4 ms·

then those skills are still tied to your technical knowledge. I think this is a problematic way of looking at it. Thing about it this way: If you are hiring

by ska 8y ago

then those skills are still tied to your technical knowledge. I think this is a problematic way of looking at it. Thing about it this way: If you are hiring a fairly general developer or engineer, their overall impact is going to be determined by something like 30% technical/ 30% problem solving and communication / 30% teamwork & fit, leaves you 10% to move around in those categories. In the much rarer case you are hiring a domain specialist, it is something like 60-70% technical. But you probably aren't hiring someone like that, or shouldn't be very often. Focusing the hiring too much on that first 30% impact gets you in trouble.

scarface74 8y ago
If you’re competing as a “general developer” with ten years of experience, you’re a commodity that is competing with everyone else and if you aren’t knowledgeable about the tech stack we are using, you’re at a disadvantage. The last thing I want is to hire someone who has been doing Webforms for 15 years when I can find someone that has been keeping up. Why should I have sympathy for someone my age who didn’t have the wherewithal to keep up when I can be aggressive about it? I know developers in thier 30s/40s/50s who are both great developers/architects and have current skills. Why would I settle?
- ska 8y ago
  I think you missed the point I was trying to make, I’ll try and summarize. There are two parts. If I’m hiring you as a 10 year veteran “general programmer”, I’m going to be very interested in the non-tech-stack skills you have developed (i.e. the other 60-plus percent of your impact). And let’s be honest, the vast majority of the 3 year experience “general developers” are weak there. The other point is that technology isn’t a straight forward progression, so while it isn’t great if you have been “stuck” in a tech stack you consider obsolete, by itself that shouldn’t be enough to reject you. Two other points: First, of course when hiring you want to find the “perfect fit”, but you almost never do, so you have to make tradeoffs. Hiring an inexperienced person with the “right” tech stack when you really need to bring experience into your team is a common anti-pattern. Secondly, as a hiring manager you need to properly understand the difference between “10 years experience” and “one year of experience, related ten times”
  - mkozlows 8y ago
    Agree with all this, but I'll also say that if you're an experienced developer who hasn't kept up with the times, that's not just a fact in itself, it's also a signal about what kind of developer you are. Most of the best developers are active learners who are always trying new things just as a matter of course. So if you only know old tech, I'm a lot quicker to believe that you're a "repeated ten times" person.

by ska 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

If you’re competing as a “general developer” with ten years of experience, you’re a commodity that is competing with everyone else and if you aren’t knowledgeable about the tech stack we are using, you’re at a disadvantage. The last thing I want is to hire someone who has been doing Webforms for 15 years when I can find someone that has been keeping up. Why should I have sympathy for someone my age who didn’t have the wherewithal to keep up when I can be aggressive about it? I know developers in thier 30s/40s/50s who are both great developers/architects and have current skills. Why would I settle?

ska 8y ago
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, I’ll try and summarize. There are two parts. If I’m hiring you as a 10 year veteran “general programmer”, I’m going to be very interested in the non-tech-stack skills you have developed (i.e. the other 60-plus percent of your impact). And let’s be honest, the vast majority of the 3 year experience “general developers” are weak there. The other point is that technology isn’t a straight forward progression, so while it isn’t great if you have been “stuck” in a tech stack you consider obsolete, by itself that shouldn’t be enough to reject you. Two other points: First, of course when hiring you want to find the “perfect fit”, but you almost never do, so you have to make tradeoffs. Hiring an inexperienced person with the “right” tech stack when you really need to bring experience into your team is a common anti-pattern. Secondly, as a hiring manager you need to properly understand the difference between “10 years experience” and “one year of experience, related ten times”
- mkozlows 8y ago
  Agree with all this, but I'll also say that if you're an experienced developer who hasn't kept up with the times, that's not just a fact in itself, it's also a signal about what kind of developer you are. Most of the best developers are active learners who are always trying new things just as a matter of course. So if you only know old tech, I'm a lot quicker to believe that you're a "repeated ten times" person.