6 ms·

To a point. People who move around too much will not get the job if there's a comparable candidate that has stayed around longer at previous jobs.

by bcrl 3y ago

SamuelAdams 3y ago
I’ve been on interviewing panels before. It is extremely rare to have two “comparable” candidates for any one position. Everyone has different pros and cons. Tenure at past positions was always very low on the list of qualifiers we evaluated.
- wonderingyogi 3y ago
  Is there a reason why it was low on the list? What qualifiers did you placed more on? Could you explain more about the thought process?
  - californical 3y ago
    I’ve also done a decent amount of interviewing, and have a similar (but slightly different) experience to the GP. We considered someone’s career history a problem when they had several jobs of ~a year or less. Or someone interviewing for a senior position with 4-5 years of experience across 5 companies, for example. If those were the case, we were much more likely to reject them. If someone (hypothetical) had 10 years experience, with a few that lasted 1-2 years, one that was only a few months, and maybe one that was 4-5ish years, then that was no problem at all. We wanted to be sure they had seen the consequences of their prior decisions, if they were coming into a high-mid or senior role. When we did hiring, we wouldn’t be comparing candidates 1-to-1 like “Well A had this, but B was good at this, which one should we pick?” …instead, we would just say “ok we’re in hiring mode, keep hiring everyone who is good until we have enough for xyz goal”. So it wouldn’t be that CandidateA is better than CandidateB, but rather if they both met the standards, then they’d get hired. Some of the qualifiers that mattered more than tenure for us were: * are they capable of explaining technical problems and communicating * do they understand algorithms at enough of a level that they won’t cause major performance issues * are they polite and friendly, how do they respond to feedback * can they build an architecture which handles expanding requirements * how eager are they to learn and work on our tech stack + business domain I haven’t interviewed juniors really, so I can’t speak much to that. But when we’ve hired someone less experienced, it would be the same requirements as above just with a lot more leeway on tech, and more emphasis on “eagerness to learn” + “receptive to feedback”
jethro_tell 3y ago
Not necessarily, not when I hire. On-boarding, and ramping up in a new environment is a skill and to some extent, I see that as a value add. A person who has gotten comfortable in a role for 10 years is often slower to ramp vs. a person that has seen a lot of environments and projects.
- SanderNL 3y ago
  Optimizing for “ramping” seems incredibly shortsighted. Does seeing things through, pushing through the hard bits, the bits that only come up after a few years when your pet project starts spouting fire or some major restructuring happens and not to mention loyalty doesn’t mean anything anymore?
  - jethro_tell 3y ago
    If the company was giving pensions and compensating people like loyalty mattered then we could have that conversation but there is no loyalty toward employees from companies. I see loyalty to any company as shortsighted from the employee's point of view.
    - SanderNL 3y ago
      There’s the issue of building virtue and good character, which I suspect are ancient and long obsoleted concepts. This pragmatism is understandable, but I don’t think it’s a nice way to live. Of course to each its own.
      - jethro_tell 3y ago
        You can build virtue and good character and still manage your career in a way that puts yourself and your family first. I'm not buying that the only way to build character is to work for below market rate so someone else can make money and then forget you when it's not convenient any longer. Asymmetric loyalty is a dead end. Deriving your virtue and character from your job is also a fools errand and a myth that is perpetuated by anti-labor capitalists to line their pockets before they absolve themselves of equal social responsibility. Build character and exercise virtue by making your community and family richer.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jaredandrews 3y ago
If that is the case, then the job is not one that our hypothetical job hopper wants, so it all works out.

To a point. People who move around too much will not get the job if there's a comparable candidate that has stayed around longer at previous jobs.

by bcrl 3y ago

To a point. People who move around too much will not get the job if there's a comparable candidate that has stayed around longer at previous jobs.

SamuelAdams 3y ago

I’ve been on interviewing panels before. It is extremely rare to have two “comparable” candidates for any one position. Everyone has different pros and cons. Tenure at past positions was always very low on the list of qualifiers we evaluated.

wonderingyogi 3y ago
Is there a reason why it was low on the list? What qualifiers did you placed more on? Could you explain more about the thought process?
- californical 3y ago
  I’ve also done a decent amount of interviewing, and have a similar (but slightly different) experience to the GP. We considered someone’s career history a problem when they had several jobs of ~a year or less. Or someone interviewing for a senior position with 4-5 years of experience across 5 companies, for example. If those were the case, we were much more likely to reject them. If someone (hypothetical) had 10 years experience, with a few that lasted 1-2 years, one that was only a few months, and maybe one that was 4-5ish years, then that was no problem at all. We wanted to be sure they had seen the consequences of their prior decisions, if they were coming into a high-mid or senior role. When we did hiring, we wouldn’t be comparing candidates 1-to-1 like “Well A had this, but B was good at this, which one should we pick?” …instead, we would just say “ok we’re in hiring mode, keep hiring everyone who is good until we have enough for xyz goal”. So it wouldn’t be that CandidateA is better than CandidateB, but rather if they both met the standards, then they’d get hired. Some of the qualifiers that mattered more than tenure for us were: * are they capable of explaining technical problems and communicating * do they understand algorithms at enough of a level that they won’t cause major performance issues * are they polite and friendly, how do they respond to feedback * can they build an architecture which handles expanding requirements * how eager are they to learn and work on our tech stack + business domain I haven’t interviewed juniors really, so I can’t speak much to that. But when we’ve hired someone less experienced, it would be the same requirements as above just with a lot more leeway on tech, and more emphasis on “eagerness to learn” + “receptive to feedback”

jethro_tell 3y ago

Not necessarily, not when I hire. On-boarding, and ramping up in a new environment is a skill and to some extent, I see that as a value add. A person who has gotten comfortable in a role for 10 years is often slower to ramp vs. a person that has seen a lot of environments and projects.

SanderNL 3y ago
Optimizing for “ramping” seems incredibly shortsighted. Does seeing things through, pushing through the hard bits, the bits that only come up after a few years when your pet project starts spouting fire or some major restructuring happens and not to mention loyalty doesn’t mean anything anymore?
- jethro_tell 3y ago
  If the company was giving pensions and compensating people like loyalty mattered then we could have that conversation but there is no loyalty toward employees from companies. I see loyalty to any company as shortsighted from the employee's point of view.
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    There’s the issue of building virtue and good character, which I suspect are ancient and long obsoleted concepts. This pragmatism is understandable, but I don’t think it’s a nice way to live. Of course to each its own.
    - jethro_tell 3y ago
      You can build virtue and good character and still manage your career in a way that puts yourself and your family first. I'm not buying that the only way to build character is to work for below market rate so someone else can make money and then forget you when it's not convenient any longer. Asymmetric loyalty is a dead end. Deriving your virtue and character from your job is also a fools errand and a myth that is perpetuated by anti-labor capitalists to line their pockets before they absolve themselves of equal social responsibility. Build character and exercise virtue by making your community and family richer.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jaredandrews 3y ago

If that is the case, then the job is not one that our hypothetical job hopper wants, so it all works out.