4 ms·

It sure would be easier to build software firms if every job got thousands of qualified applicants. Obviously, that isn't the case.

asdff 6y ago
That has more to do with the lack of marketing of the job opening than a lack of qualified talent out there
- setr 6y ago
  I think more generally the issue is being swamped with unqualified talent, such that it's difficult to identify actual talent amongst the mess. A lot of people are not trying to be good at what they do, they're just trying to be paid for what they do.
  - asdff 6y ago
    What's the issue? Look through resumes, see who has worked in this area before, interview and see if they talk the talk, hire and get them up to speed to walk your walk. If the job is so complex that you have difficulty finding someone who can fit in every required peg, then that job should be broken into smaller, more manageable tasks that can be done by several more common people from the labor pool. It's just good business sense, too. If you require some specialist that takes forever to find and they leave, then you are screwed while hunting for a replacement. If you've instead broken that complicated job into digestible pieces, and someone leaves, you can hire a decent candidate before your employee even leaves, and have your employee get their replacement up to speed in their last few weeks along with the rest of the team.
    - setr 6y ago
      The general problem, I think, is that talking the talk is not that hard, especially if you're not already well-covered in that domain (e.g. an established department/strong competency in the specific area) -- see all of sales. It's not that hard even if you are well-covered in that domain -- see all of pre-sales, and all of consulting. The fundamental issue is that describing a solution in broad strokes is much easier than in detail, and an interview doesn't give you so much time to even get into those details; and spending time to further evaluate is at least weeks of effort (because it's difficult to differentiate between someone competent getting up to speed on your codebase, and someone incompetent, and someone incompetent but can be made competent, without sufficient time to evaluate). A lot of time is burned in recruitment cycles, largely because its much easier to say you're competent than to prove that you're not. (not to mention the natural reluctance & possible legal difficulties with firing). Jobs get thousands of applicants; few of whom are worth considering, and resumes/interviews really don't tell you all that much. They tell you more than nothing, which is why they're used, but it's difficult to be comfortable on those alone, and there's not that much more you can do before it becomes weeks/days of free labor by your candidate. Anyways, there's more than enough money burned on the subject that "throw more marketing at the problem" is very likely too easy an answer.
      - asdff 6y ago
        That's a potential issue in every job in every field. Somehow, it's only tech interviews that assign candidates unpaid homework. How are bridges not collapsing left and right from all the incompetent civil engineers they've been hiring with no whiteboard interviews?? Because you don't need to assign homework to probe whether or not a candidate knows the stuff they put on their resume. You can just talk to them about there experience and their approaches, like is done in any other discipline. You can call up references. Yes, you can fire the truly incompetent ones like is done in other fields, since California is an at-will state.
        setr 6y ago
        > How are bridges not collapsing left and right from all the incompetent civil engineers they've been hiring with no whiteboard interviews?? What? Other engineering fields have certifications and standards processes that actually mean something, and enforcement of it. That’s how they determine the baseline standard. Software engineering’s closest thing is a 4-year degree who’s so routinely undervalued (per alignment to work requirements) it’s challenged by 3 month bootcamps, which are themselves challenged by garage-living dropouts with no explicit formal education. And traditionally you had near-decade training with an apprentice/master system, or in a trade school, or expected-lifetime employment & training with the same company. Software development is pretty new in trying to force feed training in large quantities with little to no verification, standards process or really any legitimate first or third-party trust-rings or evaluation process. I mean shit we’re still running on the assumption that the 20-year old dropout has decent potential to be an expert in his field ala wiz/gates/carmack. As an industry, I think we’re fairly unique in our general incompetence.

asdff 6y ago

That has more to do with the lack of marketing of the job opening than a lack of qualified talent out there

setr 6y ago
I think more generally the issue is being swamped with unqualified talent, such that it's difficult to identify actual talent amongst the mess. A lot of people are not trying to be good at what they do, they're just trying to be paid for what they do.
- asdff 6y ago
  What's the issue? Look through resumes, see who has worked in this area before, interview and see if they talk the talk, hire and get them up to speed to walk your walk. If the job is so complex that you have difficulty finding someone who can fit in every required peg, then that job should be broken into smaller, more manageable tasks that can be done by several more common people from the labor pool. It's just good business sense, too. If you require some specialist that takes forever to find and they leave, then you are screwed while hunting for a replacement. If you've instead broken that complicated job into digestible pieces, and someone leaves, you can hire a decent candidate before your employee even leaves, and have your employee get their replacement up to speed in their last few weeks along with the rest of the team.
  - setr 6y ago
    The general problem, I think, is that talking the talk is not that hard, especially if you're not already well-covered in that domain (e.g. an established department/strong competency in the specific area) -- see all of sales. It's not that hard even if you are well-covered in that domain -- see all of pre-sales, and all of consulting. The fundamental issue is that describing a solution in broad strokes is much easier than in detail, and an interview doesn't give you so much time to even get into those details; and spending time to further evaluate is at least weeks of effort (because it's difficult to differentiate between someone competent getting up to speed on your codebase, and someone incompetent, and someone incompetent but can be made competent, without sufficient time to evaluate). A lot of time is burned in recruitment cycles, largely because its much easier to say you're competent than to prove that you're not. (not to mention the natural reluctance & possible legal difficulties with firing). Jobs get thousands of applicants; few of whom are worth considering, and resumes/interviews really don't tell you all that much. They tell you more than nothing, which is why they're used, but it's difficult to be comfortable on those alone, and there's not that much more you can do before it becomes weeks/days of free labor by your candidate. Anyways, there's more than enough money burned on the subject that "throw more marketing at the problem" is very likely too easy an answer.
    - asdff 6y ago
      That's a potential issue in every job in every field. Somehow, it's only tech interviews that assign candidates unpaid homework. How are bridges not collapsing left and right from all the incompetent civil engineers they've been hiring with no whiteboard interviews?? Because you don't need to assign homework to probe whether or not a candidate knows the stuff they put on their resume. You can just talk to them about there experience and their approaches, like is done in any other discipline. You can call up references. Yes, you can fire the truly incompetent ones like is done in other fields, since California is an at-will state.
      - setr 6y ago
        > How are bridges not collapsing left and right from all the incompetent civil engineers they've been hiring with no whiteboard interviews?? What? Other engineering fields have certifications and standards processes that actually mean something, and enforcement of it. That’s how they determine the baseline standard. Software engineering’s closest thing is a 4-year degree who’s so routinely undervalued (per alignment to work requirements) it’s challenged by 3 month bootcamps, which are themselves challenged by garage-living dropouts with no explicit formal education. And traditionally you had near-decade training with an apprentice/master system, or in a trade school, or expected-lifetime employment & training with the same company. Software development is pretty new in trying to force feed training in large quantities with little to no verification, standards process or really any legitimate first or third-party trust-rings or evaluation process. I mean shit we’re still running on the assumption that the 20-year old dropout has decent potential to be an expert in his field ala wiz/gates/carmack. As an industry, I think we’re fairly unique in our general incompetence.