Why developers are allergic to job opportunities
coderwall.com
coderwall.com
They also tend to have a low bullshit tolerance and get worn down quickly with the hassle that recruiting/employment has become. Multiple phone interviews, HR people, code tests, and then the "used car salesman" process of salary negotiation. Its draining, especially when you're an introvert by nature.
I went through this once with a semi-established startup when I was looking for my 2nd job. 3 interviews in they wouldn't discuss salary over the phone, wanted me to come in to meet with the CTO again to discuss. I burned the bridge at that point, and became fairly jaded to the whole process. Get salary info up from, if what you want is near the top of any range they give drop it and move on theres no oppertunity for advancement. If they won't give salary range, drop it and move on. More than 2 interviews after the inital HR screening, move on. And realistically if you're a somewhat proven commodity you should be able to hammer out all the details off-site over coffee/beer and finish up the formalities in a few hours at the office.
We're fortunate enough to have a high demand skillset at the moment, and thankfully most of us can approach these situations from a position of "power", but sadly most of us don't.
Stop putting up with bullshit, guys.
I've endured enough crap physical environments (loud, no privacy, etc.) that I'm not interested in "rolling the dice" with respect to where physically I'll be working.
Interviewing should give you a fairly clear picture of how functional or disfuntional an organization is. You just have to be sure that its a function/disfunction mix that you can thrive in.
This is a big reason for me - I will only work in jobs where Im working for someone or with someone (whos already with the employer) that I already have a previous relationship with. (This would obviously change if I found myself on street.) The problem is that Ive found that it is extremely rare to find an employer that isn't a schyster ready to milk you, "the resource", for all your worth while paying as little as they can (which these days is admittedly pretty high). In fact in tech this is the normal "good business" practice behind the curtain - get as much as you can out of your employees for as little as you can. And its an extremely small minded perspective that usually over the long term leads to high turnover and horrifying codebases and half assed products that impact the bottom line.
If you find a pretty good employer that your happy with it will cause you to pause when the next opportunity comes along because you might be expected to work 50% more time on CRUD stuff for that extra 20% raise. Its usually somewhat hard to tell from the exterior what your really stepping into.
Isn't that the definition of business? Get as much as you can for as little as you can?
If that's 'business', can we assume that some people just don't play along these 'business rules'? Arguments like these are the reason that I've a hard time getting along with the sales/marketing (and sometimes management) people around me.
A common misconception, I figure. More correct would be: Get more for less. That is, add value. Perhaps you're expected to maximise the stock price, but as long as the company doesn't go bankrupt, you have a lot of leeway in how you want to work towards that in the long run.
- I send a recruiter my resume, they call me 20 seconds later and want to discuss it. I took hours to write a damn good resume. Read it, contact me with questions that ARE NOT answered by what I just sent you. It's all laid out in front of you, stop wasting my time.
- How many years of experience do you have with product X? Again, you can read the resume and add it up, not hard.
- Don't ask me to put other opportunities on hold or somehow make your opportunity exclusive. If this was a perfect world where companies and recruiters got back to me with a yes/no in a day I would be fine with that, but expecting me to ignore 20 other e-mails when you never get back to me or take two weeks to schedule an interview is laughable. If you want me, step up or step off.
- You contacted me about a position that's W2 and offers NO benefits? Seriously?
- If you only send a location and job title it's going in the trash.
- If I don't respond to the initial or 2nd e-mail, I won't respond the 5th time you spam at me.
- I can tell that some recruiters are using me to simply fill their daily quota of sending e-mails. All of my past job titles are related to Linux / UNIX and I mention EMC once so you're going to send me storage admin jobs? Stop it.
- No need to tell me positions are "urgent" or have an "immediate need". When it comes to hiring the need is always immediate, and when I see the word "urgent" it means OH GOD I HOPE I GET TO HIM FIRST I NEED MY COMMISSION.
- Oh, working with Product X is required and you only mention that after I send you the exact same resume you saw on a job site? If it's not on my resume I haven't worked it it, stop wasting my time to fill your daily e-mail quotas.
- Stop creating hoops. Bob gets my resume who sends it to his account manager Jane who sends it to Bill in HR who sends it to the supervisor John who sends it to the hiring manager Rick. By the time my resume gets to Rick it's been 3 weeks and someone has already scooped me up.
- Stop with this subcontractor -> subcontractor -> outsourcing company -> outsourcing company -> actual client bullshit. After all of these worthless middlemen get their cut the actual company ends up paying way way more than they would hiring directly. My former (and very good natured) boss and I had a good laugh when we realized the company was paying almost twice as much for me as he made.
- Just because you have a branch office near me doesn't mean I want to drive down, fill out a bunch of paperwork, and waste an afternoon.
- Stop leaving me in the dark if you don't want me. I can tell some contract houses are doing this intentionally because they don't want to submit me but also don't want me to try again with a competing contract house that WILL submit me. Naughty, naughty.
- You expect me to spend a few hundred dollars to travel to your location for the 2nd, in-person interview? Riiiiight.
- I've only talked with three recruiters that I actually like as people. I resent the other 95% because they might be getting $10-20 for each hour I work just because they are keyword monkeys.
- Inefficient recruiting practices are driving away potential talent, period. Your company needs talent? Start by getting talented HR and in-house recruiters.
Ahh, I feel a bit better. What a shitty day.
dpeck is completely right about the hassle it's become. I'm only on week #2, I'm already fucking sick of it, and will take almost anything just to make it all stop.
I would be much happier if the interviewer gave me a small app to create from home (which was relevant to the work they actually do) & then discuss my implementation choices in person with them.
What is the point of having me spend most of an interview doing things with dijkstra's algorithm if never, in the history of your company has this been used nor do you plan to use it & then spend the last 5 minutes asking a few vague questions about what I like about Ruby / hate about Rails.
Technical tests, in my experience, are mostly (90%+ of the time) composed of challenges which have no relevancy to the work I would be doing for that company, its pointless ceremony over common sense.
I am also happy to work on a small take-home project for them (within reason) & provided its relevant to the work they do.
The purpose of data structures and algorithms questions is to demonstrate some abstract thinking and coding ability in a short space of time - if you can do that you can probably code in whatever language / framework they use.
Brainteaser questions on the other hand, those are worthless.
Also, having been on the interviewers side of the table - I think as soon as a candidate & I begin discussing his code & technical choices, it becomes obvious if he did the work himself i.e. can he talk in depth about the stack he used, any algorithms, schema decisions etc... or does he just give short "I'm hiding from your question" type answers.
I agree completely. My current place is a large bureaucracy, and they've had more than one candidate slip through their fingers just because they couldn't get the guys through the Process before they were picked off by other companies.
Stop using recruiters. They provide you with net negative value.
2. Network. The best jobs I've found have been through people I meet and recommendations of friends and other entrepreneurs. Bypass the entire system and everyone is happier.
If that were possible that would be fantastic, but I've found more often than not, you are forced to go through a recruiter to meet the real company. If you ruled out jobs that aren't advertised directly by the employer, you would miss out on a large portion of opportunities.
For big companies, in-house recruiters do the same.
People invented separation of labor for a reason, you know. Recruiting can benefit from specialization too.
This is why I started putting zero width spaces (U+200B, press Alt+8203 to type one) in my CV in the middle of words I want people to read but not computers searching for keywords to spam me.
Unless you live in NYC or the Bay Area or a few other big cities it's not like there's dozens of great companies to choose from for programming jobs.
Younger people might find it easy to move, but once you're in a relationship or have kids you can't just pick up and move every few years.
My impression is most small companies are hiring because they are disappointed with the output by their technical teams thus far. Therefore they think they need a "rock star" replacement.
I wish I knew some guys. I'm a Senior Developer working for the government. We're working on a web application that pathologists use for their case work. Although the system was made along time ago its far from complete. I was a mess when I inherited it, but I'm planning on revamping the entire site.
We just hired one guy and are looking at hiring someone else. I wish I knew some guys to build a team around. Perhaps, I could put a word in for you if you are interested.
Did you reply saying anything like "I'm happy to provide proof of current employment." ?
Google/FB/Other Big tech names are a lot different than some secretive private company that wants to interview for days on end and then offer half market value.
On top of that, just because Google or Facebook might not, doesn't mean it's the right way or that I have to put up with that.
If they won't say up front, I don't care about anything else they have to say.
Also, what some see as "allergic to career advacement" could also be seen as long term career planning. For instance, I worked a terrible dev job for 7 months. I hated the place and they paid terrible salary for the skills they wanted and area they were. I quit after finding my current job. Now this is a nice place to work but there is still limitations to advancing as it is a smaller company. That being said, I'm planning to stick around for a few years because I'm working on my MS in CS and working on achieving my goal of working on compilers for a living. I don't need to hop to whatever job seems cooler than where I'm at currently because in the long run, it doesn't help me. Does it raise my income a bit? Sure, but after a certain point the money doesn't matter.
If you want to hire someone, make a concerted effort not to drag out the process, get the decision maker involved early, and cut the crap. Your OODA cycle will be lowered, the candidate will have a better impression, and you'll see more people.
I've been on both sides of the table, and a conscious decision not to look like Dilbert ( or worse, Ratbert/Dogbert ) in your process makes a huge difference.
Anymore though, the gap between earning room and board and signing your life away to a soul sucking corporate atmosphere is so vast that I've opted to just go it alone and live as a starving artist.
I wish there was an in-between, but I've become disillusioned with the startup culture that is devolving towards 90s era bubble think. I think of it as, hackers have not yet declared independence from the power elite. Until that happens, I fear that we'll suffer indefinitely.
Best of luck to you.
From the outside looking in, I don't want to go anywhere near it.
Most of the jobs I've had (and all the recent ones) have been through friends and connections, completely bypassing the system and the job noise. If I need a job, I talk to people—any people, and lots of them. My last job I found while at a party with random friends-of-friends I mostly didn't even know, and before that was through a coworker at a consulting gig. Prior to that I started a company after having a great discussion at a bar.
I haven't updated my resume in 8 years—it's pointless, I've never found a good job using it anyway. In my opinion, if they're looking at your resume, you've already lost. You have already become a number in a pile. If they're looking at you personally and evaluating your fit for the company, then you start way ahead of the game.
This is how job searching today has to go; if you're going to recruiters or job boards, you're already in a death spiral. Escape it by networking and reaching out to your true human connections. Treat your resume as obsolete, and let your true work and your recommendations stand in its place. It will be much more effective, I promise.
Frankly, I don't want to compete on the basis of my resume! Keywords and biz speak are hard to avoid on these documents. And now that everyone can spray their resume at hiring managers without licking a stamp, sending in a resume really is a waste of time. It almost always has been that way, read 'What Color is Your Parachute' for a taste of job hunting over the past few decades.
Get to know someone at the company, do a contract to hire, do a gig, volunteer with someone, even read and comment on a blog or twitter feed of someone in the company.
All these are far more likely to lead to conversations that will let you know if you actually want to work there, and if you'll be a good fit.
I am half joking, but also half serious. I minimize my profile online to cut down on recruiting spam. Coderwall is a step in the wrong direction in this regard.
Companies that want to build great teams need to start thinking more offensively than defensively. If you have a great culture and solving interesting problems, recruiters wont pose a threat.
So no, the reality is not that it's easily accessible -- unless you're already making it so on sites that are liberal with sharing your info like LinkedIn.
Here is an article on Monster.com and endless email: http://blog.brusic.com/2012/07/how-private-is-your-online-jo...
"information is easily accessible on LinkedIn". Unless LinkedIn has some psychic abilities, LinkedIn only knows what I voluntarily add. My LinkedIn profile contains only company names, dates, and titles. No descriptions. No StackOverflow. Github is used to share code with those I know, not some vanity site.
I work with an amazing team, but you won't find us online (except for mailing lists or slides from talks).
It's not like you're under obligation to respond, and every once in a while a recruiter may even have a pitch that merits a response.
Then I think about how much trouble it'd be to market myself and how much of my private life and interests I'd have to make public just get someone interested enough to get me a detour around said piles.
Then I go back to my current job where I'm woefully underpaid and build mountains of Rube Goldberg-esque trash to satisfy the idiotic short term thinking justified by the fake jingoism of the business and marketing types that run the company.
Remember folks, if you can build something wrong to reduce the cost of developer time, it's always worth it!
But as my eyes get worse, I may be forced to adjust. :-(
I fail to see how this even remotely makes sense, though.
Relying on a client-side language that may (or may not) be disabled, however, is simply foolish.
I guess the absolute horror scenario for the web would be when people start deciding to do their own personal server-side markup, and then render it with a bloated JS library on the client (hey, it's Turing complete!).
As a developer we get plenty of emails, and when we finally go through the work of finding a good job we probably put more on the table than most business dev people do. We are asked to work late when the project was miss planned or miss communicated to customers, when the thing breaks for some random reason, we are there to fix it. So at some point we feel like it's a part of us.
On the flipside while companies are trying to recruit they don't want to talk about the details of the app and what they really need done because they don't want to scare you off. So you go through this dance, and it kinda starts like this.
Some recruiter sees in their linkedin network that a job posts. If they are whiley they might find the job listing on a particular site. They don't have any relationship with the company or with you but they want to broker the deal and get %25 of your yearly salary so they are willing to work for it. All the while the recruiter is trying to get information out of both sides without a contract and with out all of the information. They don't know how much the job will offer until they have a few good candidates to show, and to start a dialog with the company. On the other side of the table they are trying to figure out what it will take for you to leave what you are doing so they ask weird questions that have hardly anything to do with what you care about, but are solely related to things they understand.
Once you get far enough along in that dance, you'll go for an onsite where the interviewer is either an engineer or a hiring manager. In SF, no one has any time, so the interviewee is just not that important until they are actually hired. This is the first thing I look for.
Does the hiring company actually care about me?
Once you get past the personality screen then they give you a technical task/ interview. Some companies ask tough computer science questions that have long been lost by people who actually do the work. Others ask tech gotchas that you would normally look up on google if you were stuck. And some actually get you to work on something related to the actual position you are interviewing for.
Now once you get through all of that, now they need to close you. At this point they need to work a number. Back in the old days companies would work out a number and then do something nice just to make you feel really welcome. In SV this is much less so the case. Many people are very analytical and hardly have social skills so it becomes all about the numbers.
At this point as an engineer you would like to know how well the company is doing, but you can't quite ask the hard questions without seeming skeptical as this might affect your offer. On the flip side the company making the offer wants to get you as affordably as they can and they don't want you to take some other offer.
At the end of the day, the offering company will make an offer and put a time limit on it. ( as for some reason why they would rather have you make a brash decision about the next 3 years of your life, i don't get ) And then you look at the numbers and you either counter or don't. Many companies out here have been hard pressed to negotiate for the following reasons.
* the cap table is already set
* the salary is fair, and we are a startup and that's what we can offer
* we don't offer bonuses
Some companies wont even accept resumes from recruiters, but then you are missing out on all of the talent that get's talked into submitting a resume and has not had the time to search on their own.
I just wish companies talked more about the real issues and were more open and honest about things. I think that if you start with honesty, and expect honesty you have a much better chance of getting it back from your future employee and confident.
I forgot to mention that each of these dances might take an engineer 10-20 hours per company to full evaluate them. It's not a small amount of work to interview.
You have to ask the question: if they didn't pay $20,000 would they have found you in the first place? And if the answer is no, then it's $20,000 well spent.
"I just wish companies talked more about the real issues and were more open and honest about things. I think that if you start with honesty, and expect honesty you have a much better chance of getting it back from your future employee and confident."
There's dishonesty on both sides of the table and it's hard to discern, until after the fact, whether the other side was being true to their word and intent.
Does anyone know of anything similar internationally?
Back after the dot com burst a whole lot of developers would have loved for recruiters to bug them.