4 ms·

I think this still smacks of too-situational thinking. Every day my inbox fills with "exciting opportunities" that are nothing but a laundry list of requirement

by RogerL 11y ago

I think this still smacks of too-situational thinking. Every day my inbox fills with "exciting opportunities" that are nothing but a laundry list of requirements. Am I going to learn nothing on this job? Are you going to invest in me by letting me learn new skills? Are you going to unleash me on new problems, etc? If this is a boring maintainance mode job you don't need the 'best and the brightest' that everyone says they want, and let's be honest; anyone decent can learn that laundry list. It's rare that I see a req that interests me, because most are extremely situational and based on very specific tasks. Again, I recognize these sorts of jobs will always exist in established companies, and I thank the writer for making that clear, but a list of 8 technologies (who am I kidding, it is usually 15 with 10 more 'nice to haves') from a start up that will probably be pivoting in 3 months anyway? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. "Come work for us and absolutely stall your career as you grind out tasks that you mastered 3 years ago" is not an appealing sales pitch, and not one that will bring in the talent you need to respond to new challenges. I'm not saying you meant any of that in your post (you might of, but I'm not sure), your post was just a convenient one to respond to.

jasode 11y ago
>I think this still smacks of too-situational thinking. [...] It's rare that I see a req that interests me, I understand. There are 2 sides on how to describe the existence of a job: (1) for the executive manager approving of the requisition and (2) for the candidates In other words, when the hiring manager goes to the vice president asking for another FTE, the exec is going to ask the justification. The hiring manager could say, "well, we can teach him the latest cutting edge functional programming techniques, and also let him build up some AWS architecture skills which will boost his resume and make him more valuable to other companies, and he can play in our foosball ping pong table area, and eat our catered food, and take 4 weeks of vacation." Obviously, the vice president would think those are silly reasons for paying someone. Instead, he needs to know what value-added tasks will justify the job position. (1) hiring manager perspective: the real work that needs to be done is highlighted, the employee's benefits are implied (2) candidate perspective: the employee's benefits are highlighted, the "real work that needs to be done" is implied The thread was about Kerri Miller who was talking about job positions from the company's perspective instead of the employee's and that's what guided my examples. Behind every job ad that says "change the world and come work for us at our beautiful campus!" from YC, Google, or Apple, etc is a list of tasks that need to get done.

by RogerL 11y ago

jasode 11y ago

>I think this still smacks of too-situational thinking. [...] It's rare that I see a req that interests me, I understand. There are 2 sides on how to describe the existence of a job: (1) for the executive manager approving of the requisition and (2) for the candidates In other words, when the hiring manager goes to the vice president asking for another FTE, the exec is going to ask the justification. The hiring manager could say, "well, we can teach him the latest cutting edge functional programming techniques, and also let him build up some AWS architecture skills which will boost his resume and make him more valuable to other companies, and he can play in our foosball ping pong table area, and eat our catered food, and take 4 weeks of vacation." Obviously, the vice president would think those are silly reasons for paying someone. Instead, he needs to know what value-added tasks will justify the job position. (1) hiring manager perspective: the real work that needs to be done is highlighted, the employee's benefits are implied (2) candidate perspective: the employee's benefits are highlighted, the "real work that needs to be done" is implied The thread was about Kerri Miller who was talking about job positions from the company's perspective instead of the employee's and that's what guided my examples. Behind every job ad that says "change the world and come work for us at our beautiful campus!" from YC, Google, or Apple, etc is a list of tasks that need to get done.