2 ms·

>The person who did "it" before may not actually be able to "it"; they rode the coat tails of a person who did "it". This "not it" person will often attempt to

>The person who did "it" before may not actually be able to "it"; they rode the coat tails of a person who did "it". This "not it" person will often attempt to reframe the problem as one existing in one of the other areas; either as something were they are an "it" person or as "not my problem". If we're talking meta issues, my far bigger pet peeve is how the market only wants to people who can do "it" to the point anyone who can't is expected to learn through observation, which loops back to most people only riding others' coat tails. It's cute in theory but in practice, most people need to try it a few times before having a firm grasp on the matter. Then it turns out, most desired skills aren't so obscenely difficult and arcane you couldn't just throw in a decently smart person at it and figure it out, as most tools are designed to be picked up in a short time (you know, like good, widely adopted tools are supposed to be). The entire thing sets up a job market which supports "fake it till you make it".

Ensorceled 5y ago
I think this definitely applies to leadership roles in product and technology. People really want someone who did it before and, usually, exactly this thing before. To the point where they hire people who did "it" and failed badly only to have them fail again because they can't do "it".
- BlargMcLarg 5y ago
  It applies to pretty much anything these days. To senior roles and leadership roles because risk aversion seems to be the most prominent driving factor behind any corporate decision today, and these roles tend to have more responsibility to up the anxiety some more. To junior roles because almost every market has so many juniors they are able to make insane demands, and a general shift in idea from "they will grow with us" to "give them the minimum and see if they will stick around". Coupled with loads of "do your dues" years where one learns almost nothing, but is frequently met with leaders who prefer someone with experience to work on the problem / new project instead. The latter is especially amusing since it leads to the lack of seniors capable of bridging that anxiety gap (read: seniors who are only seniors by YoE). Anyone who has looked a little into learning methods, gamification and such can also tell dripfeeding challenges is one of the worst ways to teach people, and how insanely quick people can learn when thrown in the deep, let alone feeding them challenges of increasing difficulty at a fast pace (with some measure of safety to cover failures).
tetha 5y ago
It's interesting. Is this a difference between European jobs and American jobs? It has probably chaffed off of me to some degree, but our company owners are of the same cut of wood. In some selected spots, we very much look for people who have done "it". We need people to sit down with a new laptop and solve our problems in these areas and there is no real idea of how it should be. That's what we want to pay money for, to buy time spent learning. But we also have positions open for which we just look for smart people with some linux background, effectively. We're entirely ready to put in work to make the person we hire successful. For example, we're open that we're looking for a linux and networking engineer and we're happy to work for it with the candidate. We can teach, we have budget for books, courses and conferences, so let's go. And that's how it should be, in my book.
- BlargMcLarg 5y ago
  >Is this a difference between European jobs and American jobs? I can name examples of both cases for Europe, I'm sure a few American devs can name examples of both cases in the US. From what I can tell about where I live, the moment you try to move to mid level or higher, you're expected to know "it" already. It also isn't just vertical or horizontal skill progression. Its both, at equal rates. More skills, and each skill is expected to have 2-3 YoE. From a risk management position, most of those skills are not something you want juniors to work with in their first or even their second year. Most juniors would progress skill A for a few years, then start progressing skill B adjacent to A. So A would be at 5 years, B be at 3 years. Expecting "A 3 years, B 3 years" would be moot at that point, since the far majority with B at 3 years would be at 5 years in A. Above is even worse when jobs are now expecting you to know skill C, but no one is really working with C yet. Now you need to have 3 years of experience in C, but realistically, no junior is going to be learning C on company time. More likely a few seniors will learn C and maybe distribute knowledge by the time the market is asking for 3 years of experience in D. As said in a comment somewhere adjacent, the junior market is so saturated, many employers can make pretty insane demands. Good learning opportunities are combined with below-market pay where market pay already is a problem to afford a decent place. Good pay jobs basically expecting you to sell your soul. Or a company which seems great as a junior but then provides next to no opportunities to move up along with the associated pay increases (often only the former). The whole "do your dues" wouldn't be so bad if a comfortable income was guaranteed at a relatively low stress factor, but that's starting to be put into question due to socio-economical reasons.

Ensorceled 5y ago

I think this definitely applies to leadership roles in product and technology. People really want someone who did it before and, usually, exactly this thing before. To the point where they hire people who did "it" and failed badly only to have them fail again because they can't do "it".

BlargMcLarg 5y ago
It applies to pretty much anything these days. To senior roles and leadership roles because risk aversion seems to be the most prominent driving factor behind any corporate decision today, and these roles tend to have more responsibility to up the anxiety some more. To junior roles because almost every market has so many juniors they are able to make insane demands, and a general shift in idea from "they will grow with us" to "give them the minimum and see if they will stick around". Coupled with loads of "do your dues" years where one learns almost nothing, but is frequently met with leaders who prefer someone with experience to work on the problem / new project instead. The latter is especially amusing since it leads to the lack of seniors capable of bridging that anxiety gap (read: seniors who are only seniors by YoE). Anyone who has looked a little into learning methods, gamification and such can also tell dripfeeding challenges is one of the worst ways to teach people, and how insanely quick people can learn when thrown in the deep, let alone feeding them challenges of increasing difficulty at a fast pace (with some measure of safety to cover failures).

tetha 5y ago

It's interesting. Is this a difference between European jobs and American jobs? It has probably chaffed off of me to some degree, but our company owners are of the same cut of wood. In some selected spots, we very much look for people who have done "it". We need people to sit down with a new laptop and solve our problems in these areas and there is no real idea of how it should be. That's what we want to pay money for, to buy time spent learning. But we also have positions open for which we just look for smart people with some linux background, effectively. We're entirely ready to put in work to make the person we hire successful. For example, we're open that we're looking for a linux and networking engineer and we're happy to work for it with the candidate. We can teach, we have budget for books, courses and conferences, so let's go. And that's how it should be, in my book.

BlargMcLarg 5y ago
>Is this a difference between European jobs and American jobs? I can name examples of both cases for Europe, I'm sure a few American devs can name examples of both cases in the US. From what I can tell about where I live, the moment you try to move to mid level or higher, you're expected to know "it" already. It also isn't just vertical or horizontal skill progression. Its both, at equal rates. More skills, and each skill is expected to have 2-3 YoE. From a risk management position, most of those skills are not something you want juniors to work with in their first or even their second year. Most juniors would progress skill A for a few years, then start progressing skill B adjacent to A. So A would be at 5 years, B be at 3 years. Expecting "A 3 years, B 3 years" would be moot at that point, since the far majority with B at 3 years would be at 5 years in A. Above is even worse when jobs are now expecting you to know skill C, but no one is really working with C yet. Now you need to have 3 years of experience in C, but realistically, no junior is going to be learning C on company time. More likely a few seniors will learn C and maybe distribute knowledge by the time the market is asking for 3 years of experience in D. As said in a comment somewhere adjacent, the junior market is so saturated, many employers can make pretty insane demands. Good learning opportunities are combined with below-market pay where market pay already is a problem to afford a decent place. Good pay jobs basically expecting you to sell your soul. Or a company which seems great as a junior but then provides next to no opportunities to move up along with the associated pay increases (often only the former). The whole "do your dues" wouldn't be so bad if a comfortable income was guaranteed at a relatively low stress factor, but that's starting to be put into question due to socio-economical reasons.