December 1, 2015 at 8:22 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Rethinking Hiring
December 1, 2015 at 9:02 pm
I think there are three problems:
1. The genuine need for talented data pros is growing much faster than the supply of talented data pros.
2. Many (perhaps most) companies do not know how to screen
3. Most companies do not understand the profound ROI they would enjoy if they invested in their people.
Regarding #2 - I worked at places where, for every good person we made an offer to, I would interview 12. Of the other 11, roughly 2/3rds would have never been brought in for an interview if they were screened properly. On the flip side of that - a lot of companies have unqualified people performing technical interviews. I have had my time wasted on a few occasions over the years doing technical interviews with people who knew nothing about SQL. This is good though because I when I'm interviewing it's not them interviewing me, it's us interviewing each other.
Investing in your people goes beyond sending your techies to some expensive training, it's also about taking the time to develop a legit screening process where applicants and interviewers are not having their time wasted. Lastly, if you want good talent you need to be willing to pay for it. A good DBA or SQL developer is indispensable.
-- Itzik Ben-Gan 2001
December 1, 2015 at 11:28 pm
I feel that so many people put too much emphasis on knowing syntax than the people themselves. For DBA's, it becomes a knowledge capacity assessment from the start. Do you know X, Y and Z? If not, hit the road. You are of no value to the elite who work with us.
I often find myself getting pretty upset about both not knowing X, Y and Z, and people thinking that working with databases is rocket science. I'm sorry, hate to break it to you, it's not. There is opportunity to be amazing at working at databases, but the path is not solving time travel either.
While facing my own dilemma with similar questions, I have thought long and hard about the screening process. I feel confident the best approach is not just what is on paper and knowing X, Y and Z. It's a combination of passion, being trainable, a good fundamental understanding of the technology and characteristics that align with the values/organization.
Everyone is going to have different levels of passion, knowledge of technology and so forth. At the end of the day, it's whether or not I feel if they can improve in those areas or not. If so, when they run into challenge, the business won't need a master of their profession because I think feel with those characteristics, they will be smart enough to figure it out anyways. It's not rocket science.
December 2, 2015 at 2:17 am
It's tricky.
Companies do not like paying vastly different salaries/rates yet need different valued people. All of whom need both time to keep any necessary skills up to date or to gain them (previously discussed) AND time to perform their tasks to an adequate level of quality (not previously discussed). Different people work at different productivity rates, offer differing levels of flexibility and have/have the potential to have different skill sets.
When people hire they tend to go for the "cookie cutter" method. They have a fixed preconception regarding the role, let's use DBA given our context, and gauge every interviewee against that preconception. As the people hiring, what we tend to ignore is the team mix. Rarely do you want a team of steady 9-5 workers but rarely do you want a team of 10-10 pizza eating, cola slugging bleeding edge colleagues.
There are pros and cons to all types so we must also consider what we need in our mix in terms of personality traits, work/life balance requirements and enthusiasm for expanding ones breadth/depth of knowledge. Not just relevant degree, N years experience and has knows everything that there is to know.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
December 2, 2015 at 2:51 am
Negative thinking senior manager: "What if we invest in training and developing our people and they leave us?"
Positive thinking senior manager: "What if we don't and they stay?"
December 2, 2015 at 5:33 am
The older I get the more I realise the shear inefficiency of people's ability to communicate both what they want and what they can provide.
Certificates have in the past been a legitimate proxy however it is quite possible for people in organisations to never have been truly tested in their disciplines.
Best you can do is I think hire and let go quickly and try and not make it personal. Even if you have a good candidate you can put them in the wrong roll.
Also I think it is good to be a bit flexible - jobs in areas quite often overlap and I think it is good to let the applicant adapt the job to their strengths.
December 2, 2015 at 6:42 am
ian.lee 73912 (12/2/2015)
Negative thinking senior manager: "What if we invest in training and developing our people and they leave us?"Positive thinking senior manager: "What if we don't and they stay?"
Funny but true. I have to remember this.
December 2, 2015 at 6:46 am
Just like there are organizations that just don't "get" IT development, there are organizations that don't "get" how to hire and retain quality IT professionals. Relying on a transactional relationship with technical recruiters for hiring only solves one aspect of the problem and sometimes not even that. What an organization needs is a consultant who can advise them, not just on big picture architecture, but also on how to build up an IT department.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 2, 2015 at 6:48 am
The qualities that I look for in interviewees are willingness to learn, ease with logical thought and thoroughness. Being able to the job quickly is good, too, but, if given the choice, I'd rather thorough workers to quick workers.
For junior DBAs it doesn't matter how little they know about databases, it's how willing they are to embrace them and the tasks at hand. I don't care about the certificates and diplomas that they have or haven't received up to this point. I am interested in how well and how quickly to strive to master the tools they will have to use. If they study for and achieve the Microsoft exams, then I will be proud of them.
Rethinking re-hiring means getting Personnel/H.R. out of the hiring-process. The direct manager of the hire-to-be should be conducting the interviews and choosing those to be interviewed. I admonished our Personel department for the stupid qualification requirements they put in (Junior DBAs had to have a university degree; senior DBAs had to have at least a Masters' degree and so on). In the end, we got a superb fellow a year or two out of school with 6 months' experience in Access. Within a year he was capable to doing most of the work that was sent our way. He rarely made mistakes. His ability to learn and implement new features within SQL Server was impressive.
December 2, 2015 at 6:54 am
Sean Redmond (12/2/2015)
Rethinking re-hiring means getting Personnel/H.R. out of the hiring-process. The direct manager of the hire-to-be should be conducting the interviews and choosing those to be interviewed. I admonished our Personel department for the stupid qualification requirements they put in (Junior DBAs had to have a university degree; senior DBAs had to have at least a Masters' degree and so on). In the end, we got a superb fellow a year or two out of school with 6 months' experience in Access. Within a year he was capable to doing most of the work that was sent our way. He rarely made mistakes. His ability to learn and implement new features within SQL Server was impressive.
That sounds like a really good idea. Formal Procurement and formal HR can be real hurdles in some organisations
December 2, 2015 at 6:54 am
Here is the problem in a nutshell - salary opacity and salary equality.
Demigod of SQL = x$
Seat Filler = x$
Unfortunately, just as much money is allocated by management for the seat filler as for the demigod. Both are hired as cheaply as they can be got, leaving open the very real possibility that the seat filler (who happens to be good at negotiation) makes more than the demigod. Further, neither the demigod nor the seat filler know what each other makes, providing absolutely zero incentive for the seat filer to become a demigod.
Solution? Make all salary information public. When someone asks, "Why does so and so make so much", the answer will be, "Go look at their code and then you tell me."
December 2, 2015 at 7:13 am
lnardozi 61862 (12/2/2015)
Here is the problem in a nutshell - salary opacity and salary equality.Demigod of SQL = x$
Seat Filler = x$
Unfortunately, just as much money is allocated by management for the seat filler as for the demigod. Both are hired as cheaply as they can be got, leaving open the very real possibility that the seat filler (who happens to be good at negotiation) makes more than the demigod. Further, neither the demigod nor the seat filler know what each other makes, providing absolutely zero incentive for the seat filer to become a demigod.
Solution? Make all salary information public. When someone asks, "Why does so and so make so much", the answer will be, "Go look at their code and then you tell me."
Organizations should setup a system of metrics, terminate the seat fillers, and then maintain an IT department of somewhat fewer but more qualified staff. The seat filters will then be highly incentivized to grow up.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 2, 2015 at 7:29 am
There's far too many companies that want a senior level person with a lot of experience only to make an offer that is more in line with a junior level person. Then they get upset when the person they want won't take a LOT of money less than they want to pay.
The laundry list of qualifications is also a peeve of mine. Especially when they want 5 years of experience in a product that came out 2 years ago. It shows they don't know what they want or they let HR write up the job listing.
Wasting time interviewee's time because they already decided to hire an internal person but need to interview X candidates per company policy.
Posting for job A then interviewing for job B. Bait and switch is a waste of everyone's time.
All of these reflect badly on the hiring company and show a disconnect or outright dishonesty in their hiring practices. And I've been on the receiving end of all of them. There's a lot of good companies out there but they don't get the visibility that the bad ones do.
December 2, 2015 at 8:05 am
Sean Redmond (12/2/2015)
...I admonished our Personel department for the stupid qualification requirements they put in (Junior DBAs had to have a university degree; senior DBAs had to have at least a Masters' degree and so on). In the end, we got a superb fellow a year or two out of school with 6 months' experience in Access. Within a year he was capable to doing most of the work that was sent our way. He rarely made mistakes. His ability to learn and implement new features within SQL Server was impressive.
HR should be supportive, not proactive, in hiring. They understand HR/Personnel issues NOT what it takes to be a [insert any other role here including one that all us forum attendees may not know].
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
December 2, 2015 at 8:33 am
Alan.B (12/1/2015)
I think there are three problems:1. The genuine need for talented data pros is growing much faster than the supply of talented data pros.
2. Many (perhaps most) companies do not know how to screen
3. Most companies do not understand the profound ROI they would enjoy if they invested in their people.
Regarding #2 - I worked at places where, for every good person we made an offer to, I would interview 12. Of the other 11, roughly 2/3rds would have never been brought in for an interview if they were screened properly. On the flip side of that - a lot of companies have unqualified people performing technical interviews. I have had my time wasted on a few occasions over the years doing technical interviews with people who knew nothing about SQL. This is good though because I when I'm interviewing it's not them interviewing me, it's us interviewing each other.
Investing in your people goes beyond sending your techies to some expensive training, it's also about taking the time to develop a legit screening process where applicants and interviewers are not having their time wasted. Lastly, if you want good talent you need to be willing to pay for it. A good DBA or SQL developer is indispensable.
A few things.
#1 is always true, because as we raise the median level of skill, the best get better. I think we have to also understand that what bar do we need for talent? Sometimes I think we're all searching for the best when we can get by with less.
#2: I think this is a universal, human problem. If you think about all the people you've hired, how often did someone meet your expectations v exceed or fall short? When I think about it, I think hiring has been very hit and miss for me. Unless the company invested in training and mentoring tightly with existing good developers/DBAs, we didn't end up with any sort of "winning" percentage of good hires.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 79 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply