4 ms·

I just went through a (long for me) job search. As someone who has typically been able to have another job within days, this time it took me roughly three month

I just went through a (long for me) job search. As someone who has typically been able to have another job within days, this time it took me roughly three months. It was exhausting and frustrating, but also very eye-opening. I found a pattern among companies that gave me great insight, and from that I could choose a course of action. I found two different companies trying to hire -- those looking to fill positions, and those looking to solve problems. Huge difference between those two; the former is tactical, the latter is strategic. Everyone needs to strive to find the latter. I found interviews with those looking to "fill a position" bordered on the absurd in terms of their hiring approach. It throws you (the job seeker) off your game and makes you question your own competency. Don't fall for it; keep looking for those companies that are trying to solve problems.

crazygringo 13y ago
Can you elaborate? Every company I've ever encountered is looking to fill a position because it has a problem to be solved that needs someone in that position to help solve it -- they can't develop their new product without three new programmers, for instance. Strategy is executed via tactics, they're not mutually exclusive. Could you give some more concrete examples, or something? Are you talking about ongoing maintenance jobs (like your time will be spent mostly bugfixing) vs building-new-product jobs? I'm really curious what you mean.
- jroseattle 13y ago
  Don't take that in the literal sense -- of course, anyone who is hiring someone is technically filling a position. Think of this as a classification of a company's motivation to hire in the first place. I found companies that were "filling positions" were those that had a previous role defined, and now needed to either replace the previous owner, or add to the organization (they had budgeted for it, for example.) These tended to be larger companies, and the focus for the job was the role. In these cases, the role had largely been pre-defined. The short-list of companies I spoke with that were trying to "solve a problem" didn't think about what role someone should fill, but rather what capabilities a candidate could bring to their team. These companies I found were often smaller (less than 100 employees), although I'm sure it could apply to larger ones. The difference with these companies is that their focus (from my vantage point) was not on organizational structure, but rather on thinking about how a candidate could augment their team. It was very eye-opening, and once I picked up on that pattern, I began to ask the "right" questions.

crazygringo 13y ago

Can you elaborate? Every company I've ever encountered is looking to fill a position because it has a problem to be solved that needs someone in that position to help solve it -- they can't develop their new product without three new programmers, for instance. Strategy is executed via tactics, they're not mutually exclusive. Could you give some more concrete examples, or something? Are you talking about ongoing maintenance jobs (like your time will be spent mostly bugfixing) vs building-new-product jobs? I'm really curious what you mean.

jroseattle 13y ago
Don't take that in the literal sense -- of course, anyone who is hiring someone is technically filling a position. Think of this as a classification of a company's motivation to hire in the first place. I found companies that were "filling positions" were those that had a previous role defined, and now needed to either replace the previous owner, or add to the organization (they had budgeted for it, for example.) These tended to be larger companies, and the focus for the job was the role. In these cases, the role had largely been pre-defined. The short-list of companies I spoke with that were trying to "solve a problem" didn't think about what role someone should fill, but rather what capabilities a candidate could bring to their team. These companies I found were often smaller (less than 100 employees), although I'm sure it could apply to larger ones. The difference with these companies is that their focus (from my vantage point) was not on organizational structure, but rather on thinking about how a candidate could augment their team. It was very eye-opening, and once I picked up on that pattern, I began to ask the "right" questions.