Slashdot Mirror
The Great IT Hiring He-Said / She-Said
Nemo the Magnificent writes: Is there an IT talent shortage? Or is there a clue shortage on the hiring side? Hiring managers put on their perfection goggles and write elaborate job descriptions laying out mandatory experience and know-how that the "purple squirrel" candidate must have. They define job openings to be entry-level, automatically excluding those in mid-career. Candidates suspect that the only real shortage is one of willingness to pay what they are worth. Job seekers bend over backwards to make it through HR's keyword filters, only to be frustrated by phone screens seemingly administered by those who know only buzzwords.
Meanwhile, hiring managers feel the pressure to fill openings instantly with exactly the right person, and when they can't, the team and the company suffer. InformationWeek lays out a number of ways the two sides can start listening to each other. For example, some of the most successful companies find their talent through engagement with the technical community, participating in hackathons or offering seminars on hot topics such as Scala and Hadoop. These companies play a long game in order to lodge in the consciousness of the candidates they hope will apply next time they're ready to make a move.
Meanwhile, hiring managers feel the pressure to fill openings instantly with exactly the right person, and when they can't, the team and the company suffer. InformationWeek lays out a number of ways the two sides can start listening to each other. For example, some of the most successful companies find their talent through engagement with the technical community, participating in hackathons or offering seminars on hot topics such as Scala and Hadoop. These companies play a long game in order to lodge in the consciousness of the candidates they hope will apply next time they're ready to make a move.
The biggest clue shortage on the hiring side is requiring x years of experience with a tool or product that has only been out for less time than they're demanding. I've lost count of the numbers of times I've seen such asinine job posting requirements.
Another good clue shortage is expecting x years with one product, y years with another product, and z years with a third, while specifying that it's an intermediate position. Make up your mind -- either you want someone with only 5 years of experience or you want someone who's spent time with the tools you're requesting -- the two are mutually exclusive!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
That if companies paid candidates what the candidates though that they were worth, said companies would go bankrupt.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If you are simply responding to job postings, you have to play the job posting game. The best jobs and hires I have done have come from a little bit of let work. Find out who the guy "really" doing the hiring is and get an email/phone call/coffee with that guy. 90% of the time, if he likes you, he will get you on the interview list.
Senior software developer here.
We get *lots* of applications from candidates who consider themselves to be senior-level, and have a good 10 years (give or take) of working experience to back that up.
But once we ask them to solve novel problems, they fail. They go on and on about all these sophisticated technologies that they have worked with, and how they integrated them together. But all they can do is integrate other people's solutions together. They cannot cook up solutions of their own (not, at least, if the problem is any more complicated than a simple automation script).
So, we avoid senior level candidates these days. Interviewing them isn't worth our investment of time. We would rather hire a junior level candidate that can actually solve novel problems, and train them up.
"For example, some of the most successful companies find their talent through engagement with the technical community, participating in hackathons or offering seminars on hot topics such as Scala and Hadoop. These companies play a long game in order to lodge in the consciousness of the candidates they hope will apply next time they're ready to make a move."
So, you are supposed to work during the day and participate in hackathons during the evening and week ends. These are looking for slaves. I can't believe this is the model someone consider as being successful. Why only in IT this kind of things happen? Do you ask a lawyer to do hackathons? Participate in contests for a slice of pizza and a flat beer? Do IT employees considered people with families, with kids, with a right to do something else not related to computers during the week ends, during the evening? This world is broken.
As a IT prospect, do you respect yourself enough to refuse this kind of slavery?
Achille Talon
Hop!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am currently searching for a development job and everyone seems to want 3 years experience or 5 years experience. I am seeing "graduate" jobs asking for 2 years commercial experience.
And its impossible to even get your foot in the door because of the "IT Recruitment Firm" who will reject any resume that doesn't match exactly what they are looking for.
If I could just get to the point where someone would actually TALK to me and find out what I can do and just how good I am at writing code, I might have a chance...
But then end up only hiring liars.
Learn to love Alaska
That just means it's a senior position that pays $20k per year.
Good luck on your application. Let us know how it goes.
Learn to love Alaska
So the people who get jobs are the people great at schmoozing? Somehow I don't think that's the way to get the best people either, unless you're looking for sales staff.
These are not real positions. They are non-jobs. There's tons of them. Lots of reasons they exist -- recruiters fishing for resumes to put in their database, ad to satisfy some visa requirement by not finding anyone, internal corporate requirements, etc.
All pack animals imitate their alphas. Our leaders are the best liars in the world. They lie as easily as they breathe. Every single one of them.
This is the example we are given to follow, because this is what brings success.
Honest workers are liabilities. They might out you just like Snowden did. Why in the world would you want people on your team who won't get on board with how you lie to your clients?
The interviews are made impossible to screen out the honest ones, because deceit is the foundation of success in America.
Managers should be the ones hiring and firing people. HR's job should be managing employee paperwork. The actual task for hiring people should be done by the managers themselves.
Will this mean that hiring practices become much more chaotic and lack uniformity? Yep. Guess what... when you get hired your managers are going to be different and the jobs you're getting hired for are going to be different. So why pretend that the hiring process has to be uniform when the work environments you're applying for are not uniform?
Now some will argue "this will take time from the manager's other jobs etc"... well that means either you don't have enough managers or you're over complicating the process.
Ultimately, the manager should get some face time with whomever is applying for the job. He/she should ask the new potential hire some questions to get to know them... and then go from there.
I seriously don't understand why we even bother with HR in regards to hires? Anyone actually know?
Give department heads budgets for their departments as well as responsibilities they must fulfill by given deadlines. If they're competent they'll work it out. If not then they won't. HR is not doing anything to make that process easier. If anything what they're doing is putting an artificial barrier between the manager and the potential employee. Possibly screening out people the manager might otherwise want to hire.
And if these stupid job apps are just ruses so they can hire someone specific then why even go through that game? Just let the manager hire his friend or whatever. Cut to the chase please and stop polluting job listings with bullcrap jobs that aren't actually open.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Your friend looks at this and then looks at you as though you had totally lost your mind. You ask "What's wrong?" He tells you, "Look when I said I was thirsty what I meant is I wanted a non-alcoholic raspberry lime rickey. Of course made with 7-up, not that cheap store brand stuff and of course freshly squeezed limes and definitely Zyrex syrup. What's wrong with you man?"
Two things come to your mind. The first is your friend is kind of an asshole. The second is he isn't that thirsty and should shut the fuck up about how he thinks he's going to die from dehydration.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
There are two fundamental dichotomies that hide under this argument, and they've been going on for years, if not decades.
First, there's the disconnect between large business and small business. Second, there's the disconnect between what people have previously been paid (or their peers have), and what they are actually worth. This is coming from a guy who has hired 5 software developers so far this year, and has 2 slots still available...
A lot of developers are looking at what happens at Google and Microsoft (aside from the layoffs...), and try to use that as a standard when they apply for a position at a 50-person shop in the midwest. This creates an expectation disconnect where someone gets an offer for $65k, but won't take it because they've been convinced by the Internet, their Career Planning & Placement department, or the job postings on career boards, that their skills are worth $90k.
This is an "expectation shortage", and results when there are not enough candidates willing to take the positions that ACTUALLY EXIST. It's all well and good to say that employers are under-paying developers, and looking for cheap labor. But the market does set rates, and the fact is that most software projects away from the coasts just don't support paying developers $120k/year - at least not sustainably.
The second disconnect occurs when people misconstrue what it takes to be hired and promoted in the majority of companies, other than the mega-corporations who can have 200 people doing the same job. The sad fact is that you pretty much have to be a specialist to GET a job, and then you have to be a generalist to KEEP it. The specialists who stay in their pidgeon-hole are always the first against the wall when the next re-org comes. But the generalists who have 75% competency in an array of skill-sets rarely make the cut during interviews, but have enormous job security in their current positions -- though often feel themselves "stuck" in positions where they may not feel like they're advancing quickly enough.
This is a failure of cultivation and and expectation problem on the part of employers. It creates a market distortion where people are encouraged to specialize, and then dumped back onto the market with inflated expectations of their overall worth when that very specialization becomes a liability. (Ruby, anyone...?)
From the inside, I think it's undeniable that there is a shortage of quality, trained developers, with attitudes and ethics that will lead to long-term advancement and quality employment. That doesn't mean that there is a shortage of bodies with the raw skills necessary to do the job. But, in the end, that hardly matters... companies aren't hiring automata, even if some of them want to pay as though they were.
There are ample failures on both sides of the equation, and large companies are exacerbating those problems with their treatment of many H-1Bs and "mass hiring" of fresh graduates (at insanely inflated salaries) who then get culled 9 months later.
But candidates are also making the problem worse by viewing software development as a single, unified market, and clinging to the belief that just because Company X in Boston could afford to pay $x for a given product/project, that their skills are still worth $x when they move to Company Y in Pittsburgh, creating software for a completely different industry.
The end result is a shortage of jobs that don't require specialists to get through the door, and a shortage of employees able to adjust their expectations to the realities of the market we are in. When you meet in the middle, it's a real shortage, regardless of how it came to pass.
Notice: Your mouse has been moved. Windows will now restart so this change can take effect.
It's the Libertarian dream; the freedom to starve.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If that's that case, then I must be a fantastic programmer, and not even realize it.
I know how to write software, but am not driven to delve into it. I dont find it all that pleasurable, but do find it a valuable skill to have when I need to make something that does $FOO, when I need it to. My solutions may not be the most efficient, or the most pretty, but they do $FOO, and I am the only person that needs to worry about the ugly code. I can recognize ugly code when I see it, (as I make plenty of it, and know it to be ugly.)
I am honest about that. I do not consider myself a good programmer at all. There are many people out there that make much better code than me, and do so with greater speed, alacrity, and skill.
I keep hearing horror stories about people who can't pass a fizz-buzz test, or who can't make a good function that can withstand having strange edge cases thrown at it. I can do that, but again-- I dont even really consider myself a programmer. I did a little bit of VBA backend wallpaper-paste type crap for one of my recent jobs to fill niche needs for my company because nobody else in my department knew how to use VBA, but any really competent programmer would have run circles around me.
The major problem I see here, is that if I said this at a job interview, the hiring manager would laugh nervously, thank me for coming, then promptly shred my file.
Could I learn to be a good programmer? Sure. All the programming skill I picked up is entirely self-taught, because I wanted to learn how to do it, because it is one of those essential skills of this century. I really do think that it will be as "expected" as being able to use a word processor or a spreadsheet program. Given the right motivation, I could become very good at it. I just dont find it pleasurable to do.
That's the real heart of the issue.
Hiring managers dont look for people that can be molded to fit a position in the company.
Hiring managers want the candidate that "Is a perfect fit"-- which really means "Is just like that other guy we had, but who isn't that other guy."
This is analogous to a starving man looking for "Just the perfect morsel of food", standing at an all you can eat buffet, looking at food with minor blemishes on it.
"Oh, that apple has a spot on it." he says. "I can't eat that apple-- but, oh, i'm so hungry!"
After looking at every single morsel of food on the table, he makes the bold assertion that he just cant find anything to eat there.
"There's a terrible food shortage!" he screams, holding his stomach, as it rumbles angrily-- Surrounded by a mountain of perfectly edible food. It just isn't absolutely perfect, and he wont dare lower his standards on what he considers to be perfect.
So, he goes crying to the government. "I'm starving!" he screams, amid a giant buffet of food. "I need food or I will die!"
The government says "Ok, We will import food for you, since there does not seem to be enough. India has food they can provide, we'll ask them to send some."
"YAY!" says the hiring manager.
What does india do? They say "The man's expectations are unrealistic, which is why he wont eat the food that surrounds him. He does not realize that the food he has is better than what we have to offer, so we will just peel or cook the food first, to hide the blemishes. He wont know the difference."
So they do that.
The man sees the cooked food-- which has been peeled, boiled, fried, and otherwise rendered so that the blemishes are no longer visible-- even though the ingredients were far from the model of perfection he held in his mind. But it looks appealing, and it isn't obviously bearing any defects, so he digs in. "MM! This is good shit!" he says. "Gimme more!"
That's what I really see as what's going on here.
Am I a perfect programmer? No. Do hiring managers demand perfect programmers? yes. Is there a shortage of perfect programmers? Probably-- NOBODY is perfect, especially when the definition of "Perfect" is very m
Graduated in 2003. Knowledgeable in Windows, Linux and Cisco. Didn't write any certs. Got hired at a hospital as a "sysoper" in 2004... 90% of the work is tech support, the other 10% is running backups and printing reports. Tried many times to get bumped up to sysadmin. They want someone with 5+ years experience. Can't get experience if they won't give me a fair chance. Paying the money to re-train and write my certs probably isn't worth it, because what they really want is to hire foreigners or Microsoft castaways who will play nicely with upper management.
The operations and desktop support groups is under-staffed and over-trained. Every couple months we're hiring a new project manager for some random webapp that management thinks we need. We have like 5 different brands of EMR software that all do the same thing, with more coming in the next year or two.
I should have taken that sysadmin job for Yahoo in 2009. Didn't want to move from Ontario to California though.
And, of course, you fail to comprehend why this is the case.
The reality is that the people you really want probably dont have a degree. They probably dont have the exact skillset you want, but can easily attain it, given half the chance.
You create an iron-curtain that is rigorously enforced by a computer to pre-screen your applicants, "Because there are so many out there!", which REAL computer experts and programmers understand perfectly well, and KNOW that they will be systemically excluded before they can even talk to you-- the actual person at the other end of that dark tunnel-- Leaving only the people that outright lie, cheat, and plagiarize other people's work that make it through your filter.
Rather than realize that your filter is an effective tool at concentrating charlatans and liars, and not an effective tool at concentrating actual talent-- then making the appropriate action, you instead conclude that there are too many charlatans and liars!
It boggles the mind!
"But they have these really attractive resumes and degrees!"
Seriously.
You aren't paying enough. It is sort of obvious. Youe offering is below market so no one applies and those that do apply get promotions or can reasonably expect much better pay and conditions. Either you don't need the position filled, or you need to pay more to fill it.
Can I ask, why is it when it comes to hiring technical staff business people have such a hard time understanding supply and demand. You never hear them saying 'Why cant I buy a top of the line server rack for $1?", but are shocked that no one applies for their job offered at half market rate.
American schools are graduating more qualified applicants in CS/IT than ever.
Except that most of them are utterly incompetent.
Ah so you are sabotaging yourself by refusing to indicate prices up front. I don't apply to places that don't list salary ranges (I'm not a techie but still) because it is a bad faith negotiating tactic that places the power in the employers hand.
Because society is just one big playpen for sociopaths, and the weak must die!!!!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Awesome, the companies are learning to market themselves. How unhelpful.
In any corporation, workers are just another capital expense. It is delusional to see yourself as any different to your employing corporation than the chair your ass is in. Both are seen as replaceable cogs, the corporate machinery will continue to chug along with or without you.
As some point, software engineers will need to accept that this is a tradesmen profession and we are fools to ignore history.
Every employer forces you to sign a contract upon hire.
Until we have our own contract, we will always be on the losing side of negotiations. We need a guild, a union, whatever you want to call it. We need representation if we ever hope to be treated as the tradesmen we are.
So, let me make sure I understand this perfectly, and without error:
You wouldn't hire me, because I am not writing in the way you have come to expect to be written to, (Please, do enlighten me with a stellar example of such communication, so that I might emulate it for you. I don't want you to starve to death standing at an all you can eat buffet, because the food there does not "meet your standards".)
Here, let me be blunt with you.
You are hiring for a position where you want a technical problem to be solved with a robust and fully logical solution. That's what good programmers provide. Yet, you have now redefined the role to be the logical union of ((Good analytical skill) + (Creativity in problem resolution) + (Competency implementing the solution as real computer code)) with ((Writes like an English Lit major when communicating with peers) + (Keeps trying even though logically there is no viable solution.))
Just so you know, those two compound sets do not overlap. ;) "Keeps trying when there is no logical solution" (and provably so) is mutually exclusive to "Good analytical skill".
But again, rather than accept this with aplomb, and reconsider your position if even for a moment-- you have instead resorted to an ad-hominem attack at worst, and a non-sequitor at best.
Remember, I don't even want the job you are offering. I have moved to a completely different career path, far removed from IT. I have no interest in the positions you are offering. My only interest is to see you stop acting illogically, as it will make the hiring experience better for you and for your applicants. That's all.
Your response was to say that you would rather take people that are not capable of understanding large and complex problems, because they don't complain.
(And you wonder why your programmers are sub-par, and cant understand basic concepts in logic?)