5 ms·

Could you expand on how you ended up walking that line? Did you feel you wasted your time on under-qualified people? Did you end up hiring anyone who initially

by J-dawg 11y ago

Could you expand on how you ended up walking that line? Did you feel you wasted your time on under-qualified people? Did you end up hiring anyone who initially didn't seem like a textbook candidate? If so, how did they turn out? The reason I ask is that I've always been nervous about applying for jobs when I don't have every skill listed on the ad. The advice I've been given is usually something like "Apply anyway. The job advert is a wish list, not a minimum." But I'm still terrified of an interviewer opening my CV and asking how the hell I slipped through the screening process. Or even worse, being too polite to be so blunt and awkwardly going through the motions of an interview. It would be awesome to get the perspective of an interviewer.

lallysingh 11y ago
I interview tons of candidates. The resume tells me nearly nothing, just what you've worked on before. Not how much, out how well that went. So in terms of some "textbook" model fit, the question is a little silly. Generally few people are really good. And their spread out unpredictably across the landscape, so you have to just interview lots of people to find them.
mooreds 11y ago
Hi. I definitely wasted time interviewing underqualified people. But I wasted time interviewing some overqualified people too (because of salary/location expectations that should have been communicated up front). Actually, all of interviewing feels like wasted time (you have this burning need, and you want to fill it yesterday, or better yet a month ago, and yet you have to go through this process and learn about all these strangers, while the building feels like it is on fire). Note that I said feels like wasted time, not is wasted time. It's a bit like learning a new programming language--you end up going down lots of blind alleys before you find the way you really want to go. (All we could afford was non textbook candidates, and out of 3 hires, 2 worked out.) As far as walking the line, as I got more comfortable interviewing, I always worked off a rubric, and set things up so that I could ease out of a phone interview early if it was clear that they didn't live up to their resume. Ended up doing the same thing with the in person interviews as well. Definitely screened by resume. > I've always been nervous about applying for jobs when I don't have every skill listed on the ad. This is a hard problem because some institutions write wish lists in their job reqs, and some write hard and fast requirements. And you don't know before applying. (And sometimes the goal posts in the organization move when their "requirements" meet the labor market.) Personally, I'd apply if you have half of the requirements and feel like you can speak to the way you learn. If you're interested in the company, I'd also take the extra step and do some work around it, whether that's writing a pain letter ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2015/03/01/how-to-write-your-first-pain-letter/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2015/03/01/how-to-write-... ) or writing a simple client against someone's external API or creeping^Hscanning LinkedIn, Twitter and Github profiles and finding out about the team and company. Good luck!
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  >But I wasted time interviewing some overqualified people too (because of salary/location expectations that should have been communicated up front). Well that's your own fault as the job advertiser, and when I say "you", I mean almost all companies that advertise jobs. You almost never state the salaries to be paid, so tons of peoples' time gets wasted by pointless interviewing which gets followed up with insultingly low salary offers. If you're a cheap-ass and want to pay a pathetic salary, you should state this in your job ad, so that non-deadwood people don't bother to apply to your job. >This is a hard problem because some institutions write wish lists in their job reqs, and some write hard and fast requirements. It's not that hard to tell the difference. When the word "required" is used, that sounds like a requirement to me. When a separate list is preceded by "nice to have", "plusses", etc., those are obviously skills that the company would like to have in a candidate, but are not hard-and-fast requirements. If the company is so stupid they can't write a simple job advertisement this way, and they use the word "requirements" or "required" when they really meant "nice to have", then they don't deserve any employees at all.
  - ghurtado 11y ago
    You must be a joy to interview.
    - bbarn 11y ago
      Actually, this is exactly the type of person I like to interview. One that's already thought ahead and read the posting and decided if it was even close to a fit lifestyle-wise for them, and technically.
      - Grishnakh 11y ago
        Thank you. When I look for a job, I'm not looking for the very top salary (usually those go to the very top performers, which I'm not, I'm good but not top 1%, or are companies which expect too much time), but there are a good number of companies out there trying to get good people for bottom-of-the-barrel salaries. I don't want to waste my time on those places. They usually have other big problems in addition to poor pay too. Honestly, I wish every job posting included the following: - salary range (and an honest one too, not one where they post a mediocre low and a great high, but then never actually offer the high number to anyone and just offer the low number by default) - work location - sometimes it's not that easy to figure out where a company's office is located, or they have multiple locations. The address is important, because it determines my commute time. - office environment - is it open-plan, cubicles, offices, shared offices, etc. Some photos would be good. - computing environment - do you use Windows (7, 8, 10), MacOSX, Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, RHEL, etc.)? A combination? (RH in a VM for development, Windows for email/Office). What version control do you use? (git, SVN, or (ugh) ClearCase) - standard benefits package: insurance company and regular single-guy premium, number of days off/year, etc. - a fairly detailed explanation of the actual work involved in this position: what technologies you'll likely use, what the project is, etc. - number of people in team, how team works together (Scrum/Agile, waterfall, etc.) If companies would just post all this info with their job requisitions, it'd save everyone a lot of time. I see posting filled with paragraphs and paragraphs of flowery crap about how wonderful their "collaborative team environment" is or their corporate philosophy or whatever, but the things I listed above are what are important to me in a job and what will determine if I'm happy in that job. Spare me the flowery prose about how wonderful your company is; I'll make that determination on my own.

by J-dawg 11y ago

lallysingh 11y ago

I interview tons of candidates. The resume tells me nearly nothing, just what you've worked on before. Not how much, out how well that went. So in terms of some "textbook" model fit, the question is a little silly. Generally few people are really good. And their spread out unpredictably across the landscape, so you have to just interview lots of people to find them.

mooreds 11y ago

Hi. I definitely wasted time interviewing underqualified people. But I wasted time interviewing some overqualified people too (because of salary/location expectations that should have been communicated up front). Actually, all of interviewing feels like wasted time (you have this burning need, and you want to fill it yesterday, or better yet a month ago, and yet you have to go through this process and learn about all these strangers, while the building feels like it is on fire). Note that I said feels like wasted time, not is wasted time. It's a bit like learning a new programming language--you end up going down lots of blind alleys before you find the way you really want to go. (All we could afford was non textbook candidates, and out of 3 hires, 2 worked out.) As far as walking the line, as I got more comfortable interviewing, I always worked off a rubric, and set things up so that I could ease out of a phone interview early if it was clear that they didn't live up to their resume. Ended up doing the same thing with the in person interviews as well. Definitely screened by resume. > I've always been nervous about applying for jobs when I don't have every skill listed on the ad. This is a hard problem because some institutions write wish lists in their job reqs, and some write hard and fast requirements. And you don't know before applying. (And sometimes the goal posts in the organization move when their "requirements" meet the labor market.) Personally, I'd apply if you have half of the requirements and feel like you can speak to the way you learn. If you're interested in the company, I'd also take the extra step and do some work around it, whether that's writing a pain letter ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2015/03/01/how-to-write-your-first-pain-letter/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2015/03/01/how-to-write-... ) or writing a simple client against someone's external API or creeping^Hscanning LinkedIn, Twitter and Github profiles and finding out about the team and company. Good luck!

Grishnakh 11y ago
>But I wasted time interviewing some overqualified people too (because of salary/location expectations that should have been communicated up front). Well that's your own fault as the job advertiser, and when I say "you", I mean almost all companies that advertise jobs. You almost never state the salaries to be paid, so tons of peoples' time gets wasted by pointless interviewing which gets followed up with insultingly low salary offers. If you're a cheap-ass and want to pay a pathetic salary, you should state this in your job ad, so that non-deadwood people don't bother to apply to your job. >This is a hard problem because some institutions write wish lists in their job reqs, and some write hard and fast requirements. It's not that hard to tell the difference. When the word "required" is used, that sounds like a requirement to me. When a separate list is preceded by "nice to have", "plusses", etc., those are obviously skills that the company would like to have in a candidate, but are not hard-and-fast requirements. If the company is so stupid they can't write a simple job advertisement this way, and they use the word "requirements" or "required" when they really meant "nice to have", then they don't deserve any employees at all.
- ghurtado 11y ago
  You must be a joy to interview.
  - bbarn 11y ago
    Actually, this is exactly the type of person I like to interview. One that's already thought ahead and read the posting and decided if it was even close to a fit lifestyle-wise for them, and technically.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      Thank you. When I look for a job, I'm not looking for the very top salary (usually those go to the very top performers, which I'm not, I'm good but not top 1%, or are companies which expect too much time), but there are a good number of companies out there trying to get good people for bottom-of-the-barrel salaries. I don't want to waste my time on those places. They usually have other big problems in addition to poor pay too. Honestly, I wish every job posting included the following: - salary range (and an honest one too, not one where they post a mediocre low and a great high, but then never actually offer the high number to anyone and just offer the low number by default) - work location - sometimes it's not that easy to figure out where a company's office is located, or they have multiple locations. The address is important, because it determines my commute time. - office environment - is it open-plan, cubicles, offices, shared offices, etc. Some photos would be good. - computing environment - do you use Windows (7, 8, 10), MacOSX, Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, RHEL, etc.)? A combination? (RH in a VM for development, Windows for email/Office). What version control do you use? (git, SVN, or (ugh) ClearCase) - standard benefits package: insurance company and regular single-guy premium, number of days off/year, etc. - a fairly detailed explanation of the actual work involved in this position: what technologies you'll likely use, what the project is, etc. - number of people in team, how team works together (Scrum/Agile, waterfall, etc.) If companies would just post all this info with their job requisitions, it'd save everyone a lot of time. I see posting filled with paragraphs and paragraphs of flowery crap about how wonderful their "collaborative team environment" is or their corporate philosophy or whatever, but the things I listed above are what are important to me in a job and what will determine if I'm happy in that job. Spare me the flowery prose about how wonderful your company is; I'll make that determination on my own.