fact, I'd venture to say that there was a direct correlation between how much I was taken advantage of and how much I grew.
Funny, I grew much less on the projects where I earned the most.
I pretty much knew what was going on all those years. I didn't like it, but I accepted it because I knew that in the long run, I'd be much better off.
They may have gotten the product of my work back then, but they didn't get the product of all the great work I've done since, which is worth much, much more.
In life I really believe the greatest growth comes from the most suffering. I believe the same thing is true with programming.
That's where continually entering into abusive business relationships ends--burnout.
Just be warned that there are some companies which like the unpaid part of an internship but not the 'actually offer a job at the end or offer any form of help or mentoring' part.
I don't care how much do I get nor how much time I have to put into it as long as I like doing it and have something to eat.
I don't care if suits call me stupid behind my back or take advantage of that. They can keep their money, while I keep my passion: I think I get the better end of the deal.
And I'll try to stay that way :)
Working for a below-market salary as someone with little external responsibilities is actively damaging to those with such dependencies. If a company knows they'll find someone to program for $50k a year if they just wait long enough, they are extremely unlikely to hire the person who demands and is worth $120k a year.
I have the feeling that you don't value much your work to accept this state of affairs between you and whoever employs you. If you deliver quality products and can negotiate a bit, employers will pay you more and you will feel respected for your work. Go get paid for what you're worth, not just for being able to keep food on your plate. It's not OK to continue being exploited.
Same thing with currency, as long the threshold is met, the rest is worthless (IMO).
It's not that I don't value my work, but instead that more money doesn't mean more value for me, so even if a company wanted to reward me more they couldn't add more value through money.
Don't you think having a peaceful life doing what you like to do in exchange for your work is a fair deal? I think it is ^ ^
Aynways, the currency does still matter. Take it, throw it in a retirement account, and then build whatever the hell you want post-retirement. Building X might be fun, but after N years building slight variations of X you'll probably want to go off and make something else. Maybe even something people won't pay you to make. And then having those extra $$$ will make all the difference in the world.
For money, 'Enough' is FU money (i.e. not having to work again in your life).
This is all fine and dandy when say you're working for a non-profit, or DWB, or open source or whatever else betterment of mankind.
The point here is that sure you're doing what you love and that's enough for you, but the only one benefitting from it is your employer. If you don't feel that you need that money, negotiate for it and donate it to something of your choice and feel even better about what you're doing, but don't line someone elses pockets with your benevolence.
That's my 2 cents.
If you're having trouble making sense of that, it's because the way money and RAM function are fundamentally different, so it makes for a poor metaphor.
Some people pay to do things they find fun.
But don't get exploited. Seriously.
Maybe it's enough now. But in 20 years, when you start to have medical expenses, kids, you may regret that you didn't earn a little more while you still could, especially if all you have are technical skills.
I think many HN readers here could tell you that the better you ensure your compensation the better the work itself is.
The respect you get from "the suits" comes both in pay and in the kinds of work you get to do.
Money is important. It may not be as important as your health, but it comes close. Money buys freedom from the slavery of having to work. Until you have enough money to never have to work again, you are not free.
When you do, you can spend all your time working on and doing whatever you like, pursuing whatever passions you wish. If your current passions are valuable to employers, get the most money possible you can out of it. You are not a charity.
Even if if you feel this way now, you're screwing over your future self (and possibly family) by not building a solid financial foundation.
For example, when I (hopefully) reach that point, I'll probably still code websites because I like to do that, but I won't do it 40 hours a week.
An important part of it is realizing what is enough.
I don't like money either, but I also have a house, 2 cars, a wife and kid.... And I'm underpaid and happy. I have a nice job with a good work life balance (as in <40h on average) and so I actually have time on the side for projects I really enjoy. I have (growing) savings and a 401k. There's no reason to waste your life on the love of money. Just know your needs and make enough to cover them.
Product of this weekend's free time: http://i.imgur.com/73PmOSf.webm
You're definitely not getting the better end of the deal.
I'm sick of this fake humble passionate developer persona.
There are some of us who actually have families and better things to do with our free time than faking passion via putting hours on somebody else's product or those useless Github projects that we all know are nothing but publicity stunts to appeal to recruiters.
You are all damaging the industry.
Signed: 9to5 developer.
Thinking a bit further on that angle, I wonder if there's a market for a Github-with-payments ("here's a working snapshot of my code -- it's open-source but in order to open an issue that I will look into, you need to pay me $X"). After all, it is the same way doctors or lawyers work – they aren't expected to spend their weekends doing law cases or practicing for free.
[This is part of why I also oppose the widespread "Everyone should learn to code" movements. In principle, I would like to teach people how to code, but I don't necessarily want to do this work for free. Without this nuance being addressed, the "learn to code" movements strongly devalue our industry in my opinion. Have you ever heard lawyers say "Everyone should learn basic civil law" and then offer free classes for the same? It probably happens a bit, but nowhere near the scale that happens for code.]
Simply put, knowing how to write (in, say, English) won't make you a published author in the same way that knowing how to code (in, say, Javascript) won't make you a software engineer.
Or, another way of looking at it, by knowing the basics of a programming language you unlock the same kinds of jobs that were historically available to people proficient with Excel. Sure, you're no programmer, but at least you can hack an analysis together with a few basic tools and pass your findings around via email. These skills are not the focus of your job, but they do help you get your job done.
> I liken "Everyone should learn to code" with "Everyone should learn to write."
And later on:
> Or, another way of looking at it, by knowing the basics of a programming language you unlock the same kinds of jobs that were historically available to people proficient with Excel.
I posit that these are two very different statements, and the latter comes much closer to the reality than the former. There is no reason, say, chefs or plumbers or doctors need to learn how to code. Proficiency at using computer tools need not equate to building those tools, and people who build those tools should definitely not be expected to pass on that knowledge for free. Given your second example, aren't the "Learn to Code" movements today equivalent to (nonexistent) "Everyone should learn the basics of Excel macros" movements in the 90s?
That said, I'd argue that chefs, plumbers and doctors do benefit from the ability to solve their own problems with whatever tools available to them, and I'd still include the basics of programming in that list.
It's a narrow view of the world to assume that the only problems you can solve with code are the problems you'd hire a software engineer to solve. Much like the ability to communicate with words, or the ability to manipulate spreadsheets, coding is just another skill in a long list of skills that help individuals approach problems in new ways.
Do you need to know calculus in order to be a chef? Probably not. Does that mean we should stop teaching calculus in schools?
Oh, absolutely. And I'd love to learn anatomy and basic medical diagnosis in order to evaluate my posture, bloodwork and vitals every quarter, but you won't find many doctors willing to participate in movements that are going to teach me that. My point is that we should be more like them if we want to obtain ideal compensation and respect from society.
> Do you need to know calculus in order to be a chef? Probably not. Does that mean we should stop teaching calculus in schools?
Not at all. And I'd even encourage the teaching of code in schools, if qualified teachers willing to teach code at the salaries commonly offered in schools can be found. My opposition is to volunteer-based "Teach Everyone to Code" movements that often expect programmers to shoulder the vast amount of unpaid labor that goes into these events in order to pass on their in-demand skillset. In my opinion, the more we participate in these events, the more normalized that participation will become, until programmers are ultimately being paid the same as teachers are today (which is not very much, in the US anyway).
Its obvious really. Some people like dominoes and word games and tetris. Others would rather die than play those games. People are very very different.
Really, the foundation skill in the law is to read and write. Lawyers are the most technical users of language, but we teach everyone to read and write on the taxpayer dime. And we teach everyone mathematics through at least algebra, even though it is mostly used by technical professionals. So we need to teach everyone to code.
Not everyone will end up being a professional coder, just like most people don't become lawyers. But if everyone has experience reading and writing code, they will be more informed and productive in a society that is increasingly computerized.
My open source contributions are for fun, not for recruiters. I don't think they've ever had any impact on getting me a job.
Go back to your 9 to 5. Why are you wasting time on HN if you don't care about programming?
Not having time for that anymore doesn't mean I don't care about it.
If you don't have time to code outside work, that's fine. Just don't accuse the rest of us of faking it.
I would say our position is more akin to professional car mechanic setting up shop on weekends and offering something like "I'll fix your car for free and teach you how to do it, but no guarantees!" Would professional mechanics accuse him of devaluing their industry? Probably. Could he say "I like to fix cars in my spare time, and I'm doing what I love. Buzz off!" Sure.
Here's the thing though -- auto mechanics, they have unions and certification, and therefore are probably more aware about downward pressure on wages and such. Which is why you won't find many qualified hobbyist auto mechanics on the weekend like I described. (On the flip side, their flexibility is far more limited than programmers'. So I'' still take the programmer job.)
Tons of car mechanics do in fact spend their weekends tinkering on cars for fun. Some of them restore old cars, others work on custom modifications. It's a whole part of car culture. Hobbyist auto mechanics absolutely are a thing.
Of course, nobody thinks they're devaluing the work of other mechanics by scratching their own itch on weekends. Likewise, when I work on my own personal projects it doesn't "destroy the industry." I'm not doing bespoke work on other people's projects for free, I'm building stuff I personally find fulfilling.
As someone who really likes his job, derives significant satisfaction from it, and is constantly looking to get into more interesting work, yet doesn't feel like doing more than ~50 hours of this a week and has other interests (including creating run-on sentences apparently :P) that I wish to pursue, this false dichotomy between "Only cares about a paycheck" and "Passionate programmer who can't resist writing and publishing code" is damaging and demoralizing.
TurboHaskal explicitly said that those of us who work on open source projects in our free time must be "faking passion...to appeal to recruiters." That implies a worldview where nobody does programming for fun and that open source contributors are just pursuing additional strategies for making money. It's a depressing thought and absolutely is antithetical to the notion of liking programming.
It's fine if you have other interests and only want to program for 50 hours a week. But don't accuse me of "faking passion" because I program for 80 hours a week.
Even if you didn't, you certainly continued it.
> those useless Github projects that we all know are nothing but publicity stunts to appeal to recruiters.
It's impossible to interpret this as anything but an attempt to indict open source projects as mere publicity stunts.
I will spend endless hours, day morning and night, coding on personal projects outside work.
Job? You get 10 to 6. I'm a professional and professionals don't work on paid projects for free.
Employers are welcome to pay double for overtime of course and I will reasses my other priorities that week.
I was responding to the ridiculous assertion that all of open source is done purely for the benefit of getting recruited.
So no faking passion, putting hours on someone else's products or github projects because I couldn't care less about recruiters.
I'm not sure what the 'serves you right' is about, but fwiw it took me 10 years to wake up to this give or take a couple, and I'm terribly sorry if that caused others to not be able to charge their market value but it's not as if I was doing that on purpose, it's just that nobody took the hour or so that it took me to write this blog post and pass the message.
Yow. The "9to5 developer" movement shows its true emotional colors: jealousy and envy, apparently. You also misread his post. It had nothing to do with offhours work, but everything to do with his day job employers taking advantage of him.
Me, I will generally prefer the candidate with great open source records over the one with only a resume. The one, I already have a deep signal on how they work with others and the quality of their work- the other is a black box.