Home About The Codist RSS Feed

Matching Smart Programmers With Great Jobs: There Has To Be A Better Way
Jan 17, 2007 16:00 perm link Readers: 3446

Looking for local java programming contract has been the usual frustrating game of looking for opportunities, taking silly tests, talking with brainless recruiters, trying to make sense of job descriptions written in Klingon, and sometimes even interviewing with a real person.

Surely in this enlightened internet age there has to be a better way to match smart programmers with good jobs. Yet we continue in the same pointless algorithm that existed long before computers were even invented: the professional equivalent to a prom date search.

As I've said before, in the last two jobs they interviewed 30 or so people for my position (one to find me and one to replace me) not including all of the rejected resumes. Both of these companies used multiple recruiting firms, posted direct jobs to various job boards, and asked everyone for contacts. In one case it took 6 months to find my replacement before they found someone with similar ability; yet in the same timeframe 3 more senior engineers left and they have little hope of finding equivalent engineers.

The usual game involves look at various job posting sites (monster,careerbuilder,etc), sending in your resume (if you are lucky, filling out a form based resume builder from hell is more common) and then dealing with the inevitable resume slinger (most firms use recruiting companies, which I enjoy about as much as bail bondsmen). Many large companies require some kind of screening test, which might be answering a few technical questions, or even worse using a testing site like Brainbench. Then you wait while some kind of background process takes place, mysterious processing on the various resumes they've collected occurs, and possibly at some random future date you find out if an interview is requested. Sometimes they start with a set of phone interviews or a first round of in person interviews. Unless you fail completely you then go back to the wait cycle until you here a response (or not, often the recruiter will abandon you if they don't hear back right away).

Sometimes it goes better when you deal with the job manager directly. For my last two non-contract jobs I was contacted by a reader of this blog (in it's early days), came in and basically was hired the same day. The second job I found on a job board startup I was looking at for ajax ideas; I interviewed the next day and was hired the day after. The first job was frustrating but at least I knew it going in; the second was a train wreck in progress but I didn't recognize it until a couple months in. It's important to evaluate the job as well as the job evaluating you.

The problem with this process is that each potential employer or recruiter evaluates you as if you just popped into being, and even worse, may assume you are lying about everything in your past and in your resume. There is a good reason for this assumption, having been involved in the hiring process, most people lie on their resume to keep up with those who really know their stuff and don't need to lie. That's why everyone is forced to take screening tests. It also explains why unusual resumes are often overlooked; they look too much like someone is cramming lies into their resume in order to get noticed. These folks then hope someone clueless will be interviewing them, and get a job they aren't qualified for. I've worked with many people I assume followed this route, there is no other explanation how they got a programming job without the ability to program. So companies looking for good programmers are forced to be defensive, and potentially let great employees get away in order to avoid the embarrassing potential of hiring a janitor.

Yet even with all this defensive hiring, most places I have worked (other than my own 2 companies in the 80's where I only hired programmers I knew) have a few good programmers and a lot of mediocre or even worse people. How all these job seekers (like the 30 or so mentioned above) stay employed enough to have a resume is something I've always wondered about.

How can these be made better, both for the programmers and for the hiring companies? There are millions of tech recruiters, who are saddled with the job of hunting for resumes to throw at their customers (always remember the programmer is not the customer); go to any of their web sites and they all brag on how great they are, yet all of them are the same. Every employer I have known hates their recruiting firms as much as the programmers hate to deal with them. Yet the system continues. Is there any hope?

I wish I had a brilliant idea that would make the whole process better. It still comes down to trust, how does a middleman get to trust both job seekers and employee seekers enough to properly match them up to the satisfaction of both. Or how does a company determine sufficiently that they are hiring a great programmer without spending enormous amounts of money and time on each candidate. Maybe there is not great solution. Google has huge amounts of money so they can afford to spend a lot trying to find the perfect employees but even that doesn't guarantee the best results; so what hope is there for Joe's Financial Services?

If anyone has a great idea to make this work better please implement it soon. I know a great programmer with a broad resume and a long history of doing good work!

My Tags:

  • Peter Bona: Jan 18, 2007 02:57

    You might be interested in this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/05b.html.

  • KnownSense: Jan 18, 2007 04:00

    You probably need a resume spam filter. You should see this: http://londonmiddleware.org/chaff/ .

    It’s a resume spam filter based on the CRM 114 (CRM114 - the Controllable Regex Mutilator).

  • KnownSense: Jan 18, 2007 04:00

    You probably need a resume spam filter. You should see this: http://londonmiddleware.org/chaff/ .

    It’s a resume spam filter based on the CRM 114 (CRM114 - the Controllable Regex Mutilator).

  • al: Jan 18, 2007 04:17

    Hi,

    I think the problem is a bit like this of landlords, tendants and real estate agents. The advice I hear here is basically to not listen that much on what the tendant/employee says or wrote (except he has real prove for it), but what references he has. Why not give his former employer or customer a call to see what they got to say about the guy.

    It's a bit more tricky, as leaving a company can happen in a fight although the employee is not responsible for that, but it's at least one more indication.

    Just my 2 cent

  • DAR: Jan 18, 2007 07:05

    You're misunderstanding and misstating the crux of the issue. You wrote:

    "How does a middleman get to trust both job seekers and employee seekers enough to properly match them up to the satisfaction of both?"

    But "middleman" is the key erroneous word in that sentence. By adding a 3rd part into the mix, who doesn't know one (or possibly both) of the parties well, you're making it much more difficult to establish trust.

    The key is taking out the middleman, and then enabling the employer to directly assess the reputation/trust of the potential employee. This is what services like LinkedIn do, and it makes a lot of sense. Hiring managers can scour their network of trusted individuals for people that they recommend. Middleman removed, and the employer can rely on trust much more.

  • Aelstro: Jan 18, 2007 08:43

    One thing that has always fascinated me is the advice to "Make sure you spell everything perfectly on your resume and follow such and such a format or else it will go straight in the trash".

    The correlation between accurate spellers and good programmers is probably not very high. In fact, some of the best programmers I know still can't spell perfectly and may forget to use a particular format for a resume.

    Just think if you really want your HR person to dump someone like Cap'n Crunch (the uber geek who assisted in the creation of voice mail menues, apple computers and similar ultra profitable projects) because he doesn't follow a particular obscure resume rule.

    I agree, a revision (overhaul) of the system needs to happen

  • fat 1: Jan 18, 2007 09:41

    i think part of the problem is that most companies sell you (and possibly themselves) into thinking their company/product/culture is great. most jobs i worked at were alot of maintenance/support of already developed products. i also found alot of managers to be quite limited in their capabilities. there are great places, projects, managers, ..., but after the honeymoon its work. whether your working on ajax, shopping catrs, ..., its work. the job has to be done, the code written, debugged. if your ambition is seeking greater challenges because you r great, you will be bored at a job that can be done better by an "average" developer.

    i also think people are not utilized to their abilities. if u r an idea guy, maybe you dont want to code. on the other hand if you like to code (and happy at it) it doesnt matter if its killer app or not.

    my rant.

    fat 1 out.

  • Yanni: Jan 18, 2007 10:18

    You noted that the closest you've come to the best result was when "in 80's where I[you] only hired programmers I [you] knew.” Perhaps the method of hiring people within the 3 degrees of separation (linkedin.com) coupled with an anonymous rating/feedback system (a-la-Ebay and Amazon) is the way to go?

    Yanni@shainsky.net

  • gregjor: Jan 18, 2007 11:45

    Matching jobs to people is a real problem. I've been at both ends many times in my career and every time I go through the process I think there has got to be a better way. When recruiters work they are matchmakers -- getting you a date with a possibly compatible company. It's still up to you to make the date work. There are good recruiters, but you may have to talk to a lot of them before you find one who does more than scan your resume for keywords and then match those to job descriptions. Good recruiters get repeat business from their clients, so if you hear about a recruiter who has placed several people at companies you are interested in talk to that recruiter. Don't hesitate to stop working with a recruiter who isn't working for you, or who doesn't understand your skills or the business you are in.

  • gregjor: Jan 18, 2007 11:50

    Aelstro: I don't get why the spelling thing comes up so often. If you can't spell or write a meaningful sentence, learn how to do it. If you have time to post "Why do people care so much about spelling?" comments on blogs you have time to improve your spelling and grammar.

    Poor spelling and grammar indicate poor attention to detail and even lack of care. When I read resumes and cover letters I interpret bad spelling the same way I interpret someone coming the the interview unwashed and hung-over. You don't have to be a perfect speller or grammarian to write code (though it helps, since computer languages don't leave any room for error). But you do have to show the recruiters and hiring managers that you care enough to use a spell checker, to review and edit your resume, and to maybe have someone else proofread for you. If you don't care enough to put something readable in front of me, I won't care enough to read it.

  • Chris: Jan 19, 2007 08:13

    A lot of companies use a third-party contractor because that way, when an employee is hired, its only for the first 6th months. That's one way to separate the wheat from the chaff if you've got that kind of time and money, and don't know how to interview intelligent people (think large companies/firms).

    If it turns out you're not up to snuff, at the end of six months, they can simply state 'Your contract is not being renewed', and find a new candidate. It saves them the trouble of having to find a reason to fire you/lay you off.

  • Add Comment

Name:


Optional URL:


Comment:


Save Cancel

Copyright © 2007 By Andrew Wulf