August 20, 2008 at 9:58 am
What the heck has happened to software/database development hiring practices in the last 10 years or so? They seem to have gone straight in the crapper. The decline is evident in several ways and I will mention a few issues here.
Organizations write job descriptions containing a laundry list of abbreviations that they think of as skills. Candidates for those jobs insert the same abbreviations in their résumés in order to be found by automated searches. Nobody knows everything, so the honest among us are immediately at a disadvantage when we do not pad our résumés with bogus experience. The dishonest among us are more likely to have our résumés selected for an interview then the "best" people in that group get hired. It's a depressing reality for honest job seekers and it sucks for employers as well.
Organizations ask for excellent communication skills, time management skills, problem solving skills, and attention to detail. I have rarely been quizzed about these skills and there's very little an employer can do to verify them during an interview. However, those who exaggerate their technical abilities on résumés are the people getting interviews and it's reasonable to assume they have also exaggerated their "soft" skills and work habits. The true nature of a person's technical abilities and work habits can only be revealed with time spent in the employer's environment.
Some organizations are comfortable with relying on self-assessments from job candidates. Again, the honest among us are immediately at a disadvantage because any self-assessment is subject to the ego and humility of the person involved. I’m generally my own harshest critic. I expect a lot from myself. Most other people are much less critical and demanding when evaluating themselves. My self-assessment scores are often 20 percentage points lower than other people, while my third-party assessment scores (such as technical exams) are often 20 percentage points higher than other people.
It seems as though organizations are no longer trying to find workers with actual demonstrated skills. How would an employer assess technical abilities such as formation of algorithms, application architecture, data modeling, database architecture, and so on? How would an employer assess the ability to absorb business knowledge? How would an employer assess time management skills, problem solving skills, and attention to detail? Such abilities are very difficult to verify during an interview, so those of us who are willing to exaggerate are much more likely to be hired.
The abilities that are the most difficult to assess, as in the previous paragraph, are also the most indicative of performance in a new environment. Organizations seek and hire job candidates based on buzzwords instead of proven real world experience. The new workers might know the syntax and/or nomenclature for certain technologies, but they might utterly lack the wisdom to properly apply those technologies, especially in a new environment. I have seen numerous examples of software/database developers failing to understand their own craft in the last 12 months.
I have always tried to be modest and humble about myself, but those attributes are now detrimental in a job search. I have observed the technical abilities and work habits of scores of people around me during my 30 years in the IT work force. Some of them thought they were God's gift to software/database development, but they were wrong. Some of them (often the same ones) claimed to work extremely hard, but their productivity proved otherwise. I'm not going to brag about my technical abilities and work habits here, but I'm ready to compare the combination against anybody.
This post could be construed as the ranting of a curmudgeon. In fact, I *am* a relatively old guy (50), and I'm sure that plays a part in my perception of the current situation, but it's certainly not a complete explanation.
I'm afraid these issues are not limited to software/database development hiring practices. I fear that it's simply a microcosm of society in general. Honesty, integrity, humility, effort, and dedication appear to be outmoded concepts.
August 20, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Very nice post.
My own experience (as an interviewer) is I never trust the resume only, I always throw some open questions to the interviewees just to judge their knowledge / experiences. On the other hand, whenever I see resumes full of some unrealistic assessments, such as "expert skills at Oracle, and SQL Server, profound experiences with C#, and .Net", I usually stop reading the resume.
August 21, 2008 at 6:40 am
I don't disagree and I have read many posts/articles/editorials about these issues. The biggest problem is that hiring managers only see resumes AFTER HR has culled them based on key words. Some advice I have gotten is that when you see a job posted that you are interested in, do some research to try and find out who the hiring manager may be and, in addition to sending a resume to HR, send one directly to the hiring manager. Also, if you can, follow-up with a direct call to the hiring manager, but don't mention you saw the ad. I know it sounds a little shady, but you've got to get past HR.
The other thing I have learned is to emphasize accomplishments, not skills on a resume. Sure I put a short list of languages on my resume, but I spend most of it with 2 or 3 sentence blurbs about accomplishments like:
"Designed and implemented an order entry system using SQL Server and ASP.NET. This system reduced the time to enter orders by 20% and, by integrating with the production management system, enabled customer service to track order status."
This gets the keywords out there, but also shows I have actually DONE something with the skills. It also gives the interviewer something to ask specific questions about in the interview, for which I can prepare ahead of time.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
August 22, 2008 at 7:14 am
Although I haven't been working in this field long ~5 years, I agree wholeheartedly with your observations.
Between the recruiters scrounging up bodies to fill seats to get commissions and contractors grabbing bodies to put in billable seats I have seen quite a few people who aren't ready to be a part of an IT/IS team being put in one. If candidates aren't embellishing their abilities, the people who get the bigger paycheques for finding them are. But I don't see any reason why this needs to be the case.
I'm sure you can get a handle on whether someone's soft skills are up to par and worth putting them on a team. I recall at my last employer I had to give new IS people a rundown on a couple of systems and SQL Server of course, others trained them on other things. I could generally figure out in the hour I was training them (usually much less) whether or not they'd be good additions to the company even though I wasn't asking any questions or doing anything to try to do this. I was surprised that my boss and her 2 team leads couldn't figure this out with 2 rounds of interviews, recruiter screening and a resume to work with. Things may have changed since they haven't found anyone to replace the 5 of us (~25% of the department) who have left in the past 6 months. Then again, they may have had people turning job offers from them down as well. I've been gone for 2 months and they're still looking for a new SQL Server DBA. They also had quite a culture of mediocrity going on there, so I didn't really fit in there well, nor did many of the others who left. Perhaps this is part of the reason why mediocre people were hired?
When I was interviewed for where I am now, my future boss lead the interview by explaining what they do, how the systems work and seeing if I asked intelligent questions or just ran out the door. It was similar to what I did when I was training the new people at my last job, although he and the other two at the interviews asked me questions to determine if I could fit in with the company.
He must have developed an intuition like I had, but then again he's a good leader and a manager and has great intuition and "business sense". My last boss did not have these abilities and she had to rely on tests, assessments, questions, etc to see if those things told her the person was worth hiring. I believe a lot of people who have moved into hiring positions haven't developed leadership skills or are incapable of it, but because of good bureaucratic paper pushing and analysis, they have become hiring managers. A good developer doesn't mean a good manager any more than a good mathematician means a good sprinter.
So the companies who promote incapable managers end up hiring incapable candidates and capable managers end up hiring capable candidates. Great managers hire great candidates. I looked for a new job for quite a while and turned down a few places and recruiter requests before I accepted the one where I am today. I work with the most capable group of people I have ever worked with now. Unfortunately for great candidates seeking new employment, this means that you need to wait a while for openings at great companies since turnover is low.
August 22, 2008 at 10:19 am
Interesting post, but I would disagree with your assessment that this is a phenomenon that has cropped up only recently ("...last 10 years..."). I have been in the game for over 20 years now, and it's always been like this to my recollection. I'm sure, as you mention, if we look at other industries, the behaviors are evident even much further back.
Jack nailed it on the head here:
The other thing I have learned is to emphasize accomplishments, not skills on a resume.
If one is a technical wizard, but they are unable to articulate the way their contributions have improved an organization's health, productivity, competitive stance, bottom line, etc., then they are a less valuable candidate. Contrast this with someone who may not have the technical chops, but understands the strategies and objectives of the business and is able to translate that into goals and tasks. Which potential employee is more likely to come up with that incredible revenue-generating idea or invention? It's the latter, even though they may need more time or assistance to bring the idea to fruition.
TroyK
August 22, 2008 at 10:46 am
Jack nailed it on the head here:
The other thing I have learned is to emphasize accomplishments, not skills on a resume.
I agree with this , a candidate should be able to demostrate what their work has acheived in terms of business goals.
The last round of recruitment i did, i was bombarded by CVs from people that claim to know everything under the sun, I had people that were 'experts' in SQL server and .NET. But when it came down to the final interview when we bring in some of our Senior Devs/DBAs for a technical grilling it became very clear which candidates were stretching the truth.
We quite often found that even though some one has 5+years experience it often translates into 5 years of doing the same thing over and over without them expanding their skill-set. The person we ended up hiring was not the most experinced and admitted they did not know a few things when asked, but they interviewed a lot better than some so called 'experts' and showed a willing to learn.
August 22, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I appreciate the good comments, but my post was not intended to solicit résumé advice. I understand the different strategies for writing a résumé. However, the initial "read" of a résumé is not necessarily done by a human, or at least not a human who is absorbing the content. The initial "read" is quite possibly nothing more than a scan (human or automated) for buzzwords. If there's a sufficient quantity of buzzwords then the résumé goes in a pile (or on an electronic list) for further review to look for accomplishments. In addition, accomplishments can be exaggerated just as easily as skills. It may be possible to recognize some exaggerations during an interview, but the honest/modest job seekers may never get as far as an interview.
The main point of my post was to lament a situation. The key sentence is the very last one. I suppose dishonesty (along with a lack of other values) has existed since the beginning of time, but it certainly seems to be more useful now. I love IT, but I think various forms of technology are contributing to the increasing effectiveness of dishonesty. I think the increasing urbanization of the population is another contributing factor. When 200 résumés are submitted for one position in an urban area then it's very unlikely that all of them will get reviewed for accomplishments.
Small companies often post their open positions on popular job boards (Dice, CareerBuilder, Monster). Job seekers often use automated processes to be notified of "matching" positions. The definition of "matching" is based on buzzwords rather than accomplishments.
Large companies often have their own internal job boards. Job seekers submit their résumés and the résumés go into an electronic system. HR people look there for "matching" candidates. The definition of "matching" is based on buzzwords rather than accomplishments.
The examples above are very common ways in which the deck is now stacked against honest/modest job seekers. My mention of "the last 10 years or so" was simply an estimate, but I think it's a reasonable estimate. The use of popular job boards has certainly mushroomed in recent years, along with web use in general. The use of internal job boards has certainly increased in recent years. The types of questions an interviewer can ask have been constrained in recent years, due to fear of legal action. The reluctance of references to say anything meaningful about former employees has increased in recent years, due to fear of legal action. The movement of the population into urban areas has been going on for a long time, but the effect is obviously more pronounced in recent years. The combination of these factors has caused significant changes in hiring practices in the last 10 years or so, and I think the changes favor those who are willing to exaggerate their skills and accomplishments.
August 22, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I don't think this is an IT only phenomenon. I am sure that this occurs in many occupations. The use of automated processes to prescan applicants is used almost everywhere, especially big businesses. And the HR departments of smaller business may only give a cursory look at the resume/cover letter.
Part of this needs to go back on the hiring managers. They need to let HR know that they need to see all potential applicants or at least include those that meet a certain level of a match, not just the ones they or the system think are qualified as they may miss someone who may in fact be the best candidate for a position even if they don't have all the appropriate "buzz words" in their resume.
For instance, a company looking for a SQL Server DBA with C# experience. If they have SQL Server experience, but no C#, that's okay, I still want to see that applicant. They may not know it now, but they may be able to learn it on the job.
😎
August 22, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Often, hiring managers value candidates that resemble to them.
I ran into several hiring managers who were not very technical and they did not bring in technical experts to verify what candidates claimed in their resume, sometimes they just did not have in-house experts.
I also think there is a difference in self-assesment between older generation and younger generation
August 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm
DBAdmin (8/22/2008)
I appreciate the good comments, but my post was not intended to solicit résumé advice. I understand the different strategies for writing a résumé. However, the initial "read" of a résumé is not necessarily done by a human, or at least not a human who is absorbing the content. The initial "read" is quite possibly nothing more than a scan (human or automated) for buzzwords. If there's a sufficient quantity of buzzwords then the résumé goes in a pile (or on an electronic list) for further review to look for accomplishments. In addition, accomplishments can be exaggerated just as easily as skills. It may be possible to recognize some exaggerations during an interview, but the honest/modest job seekers may never get as far as an interview.
I know my post was not designed to be resume advice, but to mention that in addition to having a skills list I emphasize accomplishments, including the skills/technologies used in the accomplishment. This gets you through the automated systems and, usually gets me to an interview. Granted accomplishments can be exaggerated and when I learned how to create this "winning" resume they were exaggerated, but I quickly modified them to be more accurate. When originally written it might have said, "Designed and developed order entry system using SQL Server and ASP.NET" even though I was part of a 4 or 5 person team. I would have changed it to something like "Involved in design and development of order entry system using SQL Server and ASP.NET".
Much of the change has come because, unless you know someone, you do have to get by the automated systems.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
August 22, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Lynn Pettis (8/22/2008)
I don't think this is an IT only phenomenon
I absolutely agree, and I said as much in my original post. However, as much as I love IT, I think IT (along with many other factors) is contributing to the problem of depersonalizing hiring practices.
hai21century (8/22/2008)
I also think there is a difference in self-assesment between older generation and younger generation
A very interesting and provocative point.
Jack Corbett (8/22/2008)
in addition to having a skills list I emphasize accomplishments, including the skills/technologies used in the accomplishment. This gets you through the automated systems
Listing six skills based on actual experience does not get you through the automated systems if your competitors list two skills based on actual experience and five exaggerated skills.
I have mentioned exaggeration of skills a few times, but I should provide an example of exaggeration of accomplishments...
I'm looking for a new position for myself right now, but I have also been in the role of reviewing résumés of job candidates. It seems like almost every résumé has a claim of being a team lead. It's not uncommon to have somebody with three years of IT experience claim team lead experience. It appears the work force must be made up of all leaders and no followers. It's very difficult to verify team lead experience without contacting previous employers, and previous employers are often reluctant to discuss any details about former employees (which is a relatively recent problem). There are some people who are quite willing to take advantage of these circumstances. Those of us who are honest/modest could then appear to be less experienced when the opposite may be true.
I think this is a problem that will continue to worsen unless/until honesty, integrity, humility, effort, and dedication become fashionable again. These attributes have been called "World War II values" by some. Can these attributes become fashionable again?
August 22, 2008 at 3:11 pm
DBAdmin (8/22/2008)
I think this is a problem that will continue to worsen unless/until honesty, integrity, humility, effort, and dedication become fashionable again. These attributes have been called "World War II values" by some.Can these attributes become fashionable again?
Sure they could, but I doubt that they will. Not to politicize the thread, but when you have the President of U.S. debating the meaning of the word "is" then you can see how far away from these attributes we have gone. Not all that long ago, the 80's, Gary Hart had to withdraw from the presidential race because of infidelity, and then in the 90's we (speaking for the U.S. only) condoned and defended in some cases the same behavior in a sitting president.
What is the standard by which you measure honesty and integrity? Unless there is one then honesty and integrity are what you or I define it as. Unfortunately there are people who define it as whatever it takes for me to get the job/promotion/etc... So if embellishing (a nice way to say lying) on my resume gets me hired then do it.
"Character is what you do when no one's watching." --Russell W. Gough
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
August 22, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Tangent...
"Character is what you do when no one's watching." --Russell W. Gough
Like coming to a complete stop at a 4-way intersect in the middle of no where with no one around to see you do it!
😎
August 22, 2008 at 6:40 pm
This is an interesting conversation. But it also reminds me that we all often are not what we make others believe we are.
The best examples are the rituals we follow when we want to impress an instance of the opposite gender (or the same for some). We show habits that we never had before, and suppress bad habits, until the partner has been mostly "convinced".
In the end there is no way around advertising oneself. Or in a more negative term, to blend the target. You can either play the game, or let others play the game. That's how it is.
Too often I have seen the loudest employees rise the ladder of success, and good employees doing their jobs silently stayed unrecognized.
While the loud employees give at least some indication (=they advertise even their smallest achievements or sometimes even "steal" achievements from others) that they are valuable to the organization. The silent employees usually do not advertise their achievements and therefore are not heard. The end result is that the loud employees appear to have more achievements to the manager and therefore have better chances to ride the ladder of success.
Of course I do not reccommend lying or providing wrong information.
But I strongly reccommend emphasizing achievements as much as possible (as indicated by Jack).
And by emphasizing achievements, the keywords should appear automatically within the text.
And for companies that rely only on keyword count - I would not want to work for such a company anyways.
Best Regards,
Chris Büttner
August 25, 2008 at 6:51 am
Too often I have seen the loudest employees rise the ladder of success, and good employees doing their jobs silently stayed unrecognized.
While the loud employees give at least some indication (=they advertise even their smallest achievements or sometimes even "steal" achievements from others) that they are valuable to the organization. The silent employees usually do not advertise their achievements and therefore are not heard. The end result is that the loud employees appear to have more achievements to the manager and therefore have better chances to ride the ladder of success.
I totally agree on this. However it also depends on the management. If the manager is smart enough, he/she should know who is doing the work, unfortunately it is hard to find those managers.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply