Job Hacking

What are the criteria that define a good developer?

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to ask a long-time software developer & manager about what he's seen in the recruiting process for software development talent that works (yes, many years, and yes, at many very recognizable companies, and he asked that he not be named). Specifically, what types of measurable criteria has he seen used to good effect in hiring the right people, or building a great team.

Our conversation went all over the map. We compared the hiring practices of some notable large companies in the area (cough, Microsoft, cough, Amazon, cough, Adobe, cough, cough). We also spoke about the methods he's used at the companies he's worked at, and which skill areas he thinks he can measure accurately in any given candidate.

The end result: He doesn't think there are any statistically valid criteria being used in hiring Software Developers by any firm. Further, he thinks that many companies are deluding themselves with their statistics. "We hire 90% of the top candidates for our team" - but how do they know? Do they conduct A/B tests on the candidates, which would force them to NOT hire developers they think are great?

Does anyone out there have any sound statistical methods they use in hiring their developers? Have you personally gone through a hiring process that you thought measured your skills accurately, and also gave you a good sense of the work you were about to perform?

What does it mean to do Good?

For you internet technologists out there, the recent news regarding Justice Department Hiring & Promotion Practices raises an age-old question: If what you create is used for bad, Evil things, what will you do about it?

If Google's motto is, "Don't Be Evil" and they know that their search engine or other Internet tools are being used by the Dept of Justice, or the current Administration, to do something illegal, or maybe even Evil, what should they do?

What would you do?

What does the Internet know about you?

Here's a great story regarding recruiting, and the use of search engines to identify candidates for specific roles over at the NY Times today.

Here's the key paragraph that pertains to recruiting, "According to the report, officials at the White House first developed a method of searching the Internet to glean the political leanings of a candidate and introduced it at a White House seminar called The Thorough Process of Investigation. Justice Department officials then began using the technique to search for key phrases or words in an applicant’s background, like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “Florida recount,” or “guns.”

Here's the issue: Any tool can use a tool for bad purposes. The question is not so much that of technology being bad, but that of people being unpredictable.

For you as a candidate, and we're all candidates sooner or later, does the information on the Internet represent you correctly? How will this information help your career, and how will it harm it? Can you predict what will happen 10 years from now?

Are you 'them'?

Today, I heard someone use the word 'them'/'those people' in a way which makes me cringe on several levels. You know, like one of these:

• Why does the U.S. always help those people?
• Why can't they just get a job?
• Why do you always see those people on the street corners?
• Why can't I ever find one of those people when I need them?

This mental framework is very common; I think we all use it one time or another. But, it is severely limiting when you actually need to accomplish something.

In recruiting, there are a couple of really common turns on this framework. One is, "Where is my passive candidate? I need a really spot-on passive candidate for this role." Another is, "Why can't I seem to get past the recruiter. They are in my way of getting that job at that company."

Here's the problem: We are all individuals. As soon as you start classifying someone as part of a larger group, you remove key attributes that are the ones you really do need to use to connect with them.

Eyore v. Tigger

Just read that Randy Pausch passed. Randy was a Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, and is  famous for his "Last Lecture" book, and YouTube video.

He had a great observation. In your life, you can choose to be an Eyore or a Tigger. His view was that it's much more fun to be a Tigger.

Don't know about you, but it sure seems to me that the best Software Developers are Tiggers!

Rediscovering "Moneyball"

"Moneyball" is a great book for those looking for an analogy to looking at things from a different mental framework.

Bob Hoffman, over at CopyBlogger, has a nice post about "Moneyball", The Art of Winning the Online Marketing Game.

Given Malcolm Gladwell's new book, due to arrive in November of this year, we should see a resurgence of interest on "Moneyball". Malcolm's latest is to be about the "mismatch problem", which is loosely defined as the inability of organizations to define the skills & talent necessary for their jobs.

If you haven't read "Moneyball", or it's been a while since you last cracked it open, it might be time to take a look at it. Especially if you're planning on adding a new role or two to the team.

Oh, that's right, you'll know the right person to hire when you see them.

Hmmm.

An Example Profile

A few years back, I had the opportunity to work w/James Gallagher. He is a fine example of a sales leader here in the Seattle area.

James also happens to have what I consider to be a very nice business profile on LinkedIn. There are a number of notable attributes about his profile, and in particular, he states what he accomplished for each of his employers in clear and certain terms.

Should be fun to see what James accomplishes next!

Learn how to stand up to your Voicemail!

I like this post by Peter Kretzman.

One of the points he makes is that of leaving succinct vm messages. Amen to that!

Applying the Opposite Test

So, you read my post about the Opposite Test and thought, "Yeah, good idea for all those losers who aren't good at writing their resume (but I'm great, so I'm not going to worry about it)".

Read the following lines from resumes I've seen recently:

• I thrive on problem-solving, planning, budgeting, and supporting complex projects.
• Self motivated individual, with strong leadership, communication, and organization skills.
• Sound knowledge of Object-Oriented Programming and Concepts, Networks and Databases.
• Proven ability to consistently design and maintain secure, high-performance infrastructure in support in a scalable and highly available production environments
• Accomplished, entrepreneurial leader seasoned in spearheading the development and marketing of diverse software and web products.
• Highly motivated and creative technical professional who offers many years of accomplished experience in all phases of the software development lifecycle.

What do you think: Are these differentiating statements? Would you call any one of these people for an interview based on their ability to stand out and show you that they can do something great for you? That they are enthusiastic about your open position?

Put your thinking caps on boys & girls, because there's going to be a test. Send in your resume and see if you get called!

A little thinking about your career

Communicatrix has a nice post regarding overestimating and underestimating what you can do.

Now, the last time I referenced one of her posts, I got a few befuddled 'Huh?' responses. "What in the world does this have to do with recruiting?" was a common theme.

Heading this all off at the pass, one thing I commonly see in candidates (and hiring managers, too), is a focus on the immediate future. In developing a career, it's important to set a long-term goal, and then identify those skills & attributes you need to develop to get there. You will likely have a number of stops along the way getting to the goal.

It's amazing what we can accomplish during our career(s) in time, and with conscious, directed thought.