I have a critic.
This is a big deal.
I'll summarize his statements for you: Hardwick's blog is mostly unoriginal, and his answers can be found elsewhere.
Brilliant observation.
Recruiting & job hunting has been around for a long time, and aside from a few new technologies, like on-line social networking websites, the way it works is largely unchanged: You tell a lot of people what you want, and pretty soon, up it pops.
I guess one might say that my role is a lot like that of a 100- or 200-level English Professor. They get to read a lot of really bad papers on books like, "The Iliad" or, or "The Inferno", or "The Stranger", and if they're lucky, one or two of these bright people will be really good at writing, and the rest will struggle. But, soon, and after reading thousands of papers, the Professor starts seeing combinations of words that indicate patterns of thought that occur at certain stages of the writer's path. A little touch here or there by the Professor, and the writer advances in their skill.
Yes, I see thousands of resumes and hundreds of job descriptions. One or two stand out on either end of the distribution. The rest look a lot like all the others.
My view on writing about recruiting & job hunting is that it's just better to point these things out by blog than in thousands of 1:1 conversations with the Hiring Manager and the Candidate.
And hopefully, you'll be able to take these posts and use them to find a sharp, new Ms. SDE, or a great new Director of Development role. You'll need to set forth a plan, commit to contacting people, and then EXECUTE THE PLAN, but yeah, you'll get there.
As to my critic, some day he'll need a new job
