Candidate A is single and has no problem working 60 hour weeks, while B has a wife and 3 kids and wants to work only 40 hours. How can you expect the company to ignore the fact that A is going to give them more for their money?
Candidate A is much more likely to be a maverick, too. Companies do see an upside to a family - it implies stability, responsibility, accountability, and (dare I say it in today's market?) loyalty. For example, candidate B is more likely to be employed with the hiring company three years from the hire date.
Also, many companies/departments recognize a downside to overtime: high turnover, burnout, high project risk, reduction in product quality. Software engineering best practice does not require long hours; on the contrary, 70+ hour weeks are a failure of management that may in fact be counterproductive.
Anecdotally, I've seen the family thing benefit candidates at least as often as not, especially in IT management or officer roles - and especially for men, where anachronistic cultural mores allow even a family man the occasional 100 hour week if the production schedule demands it.
I don't have statistics, but my bet is that married men on the whole occupy positions of greater responsibility than single men of similar experience. If I was looking for an engineering team lead to grow my department, and had to choose between a hotshot with 6 jobs in 4 years in 5 cities who has taken no vacation in his memory and rarely bathes lest it take his hands off the keyboard, and a father of three well-adjusted kids who has proven he can prudently balance his family and professional responsibilities to the success of both, I know what decision I'd make. Now, if I was looking for a coder for a 3-6 month burn, maybe I'd go the other way.
Slashdot Mirror
Candidate A is single and has no problem working 60 hour weeks, while B has a wife and 3 kids and wants to work only 40 hours. How can you expect the company to ignore the fact that A is going to give them more for their money?
Candidate A is much more likely to be a maverick, too. Companies do see an upside to a family - it implies stability, responsibility, accountability, and (dare I say it in today's market?) loyalty. For example, candidate B is more likely to be employed with the hiring company three years from the hire date.
Also, many companies/departments recognize a downside to overtime: high turnover, burnout, high project risk, reduction in product quality. Software engineering best practice does not require long hours; on the contrary, 70+ hour weeks are a failure of management that may in fact be counterproductive.
Anecdotally, I've seen the family thing benefit candidates at least as often as not, especially in IT management or officer roles - and especially for men, where anachronistic cultural mores allow even a family man the occasional 100 hour week if the production schedule demands it.
I don't have statistics, but my bet is that married men on the whole occupy positions of greater responsibility than single men of similar experience. If I was looking for an engineering team lead to grow my department, and had to choose between a hotshot with 6 jobs in 4 years in 5 cities who has taken no vacation in his memory and rarely bathes lest it take his hands off the keyboard, and a father of three well-adjusted kids who has proven he can prudently balance his family and professional responsibilities to the success of both, I know what decision I'd make. Now, if I was looking for a coder for a 3-6 month burn, maybe I'd go the other way.