6 ms·

I think the author is talking past Joel to some extent. Joel's emphasis is not on good developers not changing jobs, but more about the fact that they very seld

I think the author is talking past Joel to some extent. Joel's emphasis is not on good developers not changing jobs, but more about the fact that they very seldom go through a traditional application process of sending in a cv to a hiring manager. Instead, these people "travel as fast as beer" when they're looking for a new position - they mention it to a friend or colleague who has a beer with someone else who sends over a job offer. It can seem paradoxical that companies are saying that they can't find people to hire, and even with the tech boom there are developers who can't find jobs (at least ones that they are completely happy with), but this is because a huge percentage of CVs on desks are from people who have needed to take the time to send off job applications, and are often therefore representative of the not "great" developers.

chrisbennet 10y ago
Exactly. The premise of the article is wrong. "This model is certainly different from Joel’s model. Joel’s model assumes that “great” developers are sticky – that they stay at each job for a long time." Is false. Joel simply did not say that. Joel actually said: "..prospective employers recognize their greatness quickly, which means, basically, they get to work wherever they want, so they honestly don’t send out a lot of resumes or apply for a lot of jobs." Great devs aren't on the market because they don't use the "market" to get their next job - not because the don't leave jobs very often.
matwood 10y ago
> Instead, these people "travel as fast as beer" when they're looking for a new position - they mention it to a friend or colleague who has a beer with someone else who sends over a job offer. Not that I am some great developer, but in multiple jobs over almost 20 years I have sent a blind resume exactly once. Even then, it was on a whim.
- user5994461 10y ago
  In what city do you live?
tptacek 10y ago
Spolsky is wrong. I think we all have a clearer view of that now than we did in the '90s, which is the era of software development he's writing about. I'd be surprised to hear that Spolsky himself still believes everything in the Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing. But the notion that the best developers rarely go through the normal interview process is itself problematic and worth picking apart. It's true: the developers with the best reputations don't get interviewed. They can get their pick of jobs just by networking. But that's bad. It's bad for multiple reasons: * It creates an informal guild of developers --- not all of whom are actually good --- who can bank on career mobility regardless of performance. Those developers are often hard to motivate and always hard to retain. Some of them are toxic, but because it takes 1+ years for most companies to cough up a bad developer, they end up with resumes that are indistinguishable from the rest of the cool kids, so they get to "fail up". * It means some of the best developers are never informing the hiring processes of companies, because they get to skip unreasonable candidate screens. This means the screens never get any better. If you're serious about screening candidates, you standardize your process and you have an ironclad nobody skips the process rule. But almost nobody has these rules, because they feel like they can't and retain access to the cool kids guild. * It reinforces and amplifies stereotypes and privileges. It means it's super easy to get a job if you know the right people and look like Zuckerberg. It's part of the reason the demographics of our industry look this way. So, apropos little else of this thread: Don't let elite candidates skip your process. Standardize your process. If an elite candidate balks, then you've learned something about them: they'd rather your process suck and keep sucking than take any time to help fix it. That sounds to me like someone who isn't prepared to invest their time and energy in your team.
- alexc05 10y ago
  > That sounds to me like someone who isn't prepared to invest their time and energy in your team. And why should they? If you are running them through some elaborate hazing ritual before they are a member of the team. If at any point during the hazing ritual, any unknown person can black-ball them, in what way do they owe you the courtesy of helping you improve your team? The contract in this instance is not "I will help you out of the goodness of my heart" the contract is "I will help you for x hours a day in return for a wage of y" Anyways, I appreciate where you're coming from, and agree that you want to work with "generally agreeable" people, and should hire the same. In my opinion, it does not necessarily logically follow, that someone who is unwilling to prostrate themselves before a noxious process is not willing to invest in the team they join. It is incumbent upon the hirer to respect the applicant as well as the inverse.
user5994461 10y ago
That may be true in the silicon valley, where there are companies ready to poach you on every other floor of the building you work at, and every other building in the street. In the other cities of the world. There aren't that many places where you can work at in the area. Your network is limited and you still have to go through traditional interviews (supposing there are even companies to work for in the area).
- ryandrake 10y ago
  I think you might be overstating the hiring activity in Silicon Valley, or confusing "interviewing" with "hiring". There indeed seems to be a lot of interviewing going on, not so much hiring.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    I think you might not realize how lucky you are to be able to have interviews. There are places in the world where you can look 50 miles around and only find 3 companies who are (even remotely) a match for you. Whether they happen to have open positions at the moment doesn't even come into considerations yet.
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      No, I agree, and do consider it fortunate to at least be physically located among companies that are at least going through the motions. But, in some ways, all-interview-no-hire is worse for candidates than no-interview. When you interview you're blowing at least one vacation day, and when the company is not serious about hiring it's a total waste.

chrisbennet 10y ago

Exactly. The premise of the article is wrong. "This model is certainly different from Joel’s model. Joel’s model assumes that “great” developers are sticky – that they stay at each job for a long time." Is false. Joel simply did not say that. Joel actually said: "..prospective employers recognize their greatness quickly, which means, basically, they get to work wherever they want, so they honestly don’t send out a lot of resumes or apply for a lot of jobs." Great devs aren't on the market because they don't use the "market" to get their next job - not because the don't leave jobs very often.

matwood 10y ago

> Instead, these people "travel as fast as beer" when they're looking for a new position - they mention it to a friend or colleague who has a beer with someone else who sends over a job offer. Not that I am some great developer, but in multiple jobs over almost 20 years I have sent a blind resume exactly once. Even then, it was on a whim.

user5994461 10y ago
In what city do you live?

tptacek 10y ago

Spolsky is wrong. I think we all have a clearer view of that now than we did in the '90s, which is the era of software development he's writing about. I'd be surprised to hear that Spolsky himself still believes everything in the Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing. But the notion that the best developers rarely go through the normal interview process is itself problematic and worth picking apart. It's true: the developers with the best reputations don't get interviewed. They can get their pick of jobs just by networking. But that's bad. It's bad for multiple reasons: * It creates an informal guild of developers --- not all of whom are actually good --- who can bank on career mobility regardless of performance. Those developers are often hard to motivate and always hard to retain. Some of them are toxic, but because it takes 1+ years for most companies to cough up a bad developer, they end up with resumes that are indistinguishable from the rest of the cool kids, so they get to "fail up". * It means some of the best developers are never informing the hiring processes of companies, because they get to skip unreasonable candidate screens. This means the screens never get any better. If you're serious about screening candidates, you standardize your process and you have an ironclad nobody skips the process rule. But almost nobody has these rules, because they feel like they can't and retain access to the cool kids guild. * It reinforces and amplifies stereotypes and privileges. It means it's super easy to get a job if you know the right people and look like Zuckerberg. It's part of the reason the demographics of our industry look this way. So, apropos little else of this thread: Don't let elite candidates skip your process. Standardize your process. If an elite candidate balks, then you've learned something about them: they'd rather your process suck and keep sucking than take any time to help fix it. That sounds to me like someone who isn't prepared to invest their time and energy in your team.

alexc05 10y ago
> That sounds to me like someone who isn't prepared to invest their time and energy in your team. And why should they? If you are running them through some elaborate hazing ritual before they are a member of the team. If at any point during the hazing ritual, any unknown person can black-ball them, in what way do they owe you the courtesy of helping you improve your team? The contract in this instance is not "I will help you out of the goodness of my heart" the contract is "I will help you for x hours a day in return for a wage of y" Anyways, I appreciate where you're coming from, and agree that you want to work with "generally agreeable" people, and should hire the same. In my opinion, it does not necessarily logically follow, that someone who is unwilling to prostrate themselves before a noxious process is not willing to invest in the team they join. It is incumbent upon the hirer to respect the applicant as well as the inverse.

user5994461 10y ago

That may be true in the silicon valley, where there are companies ready to poach you on every other floor of the building you work at, and every other building in the street. In the other cities of the world. There aren't that many places where you can work at in the area. Your network is limited and you still have to go through traditional interviews (supposing there are even companies to work for in the area).

ryandrake 10y ago
I think you might be overstating the hiring activity in Silicon Valley, or confusing "interviewing" with "hiring". There indeed seems to be a lot of interviewing going on, not so much hiring.
- user5994461 10y ago
  I think you might not realize how lucky you are to be able to have interviews. There are places in the world where you can look 50 miles around and only find 3 companies who are (even remotely) a match for you. Whether they happen to have open positions at the moment doesn't even come into considerations yet.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    No, I agree, and do consider it fortunate to at least be physically located among companies that are at least going through the motions. But, in some ways, all-interview-no-hire is worse for candidates than no-interview. When you interview you're blowing at least one vacation day, and when the company is not serious about hiring it's a total waste.