The Problem with Job Titles • Hacker News Board

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#21

Post by GordyMD » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:04 PM UTC

lordbusiness wrote: post #16

lordbusiness wrote: post #6

Interesting and thought provoking article. I wonder if this could take off as a concept and change the way we define ourselves? I like the concept. One thing that is lacking however is perhaps an understanding of what job titles are today. I haven't formally been handed a job title in many years, so long in fact that I honestly can't recall which previous employer was the last to grant me a specific pigeon hole at th…

P.P.S. I'd love to see the ability to add myself as a remote worker. I had to choose my closest major city, which doesn't accurately reflect how I work.

We're in the process of considering a number of new input fields for both organisations and users. This is one that we intend to add in the next few days.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#22

Post by bencollier49 » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:07 PM UTC

This immediately identified a very good match for me. It's brilliantly built, I'm very impressed.

They could do with a little bit of narrative to explain that you're now free to converse with the potential employer, at the point where the conversation thread opens up.

5 thumbs up.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#23

Post by onion2k » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:07 PM UTC

dkyc wrote: post #2

I think the results have to do with your questioning. For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. So some people give testing a 0, because it's not something you actively want to do. And others give testing a 5, because they know that whatever job they'll take, they probably have to test their code. I don't really see much difference to the classic…

For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software.

Why?

Someone has to do the testing, obviously, but why does it have to be you just because you want to write good quality software? Why can't you work with a brilliant QA[1] team who can generate an awesome set of processes and tests based on your specifications? You don't have to do the bit you find boring if there's someone else around who loves doing it and will do a better job of it because they don't find it boring.

Giving up parts of the development process is part of being in a team. A very important part.

Using the idea in the article along with good knowledge of what's needed in the particular problem domain, it should be possible to use 'workshapes' to put together a very suitable team of people for a project.

[1] Important note for the unfamiliar: Most QA teams are actually QC teams. QA (quality assurance) has to happen from the very first stages of a project, putting in processes that assure the right level of quality will be met. QC (quality checking) happens at the end where someone goes through a project and makes sure it's been done well. If your "QA" only happens at the end then it's QC, and it's probably not helping you build the best product you're capable of building.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#24

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:13 PM UTC

dkyc wrote: post #19

dagw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would interpret a testing of 0 as willing to write the minimal number of tests needed to get their code working and 5 as willing to spend all their time developing the company wide testing framework and testing policy and making sure it's continually updated and being followed, as well as being the last person in the chain to sign off on the fact that any software leaving the shop as passed all the tests. Basically…

Your interpretation seems like a reasonable scale - however, it is a very vague definition of "0". I'm sure some people want a 0 to mean an actual 0, like a blind developer asked to do UI development.

Yeah, sounds like a joke. But I worked at a company where the tech writer was legally blind, the marketing guy was shy and the spokesperson (CEO) stuttered. Weird place.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#25

Post by GordyMD » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:15 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #23

dkyc wrote: post #2

I think the results have to do with your questioning. For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. So some people give testing a 0, because it's not something you actively want to do. And others give testing a 5, because they know that whatever job they'll take, they probably have to test their code. I don't really see much difference to the classic…

For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. Why? Someone has to do the testing, obviously, but why does it have to be you just because you want to write good quality software? Why can't you work with a brilliant QA[1] team who can generate an awesome set of processes and tests based on your specifications? You don't have to do the bit you find bori…

Like that you have picked on the team aspect. We have a very exciting new feature in the works which focuses on presenting the team that you would be joining and how you will compliment each other in terms of how you collectively want to spend time.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#26

Post by jeffbr13 » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:15 PM UTC

dkyc wrote: post #19

dagw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would interpret a testing of 0 as willing to write the minimal number of tests needed to get their code working and 5 as willing to spend all their time developing the company wide testing framework and testing policy and making sure it's continually updated and being followed, as well as being the last person in the chain to sign off on the fact that any software leaving the shop as passed all the tests. Basically…

Your interpretation seems like a reasonable scale - however, it is a very vague definition of "0". I'm sure some people want a 0 to mean an actual 0, like a blind developer asked to do UI development.

Interfaces aren't only visual - blind users still have to interact with something.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#27

Post by janee » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:15 PM UTC

I actually need to update my CV, glad I came across this. Think I'll add one for work experience and another for current perception of 'How do you want to spend your time'.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#28

Post by GordyMD » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:22 PM UTC

bencollier49 wrote: post #22

This immediately identified a very good match for me. It's brilliantly built, I'm very impressed. They could do with a little bit of narrative to explain that you're now free to converse with the potential employer, at the point where the conversation thread opens up. 5 thumbs up.

Thanks - really glad it found a match for you. I'll note down your comment - we do need to improve the UX in this area.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#29

Post by arno_v » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:25 PM UTC

So instead of the ambiguous text 'Software Engineer' we now have 10 ambiguous texts ranging from 'Analysis' to 'Data Science'. I don't really see how that solves a problem, since these underlying concepts are also quite hard to define consistently.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#30

Post by Peroni » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 1:36 PM UTC

It really was only a matter of time before Hung Lee created something like this. He's one of a very small group of people that truly 'gets' hiring in todays environment and I'm really not surprised to see workshape gaining traction. We're still relatively new users but we have already arranged a handful of interviews via the platform.