> FAANG is Facebook, Apple, Amazon, LinkedIn, and Google. LinkedIn? Was that a tongue in cheek joke that I've missed,
Netscape it is
Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers
#12> About four times a year, new studies come out with an ever-lower percentage of how many job seekers won’t apply to a job unless they meet precisely 100% of your listing’s overly-strict requirements. Even worse, all of the studies have a clearly highlighted gender difference between men and women: fewer women than men apply for a job with requirements they don’t meet.
Thank you! It's amazing how many hiring managers I've worked with who aren't aware of this fact at all. It's literally your job to understand hiring, and being aware of the latest research needs to be part of that.
It's especially important since I see every other possible hiring practice on both a "must do" and "must not do" list every week, but this one is universally confirmed. If you've learned nothing else about hiring in the past 10 years, know this.
Re: Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers
#13Re: Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers
#14Yikes, any place where a senior manager or executive exudes the attitude “do more with less” is a place to avoid.
Re: Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers
#15Re: Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers
#16The one absolutely, infuriating thing about jobs that will cause me to throw keyboards through windows: A 'requirement' or a 'minimum' must be exactly that. If they are negotiable, they aren't a requirement or minimum. GET THIS RIGHT, GODDAMNIT. THOSE WORDS HAVE DEFINITIONS FOR A REASON. If you can't come up with any, then chances are they aren't actually required! And if you don't actually have any, you don't have t…
The thing is that when you’re hiring, assuming you have some autonomy in the process, your ‘minimum requirements’ are always somewhat negotiable. If someone is truly amazing in an important skill that you need, but doesn’t meet some other so-called requirements, you very well might hire that person, even choosing them over others that do meet all the ‘requirements’. At the same time, you do want to establish some sort of minimum bar so you aren’t swamped with wildly underqualified applicants. You just hope the exceptional people will realize that they’re exceptional and that exceptions can always be made. It’s a difficult balance to get right.
That said, I totally understand the frustration. These should not be called requirements, since they aren’t really, but this is just how life works. You’re better off adjusting to the fact that there’s always wiggle room than becoming bitter about it.
Re: Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers
#1725% of engineering managers are named Eric. It's science
Re: Eric's Guide to Hiring Software Developers
#18The one absolutely, infuriating thing about jobs that will cause me to throw keyboards through windows: A 'requirement' or a 'minimum' must be exactly that. If they are negotiable, they aren't a requirement or minimum. GET THIS RIGHT, GODDAMNIT. THOSE WORDS HAVE DEFINITIONS FOR A REASON. If you can't come up with any, then chances are they aren't actually required! And if you don't actually have any, you don't have t…
The thing is that when you’re hiring, assuming you have some autonomy in the process, your ‘minimum requirements’ are always somewhat negotiable. If someone is truly amazing in an important skill that you need, but doesn’t meet some other so-called requirements, you very well might hire that person, even choosing them over others that do meet all the ‘requirements’. At the same time, you do want to establish some sor…
If you need general talent like that, make a general talent job posting or put a message with a generic jobs@company email address at the top of your job board.
That signals that you're willing to consider people who don't currently meet any requirements on any of your jobs.
That also gives you the option to shut it down if general hiring has to freeze or you stop having the time to review general talent because you need to prioritize hiring for specific roles.
I really think that for a lot of positions out there, there really are very few requirements actually needed (e.g. security clearances, certificates). Everything else really falls under ideal or nice-to-have.
Requirements changing based on the candidate means they can probably be reduced or eliminated entirely. That might even increase the talent pool that you can choose from by inviting others to apply.
Hell, maybe we can start putting the same effort into writing good job ads that candidates put into their resumes, cover letters, and interviewing skills. It'd be nice to have some reciprocation in the effort department.