Looking for a job?

There's been some discussion here recently about job seeking.

The following may be of interest:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Careers/The-New-IT-Benchmarks/

I thought some of the comments were at least as pertinent as the article.

I've always rated enthusiasm high on the list when interviewing prospective
candidates; seems I'm not the only one :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

In article <6eltr5F7q5pbU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>There's been some discussion here recently about job seeking.
>
>The following may be of interest:
>http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Careers/The-New-IT-Benchmarks/
>
>I thought some of the comments were at least as pertinent as the article.

I thought it was a tedious re-statement of similar stuff I'd read before,
down to the smug burbling of contradictory phrases. Compare (from
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Careers/The...-Benchmarks/3/ )

--begin quoted text

"The hiring focus is much more about instincts and less about technology,"
he said. "The technology instinct is what matters.(")

--end quoted text

with
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/6e71bedba6ee62e2?dmode=source>

--begin quoted text:

>Experience with full Lifecycle development Quick study -- MUST be able to
>hit the ground running Effective communicator both written and oral Must be
>a true "team player" assuming lead roles as well as taking directions as the
>need arises

.... MUST have all the burning, searing, tortured insight of a True
Introvert... and be Good With People, too.

--end quoted text

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:g64hqo$3p0$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <6eltr5F7q5pbU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>There's been some discussion here recently about job seeking.
>>
>>The following may be of interest:
>>http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Careers/The-New-IT-Benchmarks/
>>
>>I thought some of the comments were at least as pertinent as the article.
>
> I thought it was a tedious re-statement of similar stuff I'd read before,
> down to the smug burbling of contradictory phrases. Compare (from
> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Careers/The...-Benchmarks/3/ )
>
> --begin quoted text
>
> "The hiring focus is much more about instincts and less about technology,"
> he said. "The technology instinct is what matters.(")
>
> --end quoted text
>
> with
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/6e71bedba6ee62e2?dmode=source>
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
>>Experience with full Lifecycle development Quick study -- MUST be able to
>>hit the ground running Effective communicator both written and oral Must
>>be
>>a true "team player" assuming lead roles as well as taking directions as
>>the
>>need arises
>
> ... MUST have all the burning, searing, tortured insight of a True
> Introvert... and be Good With People, too.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> DD
>
Fair points. Some of the posted comments were along the same lines.

I posted the article here because the author claims there has been a shift
in perception and requirements regarding IT, and "IT people" now need to
have much broader experience than was previously the case. I'm not fully
convinced, although I tend to agree that breadth of experience is no BAD
thing.

I certainly agree that enthusiasm is a very important attribute and
personally rate it highly. It has been my experience that you can buy
specialist skills, which you may only need for a limited time (sometimes
just s few days), but you can't buy committment, attitude and enthusiasm,
which you need for the duration of the project.

However, that doesn't mean you want your team composed of enthusiastic
amateurs... (although I'd personally rather that, than a bunch of sullen,
mean spirited, cynical "professionals"...)

I think there are major problems with the wording and the process of
recruiting within organizations (leaving pimps out of it for a minute
because we know that most of them are just thugs :-)). It probably stems
from the same problem that it has always stemmed from: People in HR have no
idea what is required (sometimes IT managers don't even know and write the
kind of crap you sampled above), and, generally, HR are the company's
interface to the work resource.

I completely agree with your sentiments regarding the above, and consider
that putting meaningless platitudes into recruitment ads is just stupid.

On a number of occasions I have managed projects where it was necessary to
recruit my own team (sometimes from within the organization and sometimes
from outside or a mixture of both), and I've never had trouble with it. I
needed to fire 2 people in 20 years and that was partly down to my own lack
of experience... I learned from it. Everyone else turned out to be
treasures... :-)

Most of us have encountered the very narrow Keyword searching type of
recruitment that is prevalent in Agencies, but the same kind of thing
happens within organzations doing their own recruitment through HR.

Tech skills embodied in acronyms and keywords are important, but approach
and attitude are every bit as important (at least as far as I'm concerned;
others may not see it that way).

As far as I can tell, these are some of the attributes to develop if you
want to enjoy your career (I like to think they apply equally to Management
and the Shop Floor):

1. Care about what you do. (I think the article mentioned that...). Enjoy
what you do and derive satisfaction from what you achieve, but remember your
work doesn't define you. It is more important to be who you are, than to be
a computer programmer or manager or anything else...

2. Develop a positive attitude and project confidence. When you can see
problems with what is being proposed, point them out and look for
alternatives. Never be glad to leave a problem with the rest of the team;
have at least one solution to it for general discussion.)

3. Never stop educating yourself and expanding what you know. (This is much
too important to be left to the whim of the company you work for. Take
responsibility for your own skill set and be jealous of it. Add to it as
often as you can.) Don't settle for being competent (although that is
fine...), aim to be outstanding.

4. Support your colleagues, help them where you can, and don't see your
Manager as "the enemy". Sometimes (often? :-)), he/she will get it wrong.
Don't kiss arse, but don't rub his/her nose in it either. Just maintain what
you honestly believe and why you believe it, without malice or spite. It is
"what's right", not "who's right"...If they insist you do something you know
will be a disaster, make your objections known in writing and the reasons
for them, and request, politely, that they state in writing what they are
requiring you to do. Then do it to the best of your ability and with good
grace.

5. Tell the truth, and if you are told stuff in confidence, keep it
confidential. It's OK to say:"Right now, I'm unable to confirm or deny
that, but as soon as I can, I'll talk to you." Try to develop tact (I have
found this very difficult and am still working on it, but some progress has
been made :-)). Just because something is true, doesn't mean that airing it
will improve things. It has to be fair as well...

6. Do what you say you are going to do. Keep your promises and if you agree
to undertake something, don't quit or walk out even (or, especially...) if
it gets tough.

7. Never lose your temper in the workplace. If you feel anger rising, leave
the room until you have control.

8. If you encounter abuse of yourself or colleagues, don't tolerate it.
Don't raise your voice or return anger for anger. Just suggest that it be
taken to a private room where it can be discussed and resolved. If the
person doing it continues, walk away. There is no point in reasoning with
someone who is angry. Don't tolerate violence, sexual, racial or any other
kind of abuse, and don't let anyone intimidate you, mentally or physically.

9. Don't make judgements about your colleagues or your Management. People
change and grow.

10. Never denigrate a colleague or Manager to anyone. If criticism is
required (and it seldom is...), keep it succinct and to the point and as
impersonal as possible, and in private, and never to third parties. Don't
gossip, and don't pass on rumours.

11. Leave work at work. Your family and your life are more important and top
priority. You can always get another job... (I have personal experience of
this - (dedication to work cost me a marriage), and have also seen others
dedicate themselves to the company, trying to further their career, at the
expense of missing family time, then being made redundant when it suited the
company to do so. Get your priorities right; work is important, but your
family are sacrosanct.)

12. Get over it. Don't sulk or carry grudges because something didn't go
your way. Let it go.

13. Don't say you're sorry when you're not. Accept when you screwed up, and
apologise sincerely, (because you know that's the right thing to do), or
not at all. Never use an apology simply to "buy someone off".

14. Be a good winner as well as a good loser.

15. Don't make excuses or blame others if you failed. Take responsibility,
fix what you can, and learn by your mistake.

If you can tick the 15 boxes above (and manage to get to the interview) I
reckon you can get any job you apply for..(You'd definitely be very welcome
on my team :-))

Maybe others can add some of the points I missed...?

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

In article <6emclcF7ph3uU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:g64hqo$3p0$1@reader1.panix.com...

[snip]

><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/6e71bedba6ee62e2?dmode=source>

[snip]

>> ... MUST have all the burning, searing, tortured insight of a True
>> Introvert... and be Good With People, too.
>>
>> --end quoted text
>>
>Fair points. Some of the posted comments were along the same lines.

It must be those pesky Space Aliens stealing my brainwaves and planting
them into the heads of others... *again*.

>
>I posted the article here because the author claims there has been a shift
>in perception and requirements regarding IT, and "IT people" now need to
>have much broader experience than was previously the case. I'm not fully
>convinced, although I tend to agree that breadth of experience is no BAD
>thing.

Articles saying 'things are the same, nope, nothing's changed, no need to
read more about this' don't seem to get the kind of editorial reception as
'Look, here's something new!'... even if the 'something new!' turns out to
be 'more of the same'.

[snip]

>However, that doesn't mean you want your team composed of enthusiastic
>amateurs... (although I'd personally rather that, than a bunch of sullen,
>mean spirited, cynical "professionals"...)

A study of genetics might indicate that the more homogenous a group is the
more vulnerable it is to a single threat... or, to be less obscure, maybe,
a good meal is not composed of a single ingredient.

Too often, in my experience, a 'team player' is expected to be an 'utterly
indistinguishable and identical component'... no weaknesses, no variation,
you get the same from William as you do from Gertrude because... well,
because they're 'team players'.

Perverse sort that I am, I prefer military metaphors to sports metaphors;
in a battalion there are marching-soldiers, who look good on parade, and
combat soldiers, who do well under those conditions, and administrative
types, who keep supplies moving, and cooks and police and mechanics... and
so on.

If you ask an admin clerk to be a cook you might be disappointed with the
results. If you ask a sniper to be a good marching-soldier you might be
disappointed with the results. If you ask a mechanic to be a combat
soldier you might be disappointed with the results. If you ask Gertrude
to do the sort of work William thrives on... well, the results will be
identical because they're both 'team players'!

[snip]

>3. Never stop educating yourself and expanding what you know.

[snip]

>11. Leave work at work.

Mr Dashwood, I know I unfairly found the two contradictory terms in your
list... but that's just a gift of mine, I guess. I also know that
solutions to knotty problems have come to me at 2:am or in the shower or
whilst driving down the road; when the Muse descends She descends.

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:g64vm5$g6f$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <6emclcF7ph3uU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:g64hqo$3p0$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/6e71bedba6ee62e2?dmode=source>
>
> [snip]
>
>>> ... MUST have all the burning, searing, tortured insight of a True
>>> Introvert... and be Good With People, too.
>>>
>>> --end quoted text
>>>
>>Fair points. Some of the posted comments were along the same lines.
>
> It must be those pesky Space Aliens stealing my brainwaves and planting
> them into the heads of others... *again*.
>
>>
>>I posted the article here because the author claims there has been a shift
>>in perception and requirements regarding IT, and "IT people" now need to
>>have much broader experience than was previously the case. I'm not fully
>>convinced, although I tend to agree that breadth of experience is no BAD
>>thing.
>
> Articles saying 'things are the same, nope, nothing's changed, no need to
> read more about this' don't seem to get the kind of editorial reception as
> 'Look, here's something new!'... even if the 'something new!' turns out to
> be 'more of the same'.
>
> [snip]
>
>>However, that doesn't mean you want your team composed of enthusiastic
>>amateurs... (although I'd personally rather that, than a bunch of sullen,
>>mean spirited, cynical "professionals"...)
>
> A study of genetics might indicate that the more homogenous a group is the
> more vulnerable it is to a single threat... or, to be less obscure, maybe,
> a good meal is not composed of a single ingredient.
>
> Too often, in my experience, a 'team player' is expected to be an 'utterly
> indistinguishable and identical component'... no weaknesses, no variation,
> you get the same from William as you do from Gertrude because... well,
> because they're 'team players'.
>
> Perverse sort that I am, I prefer military metaphors to sports metaphors;
> in a battalion there are marching-soldiers, who look good on parade, and
> combat soldiers, who do well under those conditions, and administrative
> types, who keep supplies moving, and cooks and police and mechanics... and
> so on.
>
> If you ask an admin clerk to be a cook you might be disappointed with the
> results. If you ask a sniper to be a good marching-soldier you might be
> disappointed with the results. If you ask a mechanic to be a combat
> soldier you might be disappointed with the results. If you ask Gertrude
> to do the sort of work William thrives on... well, the results will be
> identical because they're both 'team players'!

There are Managers who operate on that definition of a 'Team Player'. I
don't. Diversity is very valuable as you pointed out. The "team play" comes
into effect when diverse people need to co-operate and work together.It is
more about mutual respect and attitude than it is about skills.

I like your military analogy and agree that different specialities are
needed to get the overall job done.

>
> [snip]
>
>>3. Never stop educating yourself and expanding what you know.
>
> [snip]
>
>>11. Leave work at work.
>
> Mr Dashwood, I know I unfairly found the two contradictory terms in your
> list... but that's just a gift of mine, I guess.

I don't think it was unfair, but I think there is a difference between
learning and upskilling in your own time, and being obsessed with the
problems you encountered in the office today. Sometimes the skills you are
acquiring have nothing to do with your current workplace but are being
acquired so that you can move to a better one. I was also speaking generally
about ongoing education; it might not even be pertinent to the job you do.
(Very often it is, of course, and in those circumstances you are correct
about the contradiction.)


>I also know that
> solutions to knotty problems have come to me at 2:am or in the shower or
> whilst driving down the road; when the Muse descends She descends.

Yes, that happens to me too, but I have learned over the years to switch off
and sleep on it. I don't even like my SUBconscious still working on the
problem I've been trying to solve all day... :-) The real point was not to
come home and be so obsessed with work that you bore your family with it,
and drive yourself beyond where it's healthy. If you find that a large
percentage of your conversations outside of work, concern themselves with
work, then it might be time to look at that and get some other interests.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:51:33 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>A study of genetics might indicate that the more homogenous a group is the
>more vulnerable it is to a single threat... or, to be less obscure, maybe,
>a good meal is not composed of a single ingredient.

True, but that doesn't stop people from using war, laws, and peer
pressure in attempts to stop others from not being like them.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:07:13 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>I don't think it was unfair, but I think there is a difference between
>learning and upskilling in your own time, and being obsessed with the
>problems you encountered in the office today. Sometimes the skills you are
>acquiring have nothing to do with your current workplace but are being
>acquired so that you can move to a better one. I was also speaking generally
>about ongoing education; it might not even be pertinent to the job you do.
>(Very often it is, of course, and in those circumstances you are correct
>about the contradiction.)

Short-timers especially find it useful to use whatever excuse they can
to add a new check box to their resume.

On Jul 22, 11:28*am, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
<<Pete's 15 points snipped...>>

I read the whole article and am left with the following impression:
"Every article like this is nothing more than psychobabble, and yet,
by the particular psychobabble spewed forth, reveals something
significant about what the industry is doing."

Certainly it must signal some "disappointment" about the way things
have gone the last several years, and maybe (even probably)
significant disappointment with outsourcing and offshoring. Notice the
several references to the importance of "execution". :-) And the
citation that a feller might look good on a paper resume, and still
not get the job done. Duh. Writ large, this is some disillusionment
with the outsourcing/offshoring paradigm.

Likewise the "new" blend of technology and business. Yep, it just
didn't work to over-specialize and over-stratify (see recent exchange
between Howard Brazee and me on over-compartmentalizing technology
skills at the cost of business skills in the How Competent Are We
thread.) The industry effort to divide the work into "creative value"
endeavors by the Business Analysts and Designers on the one hand and
the offshore code-crankers on the other hand has been shown to have
feet of clay.

Still, the authors, and the milieu they are speaking for, are
confused. They cry for "execution", then downplay certifications and
even Bachelor's degrees, with a dismissive "counts for zero" attitude.
All the while not realizing that obtaining a degree means that you can
finish _something_, which I think is what they are looking for.
Contrast with the brilliant geek, easily bored, who flits from thing
to thing, not bothering to finish anything, and leaving a trail of
messes for others to clean up (and I'm not complaining here, for I
consider myself a fairly good "cleaner", and can make quite a
comfortable living following in the wake of the too-brilliant.)

Somewhat disturbing is the false dichotomy they make between the
juniors who are "flexible", and the seniors who are not, and yet with
the belief that they can find all the competencies that they need in
those with 1 to 3 years of experience. This is simple shorthand for:
"We didn't pay much for overseas talent, and that didn't work, and we
are bringing it back onshore or nearshore, but we'er still not going
to pay much, why by golly, we're going to recruit right out of college
and pay the least we can."

And though I may be considered as "too flattering", Pete's 15 points
on characteristics/values for candidates ring 100 percent truer than
the psychobabble article. Almost made me think that someday I could
work for him ;-), should he be able to overcome his other, uh, latent
biases... :-). And yet, the task at hand is this, much as it has
always been: When you go into the interview, know as much about the
shop culture as you can learn, because you will be assessed according
to that culture, and though there be commonalities, there be
differences as well.

For cultures that representatives of what the article portrayed, I
doubt that they would find much use for any of us, save the following:
if you are good at _mentoring_ and _seasoning_ those junior to you,
and if you have the requisite technical skills, then you might fit the
bill.

Nice thread...

thanks,
Ken

On 22 Jul, 16:51, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
> In article <6emclcF7ph3...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> Pete Dashwood <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> ><docdw...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:g64hqo$3p0$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> ><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/6e71bedba6ee62e2?d...>
>
> [snip]
>
> >> ... MUST have all the burning, searing, tortured insight of a True
> >> Introvert... and be Good With People, too.
>
> >> --end quoted text
>
> >Fair points. Some of the posted comments were along the same lines.
>
> It must be those pesky Space Aliens stealing my brainwaves and planting
> them into the heads of others... *again*.

I find that fashioning and wearing a loose cap made of aluminium foil
is very effective at keeping those pesky space aliens from reading
ones brainwaves.

In article <fb905815-4d79-480c-8e06-85e71059a571@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 22 Jul, 16:51, docdw...@panix.com () wrote:
>> In article <6emclcF7ph3...@mid.individual.net>,
>>
>> Pete Dashwood <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>> >Fair points. Some of the posted comments were along the same lines.
>>
>> It must be those pesky Space Aliens stealing my brainwaves and planting
>> them into the heads of others... *again*.
>
>I find that fashioning and wearing a loose cap made of aluminium foil
>is very effective at keeping those pesky space aliens from reading
>ones brainwaves.

Don't tell me, Mr Maclean... let me guess. Next, of course, I'm supposed
to say 'Oh, I know that already, it's just that mine slips off sometimes
when I sleep'...

.... and then *you* say 'You must be doing something wrong... how are you
fashioning it?'...

.... and *then* you lean back and smile as I reveal to you the secrets of
my tin-foil-and-egg-salad hat which you then pass on to your Space Alien
Masters so they can figure out how to get around its nigh-perfect seal so
they can steal even *more* of my brainwaves.

I'm wise to your game, Mr Maclean... oh, look, I just revealed your game
and my wisdom of it in public... so I'm not really wise to it at all, am
I?

That's *just* what They want me to think, I'm sure... so toddle along and
tell your Space Alien Masters that everything is going along according to
their plan, Mr Maclean...

.... if that's who you *really* are.

DD