I know that when I sent an email to the YC founders list cause I needed a job (2 years ago, but that's recent), I got 100 replies. I also know I find it hard to find really good devs for CircleCI. But those are just anecdotes...
While I think some devs are in high demand, I think many have little horizontal or upward mobility if they can get a job at all. I don't have a lot of evidence to back this up, and that WP study seems to talk a lot more about IT than software development, but I think it's probably something to think about. I think there's a crisis in training and mentorship in our industry, rather than one of willing bodies.
I agree about the crisis in training and mentorship. A lot of people who seem like weak candidates are really just lacking in experience and direction.
Which is my point above: we're starved of great devs because of stats about shit devs.
IMO we're starved of great devs because we don't make bad devs better.
Uh, I dono about the whole staying long time thing, but employers do train, or at least hire unqualified people they expect to grow into the position.
Especially low-budget web startups... yeah, they talk about "rockstar ninja" this and that, but who do you think they actually get, when they are paying below market rates?
I mean, I'm not criticizing; some people really respond to "non-monetary compensation" - and that's what the rockstar ninja bullshit is.
I hire from the same pool, really; but I'm all apologetic about paying you shit. Who would you rather work for? me, saying "Hey, sorry I'm paying you shit. but hey, the last guy who had the job got a really good job with $realcompany after two years." - or some startup, that says you are an awesome best in the world rockstar ninja, and you aren't getting much money, but you have equity in this startup that will change the world!"
I mean, it's really the same thing, just framed in different ways. And most people? they like the rockstar ninja framing.
(I hire people full-time with benefits, too- but right now, I don't have enough revenue to hire another full-time. I do need some help moving, though, which is why that shady deal with my buddy is so good for me; I get some per-day work, but can attract someone that wants to be full time, and thus end up paying closer to full-time rates.)
I am okay with a full-day minimum; I'm not expecting you to show up for an hour for $15, and I usually get lunch or dinner or something.
But yeah; I don't know. “Napoleon's hat on the battlefield is worth 50,000 men”. - most people expect /leadership/ - and most people think leadership involves motivating people through personal charisma and confidence.
Personally? I understand how bad leadership can destroy value, but I don't really see how good leadership (in the personal charisma sense) can help anything. I think good leaders pick good people, (or, at least, the best people available considering the compensation the company can afford.) then mostly get out of the way. I mean, i do a lot of "no, don't spend time on that, this other thing is more important" - like today, I redirected an employee away from working on new images and towards improving our per-port BCP38. And I do training, too, but that's really more experienced individual contributor type work.
(And as for Napoleon, after the french revolution? the french soldiers were treated better than any of their contemporaries, and I think that had a lot to do with their success. I mean, I'm not entirely discounting Napoleon, but "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," I think, really had a lot to do with his success. It's not a unique strategy; every Caesar since, well, Caesar has used populist rhetoric and policies to gain and keep power, but at that time? the rest of the world really treated their soldiers poorly, and France was, at least in Europe, uniquely populist.)
As for how leadership can affect employees, I'm inclined to believe that leadership will always have a substantive effect on productivity and skill. Obviously, most employees do not work on projects entirely of their choosing; they are given tasks or projects to do, often decided by the team or by management. Certainly, the employee can have input, but ultimately employees exist to serve a role determined by higher-ups. Higher-ups, then, have the responsibility of appropriating their tallent in ways that are effective. Good people aren't good when they aren't given meaningful work.
Sure, but that's in the "make the right decisions" category. Logistics, really. We're talking Marshal Berthier here, not Napoleon. Part of that is assigning the right people to the right tasks. That doesn't take personal charisma or being tall or anything, that's just being technically right.
I mean, it's obvious that the people making technical decisions need to do so competently. It's not always easy to do correctly, but I can understand the process... I understand what needs to be done.
I'm talking about, you know, leadership. When a teacher says someone has "leadership skills" they don't mean that the kid understands how to manage logistics; they mean the kid has a bunch of personal/emotional qualities that allow him or her to emotionally manipulate others to get what he or she wants. (Or, if you want to phrase it in positive terms, "they mean the kid has a bunch of personal/emotional qualities that inspire others to do what they want." )
That's the part I wonder if I need to spend time on. (I mean, logistics is huge, and I /know/ I need to spend more time on it, but that's just a matter of execution, really. I know what I want.)
I mean, do I take time out from the logistics (which I know I need) to learn how to become slick? Certainly, on a personal level, nearly everyone prefers the up-beat, happy person who phrases everything positively, and acts as if they know what they are doing; someone who shows they are marching to certain victory, over to someone who says and does the same things, but who phrases it negatively and states up front that realistically, failure is the likely outcome, that if they do succeed, the reward will be middling, and acknowledges that they are just figuring it out/making it up as they go along.
My problem is that I tend to phrase things negatively, in part because all of my grave financial errors have been due to a terribly unrealistic level of optimism, and in part because I fucking hate guys like that.
Now, I always thought of myself as being more honest and direct... and in some ways, I certainly am, but I have been finding, lately that quite often my false humility comes off as being non-confrontational. Sometimes, I fear that it is. Sometimes, I find myself rephrasing my thoughts directly to be less confrontational, which really puts some people off. I mean, if I'm leaving in the negative phrasing, why go through the effort to also be non-confrontational? well, in part because humility is non-confrontational, and I'm attempting, however clumsily, to emulate humility; but should I? I mean, sure, it turns me in to a person I would like more, but most people are exactly the opposite.
I mean, my feeling on the matter is that I can fake what other people call 'confidence' fairly easily by simply letting my scorn for the fact that you value confidence show. Most people seem to think that's close enough to "confidence" to get me the job or the date or whatever. It doesn't really work long-term, but in a job, at least, by the time they figure it out, I've proven myself useful, so it's fine.
My current feeling? emotional bullshit is bullshit; so long as my logistics are good enough, it doesn't really matter all that much, so long as I avoid high-touch sales situations. It's probably fucking my personal life, but that can be dealt with later.
That's a rough guide, with many edge cases, but that's how we go about it.