3 ms·

First, there may not be a tech shortage if teams are “weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles....” But, if there is, I’m ass

by afpx 9y ago

First, there may not be a tech shortage if teams are “weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles....” But, if there is, I’m assuming that candidates are just applying randomly to any positions that are available. The ‘Tinder’ strategy is probably a good one if the goal is to maximize earnings. However, if one is a ‘5’ it makes sense to spam all of the positions. But, if one is a ‘10’, it makes sense to avoid interviewing all together because there is diminishing returns: too much work for too little potential gain. So, the other question is if the hiring process is so ineffective, why aren’t companies innovating? There must be lack of competition in the market if companies are willing to wait several months and spend thousands of dollars to fill a role while also missing out on the best candidates.

paulddraper 9y ago
> I’m assuming that candidates are just applying randomly to any positions that are available Yep, that's it. The same cost-benefits dynamics as spam mail.
psadri 9y ago
I think google did a good job of this in the early days. They got the word out on the street that their interviews were notoriously difficult. That probably dissuaded a lot of the random applicants. I also read somewhere that some big bank (Goldman) just has a very circuitous, lengthy application process and the main point of it is to weed out the spray and pray applicants.
- oculusthrift 9y ago
  i’m pretty certain google is the most applied to company in the world so not sure if that holds up
  - tzakrajs 9y ago
    It helps to keep the illusion of exclusivity the more people you turn away.
  - nostrademons 9y ago
    I think that really started around 2005 when they made a concerted effort to ramp up college hiring (and by extension, started advertising among the general public). I knew someone who worked there in 2002. (Well, now having worked there, I know lots of people who worked there in 2002, but in 2002 I knew someone who worked there.) At the time, they were a small startup with a reputation for hiring only the best, the way you might think of Medallion or D.E Shaw now. There wasn't a perception that you could just walk in off the street and get a job like in The Internship movie.
ejnulls 9y ago
Why aren't they innovating? Becsuse most jobs aren't that hard, sorry. It's just kind of true. Wh I you have 100s of people that could probably do the job competing for a position, that's a great time to be a business owner! If the state of hiring was negatively impacting companies' bottom lines, they'd do something about it. It's kind of the whole point of companies.
sbuttgereit 9y ago
I think there probably is a tech shortage in terms of strong candidates. I've worked with some companies where there are people that are employed as "developers", but they can't tell you the simplest of basics; I don't consider myself a developer, yet my meager knowledge and understanding far exceeds the skills of some of these people. I see more of these types than you'd think could survive for long (much of my work is outside of SV and with non-tech companies). When these types enter the job market, the local maximum they've been in for some time tells them that they're developers and they think they can apply to some of these more sophisticated gigs. But there's a clear distinction between these people that mostly copied code from SO and elsewhere in the code base and got it to work vs. those that actually devised the methods they're using... and I think there are many more at this lower end of the spectrum than there are at the higher end: just the bar is so much lower. As for companies innovating in this regard, it's kinda funny to think about it. When it first got started, I think LinkedIn was trying to be exactly this. Rather than encouraging people to add any and every person they ever thought about (or that asked), the idea was that you should only add those people that you know and trust. In this way, you could use your LinkedIn network as a network of trust for things like hiring or looking for work. That's changed I think both by LinkedIn wanting to have a large network of data to mine and by any number of participants that will add connections since they're really after a bulk network rather than a trusted network. In both cases the business case for such a network of trust doesn't seem to work well for the company providing the service and doesn't work well for the participants... so it breaks. Naturally, that's just one approach and there could be others, but I do think there have been efforts here.
- monocasa 9y ago
  And adding on to this, these people are understandably most of the people looking for work. I've literally seen engineers with 20 years of experience grind for 45 minutes on FizzBuzz, not able to make any progress.
- derefr 9y ago
  > I've worked with some companies where there are people that are employed as "developers", but they can't tell you the simplest of basics; I don't consider myself a developer, yet my meager knowledge and understanding far exceeds the skills of some of these people. Hypothesis: these people might not have knowledge, but they're very willing to schlep, and so—with enough effort and iteration—they can take a plan and turn it into working code. And on the other hand, some people who are very "talented" on paper are nigh-unemployable because they just can't get things done. (They can easily tell someone else how to get the job done, but they have no drive or desire to schlep for themselves.)
austincheney 9y ago
The shortage is an imaginary bi-product of two actual problems. One problem is bias and the second is talent gaps. Bias is a factor in that many interviewers have no idea what they want from a technical perspective, or simply lack confidence themselves. When in doubt hire somebody exactly like yourself. This isn't objective or a valid representation of competence, but it is common. Talent gaps apply when there are a surplus, plethora is a better term, of new developers and senior developers are purple unicorns. It takes time and lots of practice to transform a newb into a rockstar. Throwing money at the problem isn't a magic formula for providing extra time and practice. Years of employment experience isn't an indicator of quality either as that doesn't necessarily mean practice solving hard problems. When you solve for bias suddenly there are a lot more competent candidates available. If you realize a single senior paired with several newbs accounts for the talent gap more quickly suddenly you can hire functional teams without false expectations.

by afpx 9y ago

paulddraper 9y ago

> I’m assuming that candidates are just applying randomly to any positions that are available Yep, that's it. The same cost-benefits dynamics as spam mail.

psadri 9y ago

I think google did a good job of this in the early days. They got the word out on the street that their interviews were notoriously difficult. That probably dissuaded a lot of the random applicants. I also read somewhere that some big bank (Goldman) just has a very circuitous, lengthy application process and the main point of it is to weed out the spray and pray applicants.

oculusthrift 9y ago
i’m pretty certain google is the most applied to company in the world so not sure if that holds up
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  It helps to keep the illusion of exclusivity the more people you turn away.
- nostrademons 9y ago
  I think that really started around 2005 when they made a concerted effort to ramp up college hiring (and by extension, started advertising among the general public). I knew someone who worked there in 2002. (Well, now having worked there, I know lots of people who worked there in 2002, but in 2002 I knew someone who worked there.) At the time, they were a small startup with a reputation for hiring only the best, the way you might think of Medallion or D.E Shaw now. There wasn't a perception that you could just walk in off the street and get a job like in The Internship movie.

ejnulls 9y ago

Why aren't they innovating? Becsuse most jobs aren't that hard, sorry. It's just kind of true. Wh I you have 100s of people that could probably do the job competing for a position, that's a great time to be a business owner! If the state of hiring was negatively impacting companies' bottom lines, they'd do something about it. It's kind of the whole point of companies.

sbuttgereit 9y ago

I think there probably is a tech shortage in terms of strong candidates. I've worked with some companies where there are people that are employed as "developers", but they can't tell you the simplest of basics; I don't consider myself a developer, yet my meager knowledge and understanding far exceeds the skills of some of these people. I see more of these types than you'd think could survive for long (much of my work is outside of SV and with non-tech companies). When these types enter the job market, the local maximum they've been in for some time tells them that they're developers and they think they can apply to some of these more sophisticated gigs. But there's a clear distinction between these people that mostly copied code from SO and elsewhere in the code base and got it to work vs. those that actually devised the methods they're using... and I think there are many more at this lower end of the spectrum than there are at the higher end: just the bar is so much lower. As for companies innovating in this regard, it's kinda funny to think about it. When it first got started, I think LinkedIn was trying to be exactly this. Rather than encouraging people to add any and every person they ever thought about (or that asked), the idea was that you should only add those people that you know and trust. In this way, you could use your LinkedIn network as a network of trust for things like hiring or looking for work. That's changed I think both by LinkedIn wanting to have a large network of data to mine and by any number of participants that will add connections since they're really after a bulk network rather than a trusted network. In both cases the business case for such a network of trust doesn't seem to work well for the company providing the service and doesn't work well for the participants... so it breaks. Naturally, that's just one approach and there could be others, but I do think there have been efforts here.

monocasa 9y ago
And adding on to this, these people are understandably most of the people looking for work. I've literally seen engineers with 20 years of experience grind for 45 minutes on FizzBuzz, not able to make any progress.
derefr 9y ago
> I've worked with some companies where there are people that are employed as "developers", but they can't tell you the simplest of basics; I don't consider myself a developer, yet my meager knowledge and understanding far exceeds the skills of some of these people. Hypothesis: these people might not have knowledge, but they're very willing to schlep, and so—with enough effort and iteration—they can take a plan and turn it into working code. And on the other hand, some people who are very "talented" on paper are nigh-unemployable because they just can't get things done. (They can easily tell someone else how to get the job done, but they have no drive or desire to schlep for themselves.)

austincheney 9y ago

The shortage is an imaginary bi-product of two actual problems. One problem is bias and the second is talent gaps. Bias is a factor in that many interviewers have no idea what they want from a technical perspective, or simply lack confidence themselves. When in doubt hire somebody exactly like yourself. This isn't objective or a valid representation of competence, but it is common. Talent gaps apply when there are a surplus, plethora is a better term, of new developers and senior developers are purple unicorns. It takes time and lots of practice to transform a newb into a rockstar. Throwing money at the problem isn't a magic formula for providing extra time and practice. Years of employment experience isn't an indicator of quality either as that doesn't necessarily mean practice solving hard problems. When you solve for bias suddenly there are a lot more competent candidates available. If you realize a single senior paired with several newbs accounts for the talent gap more quickly suddenly you can hire functional teams without false expectations.