From the other side of the hiring desk ...
Ax0n posted an open letter from geeks to IT recruiters and hiring managers that I found myself highly conflicted about. As a geek AND a hiring manager, I’ll put my own spin on what he wrote:
Try to measure productivity in output, not in hours.
Geeks automate. Geeks script. Geeks compile. They summon computing power to get things done quickly on their behalf. If your geek seemingly spends all day on Twitter and Fark but somehow manages to still complete tasks ahead of schedule, your geek is multi-tasking. This is normal.
Yes, this is true, but appearances still do count. If other members of the team who don’t understand this think that I’m just giving a geek a pass on goofing off because every time they walk by, they see them watching something on YouTube, I have to do something about it. Even more, if my BOSS or HIS BOSS walk by and think the same thing, I have to do something about it. I’m responsible for morale in the team as well as the output.
Assign tasks to the geeks who are most interested in them, not the ones with the most experience.
I’m sorry, but my job is to make sure the tasks get done as well as possible. If that means giving it to the most experienced geek because I think she’ll be the best executer of the task, then so be it. I care about your geeky interests, but not enough to override quality. Sometimes you get boring tasks handed to you. Deal with them. I know I do, every day.
Segregate the corporate, compensatory hierarchy from the leadership hierarchy.
With a team of geeks under you, one or more will eventually become to go-to guy (or girl) for certain things. You don’t usually need to assign a “team lead” - Through meritocracy, the Alpha Geek will emerge. That Alpha Geek may lack seniority, but will have the most influence. It’s best to let this occur naturally. It’s awkward when the one who best fits the role has to answer to someone else just because they’ve been around longer. Furthermore, the members of your team will still go to the Alpha Geek because the wrong person has the “Team Lead” label. As Paul Glen puts it: Geeks don’t hate hierarchy. They hate your hierarchy.
This really depends on what the “leadership” is for. I have geeks who are the “go-to” people for technical issues, but I would never trust them with a schedule, resolving interpersonal conflicts, talking to the business, or with managing other people. Got news for you: you’re part of the corporation whether you like it or not. You don’t have to like the hierarchy, but in most cases it’s there for a reason. Deal with it. If I find a natural-born leader in all aspects, I am more than happy to recognize that with an official appointment, but there are many dynamics going on in a team and department, and I have to manage them all, not just the geek tribal ones.
Have all screening and profile “paperwork” in one comprehensive online wizard or form.
Geeks do not like pens, pencils, or clip boards. We also despise giving you the same piece of information more than once on fifteen different sheets of paper. We’d rather not be sitting on an uncomfortable chair in a room that’s far too brightly lit just so that we can give you the information that you want. It’s easy to get the information to you electronically.
Get over yourselves. Sometimes the forms aren’t under our control (hello? government?). You want the job? Don’t get all prima donna over a form. I will drop your name from the hiring list sooooo fast, because it means you’ll get prima donna over the work I give you, too. There are plenty of other geeks out there who have a better sense of perspective AND the same talent and skillz that you have.
Only ask for information you need to make a hiring decision.
W2’s, Direct deposit information, full fingerprints, home address and all that crap can be handled during orientation. The only personally identifiable information you need before hiring is a name.
Again, that’s not always true. Home address, SSN etc. are often required before you can send out an offer letter. Fingerprints are needed if you’re requiring a background check.
Don’t grill us on our resume and work history.
You don’t hire a geek for what he or she did two years ago. You hire them for what they will be able to do for you now and in the future.
Excuse me, but this is bullshit. I’ll grill you on ANY part of your work history and qualifications that will help me decide whether you can do the job I need you to do NOW. In fact, I’ll often take a chance on someone BECAUSE of things they did ten years ago, not what they’re doing in their current position.
Instead of asking about skills that qualify them for the position, ask about their interest in the kind of work they think they’ll be doing.
Again, I care about your interest, but not as much as I care about whether you can do the JOB. I ask all sorts of questions, and often throw in things that will make you talk about something that interests you (and I’ll be able to tell), but I’m still going to ask about skills too.
In short, if you’ve ever actually BEEN a successful hiring or recruiting manager, I’ll be happy to listen to what you have to say, but advice from someone who’s never done it is probably as irritating to you as it is to me.
on 01/07 at 03:59 PM:
Hehe, big LOL on that one and I agree with your positions. I used to do technical interviews for IT positions and loved the lists of things people said they were proficient in. Asking about specifics on sample line items tells you right away if they have embellished or outright lied. It also gives you an idea of how technical they really are (did they just act as an operator or were they the primary sysadmin). I also tended to ask if they ever worked on their own car for 2 reasons. See how they handle the unexpected question that seems to have no bearing on the job and also to see if they have natural troubleshooting skills. I find it easier to teach a person an OS and opposed to troubleshooting.