|
unixbeard posted:On the subject of PhD's, I have two guys with Doctorates reporting to me. I have noticed that they place a great deal of weight in being "smart". I think it is a product of the environment of academia, where obviously being smart is really important. This can have an impact on their ability to work with others. I really don't want to generalise but they can have a tendency to think that they are really smart and that they are right. And they usually are right, but in this environment being right isn't as important as getting things done. It comes back to people having differing opinions, and usually both have their merits. You need to be able to ascertain what the other parties are after, and work out a way forward that meets their objectives. At the end of the day I am hiring people cause I need stuff done. If you're going to scoff at other people or teams it will just make it harder. This is reasonable advice but it almost sounds like you are hiring people who can put up with all the other departments being full of jerks and idiots. If they are right, shouldn't you be focusing on the right things? How would placing an emphasis on getting things done help if you're doing the wrong things? "You need to be able to ascertain what the other parties are after, and work out a way forward that meets their objectives." Why don't they need to work on their ability to communicate their needs or understand that you usually cannot meet all objectives? You're asking for people who have technical skill and can work with people and then you say technical skill is a commodity. The positions you're describing don't sound like a commodity to me, and yet you use language implying that workers are basically automatons. unixbeard posted:So to sum up: So to sum up: you're a glorified factory worker here for one task, please be passionate about the limited area we have slotted you into until we outsource the technical side because it's a commodity
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
tef posted:The real world is full of jerks and idiots. Exactly, so why the emphasis on keeping them out of the IT department. If IT workers can handle jerks and idiots, so can everyone else. tef posted:'worse is better' or 'perfect is the enemy of the good' Look I know those aphorisms well, but it sounded like doing something in the wrong direction (let's put effort into a shrinking market!) was looked upon more favorably than taking the time to see if maybe you shouldn't head in that direction at all. Either way the situation is too abstract to argue over it much. tef posted:Because they're hiring you. Also, if you think about it a little, if it has been asked of you, it would have been asked of others, some of whom may work at the company. That's funny, because every single organization I have ever heard of is full of people who can't describe what they want and refuse to learn anything about other domains. I was more wondering why does IT have to go out of it's way for everyone else when not a single department ever returns the favor? The advice isn't bad, I just don't understand why IT is so put upon at the same time most companies are plotting their end, and why this is considered an unremarkable situation. tef posted:I AM A SNOWFLAKE Corporate wants to have it both ways. They want you to be a predictable button presser, but they also want you to be creative and passionate. I can deal with not being special. But I'm not going to defend or cleave to contradictory expectations and I don't know why you would rather attack me than corporations on this point. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:The thing is technical skill isn't enough by itself. I can pick up the phone and get 5 cv's of good experienced C# developers, so given that, how can one differentiate themselves? If you're a great developer but completely erractic in your work behaviour and difficult to communicate with we're not going to hire you. The thing is developing those soft skills isn't enough. You can get hired and then tomorrow an executive decides he wants better quarterly earnings and you're out on your rear end, and then who gives a poo poo how good your work behavior and communications skills are? You seem happy enough there, what's the upside to being asked to do things and then working through a laundry list of constraints, some of which are artificial because of the short boss? Sounds like an ulcer to me. I guess my point is you are starting to sound like a boss and not a worker - and part of being a boss nowadays is finding ways to undifferentiate workers. Who cares about your soft skills when the eventual goal is make you replaceable? It's probably because this is a thread about getting a job and interviewing, but the onus here is placed completely on tech workers to improve their skills to work around others' failings. I don't see anyone (not just in this thread) saying companies should eliminate waste and inefficiency, organize a company better, or cut executive pay. The narrative is all "how to make yourself attractive to companies" and no "how do we change society to make businesses work better and more fairly". "Build your brand!" will only work for so long when there are no jobs because everyone caved to corporate culture. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:You don't put food on the table or a roof over your head by telling the CEO he's overpaid. True, though in buying in like a sniveling coward you are also hastening your eventual inability to put food on the table when the CEO gets rid of your job in the name of quarterly earnings. Ok, but where does it end? "You don't put food on your table by complaining that the CEO hit and run someone in your family." But whatever, I'm not going to argue labor issues with technical people. Back to shiny distractions, ignore the sinking ship. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Cicero posted:People do say these things (especially the one about executive pay), but in D&D, not here. If you'd actually stop and think about it, the reason is obvious: each individual can control and improve their own skillset, and part of that could be reading and discussing on the internet about how to improve. On the other hand, discussing how to make organizations as a whole more efficient or suggesting the cutting of executive pay is, unless you're a bigshot yourself, completely ineffectual. Yeah, thanks, I did think about it, that's why I wrote this: "It's probably because this is a thread about getting a job and interviewing" If you'd actually stop and read, it would have been obvious. You are correct, though, the biggest part of changing those situations can mostly be done by bigshots, but not even discussing it in the general society is one way to ensure nothing will change. If the news does a story about job retraining, have some balance mentioning that jobs wouldn't need to be cut in the first if companies were organized better; Build support for limiting executive pay instead of allowing republican focus group language to convince everyone that if we do that, then you won't ever get rich! (you won't get rich anyway) Stuff like that. Allowing only one narrative means we will move in that direction by default.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:oh. well thats even more embarrassing that i missed it That's just the media narrative, unfortunately. Unemployment is a rigged number, the actual number is much higher and, even worse, we are millions of jobs behind where every other recessions were at this point. Also adding a 100,000 jobs a month barely even covers the new workers entering the workforce. The deficit doesn't matter except that we aren't increasing it to spend on jobs or infrastructure, which would spur growth which will lessen the size of the deficit. It's simply a stalking horse being used to justify passing austerity measures while we give away a trillion to the rich in tax cuts. The deficit will also allow republicans to continue slashing social programs en masse. Businesses aren't hiring because they've realized everyone is so scared of losing their jobs that they will just do the extra work silently. This is why you hear "jobless recovery" being thrown around so much, but it's a temporary stopgap. People can only do that for so long before they get run ragged and between that, unemployment running out for more and more people, broke states, and a non-existent social net, it could get bad really quickly. Also there's another wave of sub-prime mortgages due to explode soon, the majority in congress has explicitly stated that their #1 priority is beating Obama, the vast majority believe our problems are because of the poor and mexicans, and the top 1% have nearly doubled their percentage of wealth owned in the last 30 years. It's not looking good, sadly. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Milotic posted:As shrike says, it's not just recruiters who look at your resume - it's developers who will most likely be interviewing you, and lovely certs will not really impress them, and you know what developers are like - they'll crack a joke amongst themselves as soon as they see your CV, and then throughout the interview they'll have that pre-conceived idea of you in their head. One becomes "can't proof read guy", another "why are there speedometers on his CV guy" and you'd become "lovely cert guy". It's actually the opposite of anti-intellectualism: certificates imply you know how to memorize well, a degree (should, anyways) implies you have had to wrestle with and master concepts and actually think.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 22:57
|
|