Yes there is value to knowing Linked List by definition and off the top of your head, but at the end of the day implementations such as this are often times saved on a Safari bookshelf or one key stroke away from copy and paste.
Why is this important you ask? Because with an already depleted candidate market to begin with, it is ever more important to keep candidates engaged in the process and becoming a part of the solution. And if you are part of a business that has clearly defined goals and trajectory then hiring someone who can help stay on track and accomplish said goals is more important than patenting the world’s longest algorithm.
Keep things simple, get the candidate engaged:
This approach will allow you subjectively analyze the answer content while identifying whether or not this candidate will bring fresh and new perspective and experience to the team. In summary, the idea behind interviewing is getting a feel for how someone solves problems and uses the resources available. In this tight market, you may want the guy who nails the “google interview”, but guess what: Google wants that person to ;)
]]>That is the question I’ve been asked more recently than any other. There is no isolated answer and for those who are currently spending countless hours and endless amounts of money trying to perfect the recruitment process with software – good luck.
My answer is an honest and simple one – get out and be a part of the community. This post by Robert Scoble aka @scobleizer following our one-on-one dinner is a great use case on this exact topic. Throughout the post he references the idea of taking on the unknown. He also uses the term “random” more than once and that works for me too. In his case he appreciated meeting me. In your case, it could be meeting the next lead engineer that helps you drive home a multi-million dollar initiative.
The traditional approach to hiring of posting ads, collecting resumes, conducting a batch of phone screens which lead to technical screens, which lead to more technical screening… are out. Open source technologies are converging on enterprise integration and the community is growing. The push is self-organization – being proactive and getting out to Meetups, conferences, Tweetups, Hackfests and/or any other type of event you can think of that is centered around technology.
Attending a social function to find engineers may have been an awkward suggestion at best or a hypocritical suggestion perhaps – even five years ago. Today though, that is the only way to truly build a network of expanding interest and attraction within the developer community. Next time you are sitting in your office late at night trying to figure out why it has been so hard to fill your open role, ask yourself when was the last time you actually went out into the community and actually talked to people about the project, vision and opportunity on your team.
So where do I find talent? Put yourself on an edge.
]]>The days of commanding and controlling your team are largely over and there's a new cloud of awareness centered around the idea of empowering your employees. The idea of making your employees feel replaceable doesn't motivate them to perform at unusual levels, it makes them perform just enough to keep their job away from the firing squad. However, the confident manager allows every interaction with their team to foster the idea of mutual dependence.
It's a virtue, yes, but every manager struggles with this at the start and for some it cements into their management style and they don't know why people don't like working for them. Many new managers are nervous about proving themselves, so they end up discouraging their subordinates from speaking up and thereby fail to benefit from their experience. In other words they rely on war stories from the past to use to teach and instead of teaching it turns out to be just gloating on how the manager solved a similar problem in the past.
The tone can be, listen to me because you know nothing and I know everything. Ask yourself next time you find yourself waxing on about a situation that happened in the past, "Am I giving absurd details on how I figured out problem because it's relevant to a current problem or am I just making myself look better?"
You're just showcasing your own insecurities if you go on and on about yourself. People want to know your stories, but tell them when you're asked and don't go on about what you've done to get where you are today. So recount your experiences very briefly, but only if they directly relate to a current issue that needs to be solve.
Prove to your people not that you have a record as a problem solver but that your ideas and advice can help them now.
Finally, remember to share both your mistakes and your successes. Achieving that balance brings you down to earth in the eyes of your team, and it makes you reflect on why you are telling stories in the first place.
Rules are a good thing but to simply state the rules because they're a rules isn't enough for the motivated team member. You need to understand and state the why behind the rules so that the person understands why they're there even though they may not agree with them. It becomes more about the manager doing a great job being a manager and following the rules and less about cultivating a team of people that feel like they have the ability to change things within the organization. No one wants to work with the manager who can't affect change.
If you find yourself continually referencing the "hand book" to solidify to your people why you're making a decision your team will soon realize that you're not a manager but the police to make sure you're following the rules. You will lose your team's confidence very quickly as the person they entrust with their career and the smart ones will seek out the person who wrote the "hand book" to further themselves and effect change within an organization.
One of my turning points in my career was when I first started with my organization and the COO, Brian, was visiting Chicago from Boston for one reason or another. We went out as a region one night and had a few beers, Brian sat down with me and started asking questions about who I was and what I was looking to do here. It became very apparent to me, a month into the job and by far the most junior person in the region, that Brian was listening to my every word. He wasn't looking elsewhere when I was talking but he was looking right in my eyes and commenting on my stories. We talked about my upbringing, college and a few stories about my early obsession with U2 and a new band called Kings of Leon. The conversation went on for about an hour at the bar we were at and soon the rest of the senior region left to go home, leaving myself and my COO just chatting one on one. I remember apologizing to Brian for taking up his time while the more accomplished people were leaving, surely he didn't travel from Boston to chat with an unproven trainee. It mean a lot to me.
It wasn't until a year later, however, that it really started to impact me on how great of a leader Brian truly was. I saw Brian in Boston this time for a company party and out of 300 people, Brian came up to me and immediately reference our conversation about U2 how, after our conversation, went to listen to Kings of Leon and how he didn't agree that they were similar to a U2. I was floored. Not only did Brian recognize that the time he spent with me meant more to me than if he had spent that same time with someone who was more "worthy" of his time but he remembered it. Brian knew how to get more out of his time.
The point is that communication is multifaceted. Not only did Brian listen to me, he was 100% present in our conversation. His body language was engaged, he looked into my eyes when I spoke and then he referenced the conversation a year later. Every time I spoke to Brian and still to this day realize that every word I choose to say with Brian is heard. This taught me one of the most valuable lessons in how to manage people effectively and it happened before I was even managing people. If people know that you're listening and processing what they say they will make sure they look to impress you every time they interact with you. That breeds a culture of people looking to impress and everyone performs at a high level if they're continually looking to impress one another. They stop trying to impress when they feel you're not even noticing their efforts.
]]>We are in one of the tightest, if not the tightest candidate markets since, well…forever. More open positions than qualified candidates and new companies sprouting up every day (like the dot com). That said, the technical community has maintained a very high bar for talent and experience to make the cut when interviewing (not so much like the dot com). Modern day job descriptions look like a good action story super hero or better yet, Mark Zuckerberg. This and the fact that many still think we are in a soft market due to lasting effects of a recession, lead to ineffective first round interviews often, so I hear.
The first round interview is a first impression of your organization, and a lasting one. With the supply-and-demand curve favoring them, candidates are more likely to just move on from a bad experience. So, is it better to cover technical strengths? Or weaknesses? Code test?
If you use this simple model while conducting first round interviews you’ll find the ability to make a good assessment while also leaving a great impression on each candidate you interview whether or not you decide to move forward with them in the process.
Across the country, different markets typically have very different market trends for a similar type of skill set. As an example, it might be much easier to find a C++ embedded candidate in San Jose than it would be in Philadelphia because of the type of companies located in either city that attract a certain type of skilled workers. Today it doesn’t matter if there’s a plethora of companies that employ a certain type of candidate or there’s only a few, the same blanket of frustration is draped over every metropolitan city in their hunt to find an appropriate candidate. You don’t have to be desperate to know that it’s frustrating and damaging when a position stays open.
The frustrating part of this is that when you do find that candidate you usually have plenty of competition. Aside from moving quickly which a lot of your competition is already doing, the key to landing your candidate is to make the right offer first and don’t seek to make an offer that you know you can counter.
Yes, you’re right, in negotiating a price everyone knows the tactic of lowballing and countering. You never know, they might accept your lowball offer first or you can meet in the middle somewhere. When you’re hiring someone, lowballing someone can and will be taken personally so if you make someone an offer that’s lower than their asking price it will turn them off even if you intended to counter them at a higher price. Lowballing says that if the person doesn’t take this offer than it’s not a big deal to you. That’s how they’re taking it and if that’s what you mean by making that offer, why are you making that offer in the first place?
So that concept should be cemented into every hiring manager’s head before extending an offer. Now what do you do when you want to hire a candidate that’s interviewing at multiple places with a few final round interviews scheduled? Do you make the offer and have them shut down their search or do you wait until they finish those final rounds to potentially beat your competition’s pending offers?
Be the first because:
So how do you make offers? Do you put your best foot forward first or do you wait until you see what the candidate is getting before slapping together your offer?
]]>In many cases a simple request for smart engineers often times morphs into a half-human half-robot engineer request which, as far as I know, is still unrealistic. If one’s expectations refuse to be compromised then perhaps the project need should be revisited as well. This fast-paced M&A market, IPO in less than 4 years market, is pushing lean environments and agile shops that continuously look for the “top 1%”, “A Players”, “rock star”, etc. but seemingly do not often stop to ask, what is the long-term outcome of that recruitment target?
In many cases though, the end all be all skill set recruited is one that will inevitably run out of challenges and motivation just months into a project. This should come as no surprise though because it all starts in the interview and hiring process. (more on this)
Wouldn’t that be great if a candidate walked in with a name tag that said, “Hi, my name is Primadonna” or “Hi, I’m really looking for the top dollar and cutting edge technology with no allegiance to the company or product even though that is devastating to a consumer and overall product-centric market.” So the last one was a bit much but you get the point. Unfortunately the answer is no. I’m not even entirely sure that would be legal.
Look for people who seem interested in you, your company and your product from the beginning. This day in age there is simply too much information at our finger tips not to have researched an opportunity beforehand. With so much information available, what you should look for is someone who is passionate about your product/company, with a strong foundation, and great research skills. That is the person that will wake up in the middle of the night to research CoffeeScript and Node.Js to implement your latest web solution without you having to tell them to do so in the morning. If you are working with a recruiter then you should be able to rely on them to increase pre-interview interest and excitement by sharing your story with the candidate beforehand.
People who want to work with you know who you are when they meet you. They have a general understanding (if not more) of the industry, product and technology stack you are working with. Minimally they’ve googled your name to confirm it is something they are interested in at the root and walk in with an open mind and positive attitude. Positive and progressive thinking will lead to production. If you are looking for reasons to hire and people who want to work with you and the candidate is looking for a great opportunity and something to believe in, then the result will always be more productive than two parties coming together with the intention of screening one another out.
]]>Face it, one of the prime characteristics a successful employee possesses is to think bigger about things and act. When a successful person conquers a project or a role they seek for the next great challenge right around the corner. If it’s not right there, they’re going to find it somewhere else. It’s crucially important to offer that type of mobility and challenge at work. The truth is that you can’t keep the great ones forever unless you give them the golden handcuffs and even that has been known to self-destruct.
So think like a recruiter. An even better way to say it is to think like a great networker. No matter how great your team may be now, there are always other people that will add a new element to the team and the way the market is going, it’s better to be proactively recruiting than reactively.
Here are six ways to think like a great networker:
Build outward, not inward. Start by remembering that the point of collaborative networking is to connect people who wouldn't ordinarily work together. You are the reason they got together in the first place and they never forget this. Most people make the obvious connections: recruiter to jobseeker, single male to single female, etc., but it’s the great networkers who think like a great recruiter and after listening, realize that a connection can be made. Don't waste your time deepening connections with people you already know. Balance these connections by staying in touch with people in other teams or in other companies. Don’t make the trunk larger but make the branches reach further.
Focus on quality, not quantity. Rather than aiming for a massive network, focus on building an efficient one. An efficient network requires knowing people with different skills and viewpoints. They should be different from you, of course, but also different from one another. Just applying this rule alone can make the previous a lot easier. Don’t preach to the choir, collaborate with the unpopular.
Build weak ties, not strong ones. The strong ties are already there, they are the people you already know well and talk to frequently and probably someone who knows a lot of the same people you do. A weak tie forms a bridge to a world you don't normally walk in. To maintain a weak tie, you only have to maintain it once or twice a month. Keeping this tie is more beneficial than not having it at all. The road less traveled isn’t built with a highway.
Use hubs, not familiar faces. Usually when you’re faced with an issue at work, you gravitate to the people that you’re closer with to ask for help. But because we tend to befriend people at our own level, our closest contacts are unlikely to know more than we do. Instead, identify the "hubs" in your company or community who are already great organizational networkers and ask them to connect you to someone who knows more. These hubs tend to be long-tenured people who've worked on a variety of teams and projects. If you're in a leadership role, consider it part of your job to help develop more hubs. Weave a web not a flock.
Swarm the target. This will help you capture value, which if you think of networking as a vehicle to only capture value you’re already looking at it poorly. If you’ve built a network that is based on complexity, using the help of a hub you find someone who can help you: a target. But before you approach that person, the smart networker enlists the help of their network to increase the odds that the target will listen. Ask a shared contact to reach out to the target person. Ask someone high in your network to talk to someone high in your target’s network. Share your vision of building a team, starting a company, recruiting for a client and remember reciprocity: make sure to highlight how this benefits them. The best leaders think of themselves last.
Strengthen ties by investing time. Now you’re building a team, and while the term "Team building" is a little cliché there are times when it's crucial. If you’re managing a team that is facing a challenging task (who isn’t?), make sure to invest time and resources to build stronger connections. Help the team get to know each other better. You'll start to see results very quickly and you won’t need to be the aggressor all the time, the bond becomes so tight that you no longer need to be the glue. Once you have the ropes in place, you need to tighten them for the mast to sail.
To begin this and be comfortable at it, start by mapping the networks internally in your business, both formal and informal. Look at the structure and how the organization is set up. The larger the company the more hubs will exist and most likely you’re not a part of all of them and there are a lot of people who are outside of them that are on islands by themselves. Measure the diversity of the hubs, is it mostly junior people and senior people separate? Are they close because of geographical distance? Gender? Once you can work internally, you can easily see this exist if you go to a networking event and watch the crowd disperse into small hubs.
Break into the hubs, make a connection, and think like a networker. It’s better that you do it because someone is, and sooner or later, the target will be on your team.
]]>I understand the logic if you hire someone that’s wrong for a position then you’re setting yourself back a few steps to recover from the damages and loss of resources used in training – but to what extent is not hiring anyone damaging your existing team?
When you’re hiring, there’s one main reason for doing so: to alleviate the stress on you or your team. They’re essentially doing their job as well as some other duties that can be funneled into a new or replacement position. When you wait for the “right fit” and potentially screen out valued candidates based on criteria that might be of little consequence to the actual job, you prolong this stress on your team that could lead to the ground breaking underneath them.
I commonly come across people that are contemplating a leave from their organization because they feel understaffed and overworked and are looking to leave solely based on that. I ask if their manager is looking for a new hire and they always say yes, but their interview process is either too long or too selective to ever find the perfect candidate so the position stays open. I also talk to hiring managers that have a laundry list of criteria both on the technical side and on culture itself and say they will act quickly to secure the perfect candidate but are willing to wait it out until they find that perfection. The question is whether you’re willing to wait long enough that you start losing more people in the process.
As your position stays open, here's what your team is thinking:
As the market for good technical talent gets more competitive, the average technical hiring manager’s criteria is staying the same as it was during the recession – refusing to admit that supply is limited. There has to be a balance on what you absolutely need versus the nice to haves. The reality is, is that the market is very competitive for technical people so you must weigh the importance of culture versus the ability to hit the ground running with pre-existing technical skills. Everyone’s looking for the incredibly intelligent Software Developer that can also be client facing or gel with the team. You’re no different.
So what do you do if you don’t want to compromise on being picky for the right person? Try and then buy.
It’s a simple concept that gets overlooked. Have the ability to hire your strong “maybes” on a 2-3 month contract to hire basis, have them check you out while you invest your attention into whether this person would be a fit overall and begins to gel with your existing team. I am seeing more hiring managers go this route with candidates that may not be the perfect fit but have most of the essentials to do the job and, with a little time, will grow into that perfect fit. It makes the decision not as heavy and more nimble in your ability to make a decision.
Ultimately, if the contractor doesn’t work out in the 90 day window, you can alleviate some stress from your team and will show them that you’re not just leaving an empty desk stay empty. Actin is much better than reaction and increasing your urgency to hire because you’re losing people makes you desperate to fill your position as opposed to being urgent. Don’t feed the incredibly competitive technology hiring market with your own people just because you’re waiting for that diamond in the rough.
If you’re hiring – just hire.
]]>I am not an Apple employee, nor have I ever been, but I have spoken to several people who fall into one of those two categories and I am a dedicated Apple product user. Based on my observations, I think it is safe to say Apple does not compromise on design or user experience. I imagine the think tank meetings go something like this:
"We should do this" or "We need to do this" or "What if we did this"
…And rather than hearing "We can’t because…"
The immediate response is "Great idea, how can we do it?"
I advise taking a similar approach when it comes to hiring. When meeting and engaging candidates, get to know them, look for their strengths and identify their weaknesses while keeping the team’s business needs in mind. Look for reasons to hire rather than reasons not to hire. After all, no one is perfect.
Most companies have a candidate come on-site to meet with several members of the team. Somewhere along the process, it is important that team members strategize before the candidate arrives. Establish a goal or purpose to the interviews beyond just hiring someone. Each team member must know what he or she is responsible for discussing or not discussing with the candidate. If a candidate is asked the same question twice or even three times it is clear the hiring team has not prepared or communicated after having met with the candidate individually. The lack of communication is a direct indication of how that team typically communicates and executes.
Take the time to sit down with your team. Prepare them and make sure everyone understands their responsibilities within the interview process. Set up checks and balances, but stay open-minded as long as the goal of the hiring process remains clear. Last but not least, remind your team that this candidate is someone they could be working with, so they should treat him or her well, no matter what their first impression is.
By speaking with engineers who are currently and actively interviewing in Silicon Valley, I have learned that one bad interview experience can taint the entire process. For example, say a candidate has met with three people where the synergy was obvious. Then they meet with someone who is unprepared and unimpressive. That is what will resonate, not the three previous interactions. You are only as strong as your weakest link! And you just lost that candidate to a more organized and ultimately more impressive organization. Just hope it’s not one of your direct competitors.
As a manager, it is important to make sure the people conducting interviews are able to do it well. They should be able to admit their own strengths and weaknesses before critiquing others.
Great candidates give great feedback after meeting with companies that make the interview process feel more like two engineers or researchers talking than a pop quiz designed to stump everyone but the abstractly brilliant.
Be the architect: design a solution and have your team execute it while establishing the first and final contact with each candidate. Ask candidates at the end of the process for feedback on your interviewers and their interview methods. Keep an open mind, take candidates’ feedback constructively, and thank them for being transparent.
]]>