Bandits and Intellectuals: A Tale of Two Hired Types
By: Michelle-Joy Low
Tags: Hiring, Management, Leadership, Recruiting, Data

Bandits and Intellectuals sit on opposing ends of the hiring spectrum. Mercifully, I’ve usually found reasonable hires from recruitment methods built on a blend of cultural, technical and business criteria. And while some margin of error is to be expected, I am most curious about tail events, where mistakes are very wrong, but successes are very right. When it comes to tail events, it’s interesting how often we pick from the wrong tail.

Candidates with wings and a single horn preferred

Data talent shortage has been spoken about for a while. The multidisciplinary nature of data work is a commonly cited challenge, alongside diverse requirements hindering effective market making when it comes to jobs in data. Either way, in thinking about how to better find talent in this space, we naturally start with what good talent looks like; within the data space, much is made of polyglots.

Photo by Meritt Thomas on Unsplash

No more so are these ideals enshrined than in data science unicorns — mythical creatures that build models, engineer data pipelines, architect systems, tell compelling stories, with cloud experience to boot (not to mention the gift of flight). The appeal is understandable; a multi-talented practitioner is more likely to deliver that cross-functional project that probably needed five people. Fortunately, although it is widely acknowledged that the data science unicorn does not exist, expert opinion suggests that the combination of certain technical and soft skills across a team, judiciously cultivated, can provide the desired scale and results.

I’d suggest this extends beyond data science. Hearing engineers recount their best collaborations with product managers, they describe individuals who deftly navigate the commercial aspects of a problem, while understanding that engineering input can be questioned but must be respected. Similarly, amongst engineers the highest performers tend to carry an appreciation of DevOps, thinking about how their application must fit within a wider ecosystem of infrastructure and business processes.

These strong operators are consistent with IDEO’s model for the ideal T-shaped individual — that a depth of skill combined with the ability to consider problems from another’s perspective — makes for outstanding results. Might this model help us distinguish Bandits from Intellectuals?

They’re almost twins

It helps to recognise that Bandits and Intellectuals can present very similarly on both the vertical and horizontals of the “T”. Where an Intellectual is able relay credible examples of a technical and business track record, a Bandit is an equally adroit user of key-word references: to “platforms” & “operating models”, past hands-on experience <quote some terminology lifted from a tech blog>, or leading teams (that already had a leader but who’s counting). Both candidates appear to exhibit desirable behaviours — thoughtful questions, or apparent humility in conceding they might not know the answer to a challenging question. Both candidates also will likely have brand name institutions on their Linkedin resumes. And when a candidate looks to be the goods on both strokes of the “T”, the enticement is great for a hiring manager to pull the trigger on “hire” and be done with it.

It’s not normally until a few months (in many cases six for probation) have passed that we know if it’s an Intellectual or Bandit that we’ve hired.

Small clues point to big differences

Although the typical hiring process does not afford us the luxury of time to fully expose a Bandit, not all tell tale signs are hidden. I’ve noticed a few patterns:

Spot the T. Photo by Ben Hershey on Unsplash