"Only hire people better than you"

I've got a few issues with that. First, and I know it's ego-centric, but I don't get a chance to hire many coders who are better than me. I've only met a few of them, IMO. That's partially because it's so hard to judge others, but partially because I honestly don't think they code as well as I do.

Second, just because they aren't better than me right now doesn't mean they can't surpass me in the future. If I rejected people just because they aren't better than me, I'm denying them the chance to grow and the company the chance to help and prosper from that growth.

I'm sure I'd have other objections if I sat and thought about it for a while, but those 2 came to mind rather quickly.

I've switched to using "Only hire people who bring new things to the team" rather than "better than" because the latter assumes that talent is linear. So if your team already had expertise in one area, don't hire in that area - add people who will be coming to the problems you have from a different direction. It's hard to innovate when everyone's just a carbon copy.

Could not agree more with this.

FWIW: Some of these ideas are echoed and further developed in "The Art of Action" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004CRSN2O

"The insight is that alignment needs to be achieved around intent, and autonomy should be granted around actions. Intent is expressed in terms of what to achieve and why. Autonomy concerns the actions taken in order to realize the intent; in other words, about what to do and how."

This only works if you're hiring strictly senior individuals. If you yourself are senior, and you need to staff a team with some more junior individuals so you can build your bench strength, odds are you won't be finding many junior/entry-level people better than you.

But I fully agree with the rest of it. Too many times managers view themselves as "the deciders" vs. supporting their teams and empowering smart people to make their own decisions.

At a certain point once someone is ramped-up, you need to let them sink or swim on their own. If they screw up, you address it, but you need to give them a chance to do that on their own.

That doesn't really make sense, because people "better than you" won't want to work for you. I certainly wouldn't work for someone who I thought had strictly inferior skills.

It makes more sense to frame it as "hire people who can do something that you can't". You should be able to do things that they can't as well -- otherwise you're not bringing anyting to the table.

In other words, this is someone who is equally talented but brings a different perspective or skill set. It takes a lot of different people and skills to make anything.

Not necessarily true. People better than you might want to be a part of the company and the problems you are solving more than they care whether their "boss" is more skilled than them.

Also, depending on the role, it might be different skillsets. Perhaps you are a better manager, but they are a better coder. That's often a good fit.

However it does run the risk of hiring ambitious people who expect to grow, and if they feel you prevent them from doing so, and they bring more to the table, it might turn the relationship sour.