The real reason you can't hire developers....
==========
Full Version:
To all the startups and companies whining about lack of developer talent, I call your bluff.
I ran a little experiment over the last 60 days. I sent emails to ~50 different companies (some well-known, others unknown) that were looking for "Sr. Developers", particularly Ruby devs, as found on the major developer job sites (stackoverflow, Dice, Indeed, 37signals etc). I mainly targeted companies that were potentially/maybe/sorta/kinda/probably/possibly able to accomodate some form of telecommuting/remoting. I also picked companies that most closely matched my skillset. In my email I introduced myself and included my resume. Here is how I am represented in the email (paraphrased from actual text, ):
Given: X > 7 & Y > 4,
"Sr. Level Developer, with X years exp. Y years of prof exp with Ruby. Main expertise is in Ruby, API's, MySQL and a bunch of other stuff. Previously worked for 'ABC' startup ($X Millions angel backed) for two years and helped build out the entire app/platform etc. Later served as CTO for several side projects. I attended Top Tier University , ... blah blah blah"
More stats:
Salary expectations: $115K
Areas of interest: API's, Analytics, SaaS, Telephony, Machine learning ....
Ability to relocate: Open to idea, can't right away
Telecommuter?: Pretty please
Snark level: Not nearly as high as this post ;)
Likeability: Very high
So out of ~50 companies that I tried contacting what was the result?
10/50 - sent me a reply email of some sort (confirmation, autoreply, whatever)
7/50 - tried to setup a phone screen
5/50 - actually completed the phone screen (with all phones screens going very well, I might add)
3/50 - tried to setup a technical interview
0/50 - actually completed a technical interview
0/50 - made offer!
From my 60 day simple experiment, I argue......
The top 5 reasons you are (probably) not hiring:
1. You don't read or dont respond to emails!!
How can 40/50 companies or their recruiters not even respond to an email at all? Why heavily advertise a position only to not follow through! LESSON: Check the email box for resumes
2. You allow for big time gaps in your hiring process
The hiring process at some of the companies that contacted me was just strange. One day they ask me "when can we setup an interview?", so I respond right away. 4-5 days later they get back saying "Ok how about next week?". LESSON: Long delays in communication make me lose confidence in the process/the seriousness of your interest etc.
3. Weird extra steps
Some companies like to send riddle/puzzles/challenges etc, which is fine with me. This might be a barrier to some people that think its absurd. What does it prove? That your team spends lunch break browsing trickyriddles.com? LESSON: riddle/puzzles/challenges might seem cool to you but might just seem like another hoop to me.
4. A cultural mismatch
"Xbox's PS3 Nerf guns Starcraft/Rock band competitions !!!" - Nothing against any of that, but as married father of two, I have other concerns (what no ping pong table?) like "Compensation, Opportunity for Advancement, Great Benefits, Fast Growing, Opportunities to contribute/architect etc". If you think of "Xbox's PS3 Nerf guns Starcraft/Rock band competitions !!!" is an applicant deterrent, then I agree with your strategy. LESSON: not all programmers/developers fit the fold you are presenting, many of us are unique!!!
5. You dont hire telecommuters/remotes even if you say you do
This has been talked about ad nauseum...
Other potential reasons: Administrative snafus, HR general laziness, what HR?, the site's down, I want too much money, your company has a bad reputation, others?
So after 60 days I am still looking ;) but based on my simple research project, 80% of companies claiming to need developers are either nonserious or are too busy to even start the hiring process.
I know, this research project is flawed and anecdotal but maybe it can hel...
270 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 274 ms ] threadLarge corporations maybe, but not small startups.
Immigrants who already have residency and a US work history work at US market rates. (Signed, an immigrant with residency, working at US market rates).
Job sites are job hunting for people who enjoy unemployment.
If you are lucky, I get objective criteria from a hiring manager who actually knows what they are looking for and assess the fit of your application in an objective way.
If it helps it bothers me that there's a need for my role and I try to automate myself out of the picture as much as possible.
This applies recursively to another level too: you really don't want to join a company that can't even make job-board hiring work and resorts to headhunting recruiters.
I think the best recruiters play the role of a modern-day union at this point. When I'm job hunting they are someone the company cares about maintaining a relationship with. Five years from now when I'm next looking the company probably won't even exist, but the recruiter may still be around and wants me to point my friends at them in the meantime. By the transient property of respect, HR departments actually respond to their emails.
Are companies that post developer positions to job boards really looking for someone to delegate a lot of control to, or do they already have that person? How much room is there at the top? If you got that architect job, would you turn around and hire another architect-y person?
Many of these positions are heads-down, in the office and managed. And of course you've got to be a super coding wizard who is more concerned with nerf battles and ping-pong than dirty lucre, jeez!
Companies that hire many intelligent, mature, well-paid peers, are rare, I think. So you either have to go network and find someone who will give you that position of power, and then, how will you hire? Or, start a company. Or, become a consultant, which requires more networking than option one. Or hold out for a job with someone like Mozilla -- they seem to treat developers like adults.
To sum up your email: Hi, You've never met me before, but I like your company. I expect to get paid $115K to lead a team as a senior developer, but don't want to relocate in order to be with the team.
I feel this type of email should get a response; however, I'm not surprised no one hired you. I'm sorry none of these companies replied. If hiring is as tough as everyone says it is, they should at least be willing to followup - they might find a diamond in the rough that way.
80% of jobs are filled informally, especially senior positions. If you know someone on the team, or if the team knows of your work and respects it, you should be able to find a position faster.
He targeted companies that claim to accommodate telecommuting. Not hire when being asked looks sneaky.
Not to mention only really wanting telecommuting does potentially imply less commitment to the company and/or position. That might be a turn off for a senior role.
I know that my team's direct manager has huge respect from all of us (and the upper management as well), he keeps our projects on track, gives us the tools we need, and makes sure any obstacles in our path are quickly removed. And as with any good team, he steps out of the way and let's us work. Thinking about it, the biggest issue I've had with management in the past is not knowing when to get out of the way, I think remote work makes this easier.
The strange thing I always find about the common critiques of telecommuting is that there are many successful oss projects that are run entirely distributed and large communities, like HN for example, that probably have more social complexity than a similar sized physical group. Surely there are certain HNers who have you respect even though you've probably never even had a 1-on-1 chat with them.
I think the telecommute aspect is really a non-issue for some people. Companies would be wise to consider it for the low overhead.
A friend of mine for a while managed a small non-telecommuting team as a telecommuter, but went back to an individual contributor role after that.
His theory was that telecommuting for an individual works if that individual has a "telecommuting mindset" (self driven, communicative, etc). In order for telecommuting to work for a manager, all his subordinates need a "telecommuting mindset" as well.
"I expect to get paid $115K to lead a team as a senior developer, but don't want to relocate in order to be with the team"
I forgot to add, 50% of the positions I applied to gave salary range of 80-130K. Also, I state I am willing to relocate eventually. All the positions claimed to be open to telecommuting.
I had no idea that telecommuting == less salary. I would be open to negotiating.
"lead a team" Seems like people are assuming that b/c I have exp as a CTO that I want "control". Not the case at all. I applied to a "Sr. Developer" position with the idea that I would be working under a technical leader etc
Even though the positions claim to be open to telecommuting, a lot of people (like myself) may have a strong bias for local talent. It's just profoundly easier overall.
However, if you are working as a lone developer on a project without a team, then it could work just fine. In that case, why are you hitching yourself to a single company though?
That's a bit stronger than the wording that I would use. But I totally see where you're coming from. There are organizations (such as WordPress) that seem to rely heavily on telecommuters successfully.
I'm going to stand by "strong bias for local talent" :)
Maybe the 40/50 are reading your email. How do you know they are not deciding up front that you're not the right fit?
Are these short or long term contracts? Or a permanent position?
People with larger houses don't get a higher salary, do they
But people are reading incoming emails and are interested in hiring. Maybe they just didn't like your email/tone?
These auto-resume sites apply pretty dumb filters right off the bat, and you probably got kicked out of the responder queue the second you ask for a six-figure pay rate and/or the option to telecommute.
If those phone screens do not turn into full interviews or offers, that is a statement on how they went, not on company responsiveness.
Frankly, I don't think your stats show a lack of response at all. I think they are very reasonable, as some level of non-responsiveness is natural, when you account for the fact that you gave them enough information to summarily dismiss you from consideration if you don't match their needs or culture.
Generally at most companies you have to be significantly better than the other candidates to be worth considering as a remote candidate.
I don't think they chose not to respond after deciding that you were a suitable candidate.
On the other hand, the fact you didn't receive a response at all from so many (we typically send a note to every applicant who makes the effort to contact us) is surprising. Many companies use a tracking system of some sort to classify and manage recruiting workflow - most of these are utter tripe.
Leading from that, someone who is overqualified for their current job is probably bored and looking for a new job.
I tend to agree with the OPs thoughts - companies often don't respond, even when, in general, the industry (and perhaps some of those same companies) publicly moan about not being able to find people.
When did having 7 years of experience make someone a sr level developer? I don't think I started using that level for myself until I had 10 years experience. I guess to each his own. Just like everyone's a "founder" these days, everyone else is a "sr level developer"???
What's a "CTO of a side project" look like? I understand it shows a lot of initiative, but depending on the types of companies applied at, it wouldn't come close to what they expect of a "sr level developer".
I guess I'm just old (sorry, senior) and grumpy this morning. :)
Perhaps a different thread, but what does "senior dev" mean to people these days? What did it used to mean?
Re: weird extra steps: the idea isn't that they're cool. The idea is that if you are willing to attempt it and solve it successfully, it says something about your problem-solving skills. It's not the be-all end-all, but it seems like a decent first-pass filter.
Re: cultural mismatch: if it's a cultural mismatch, you probably shouldn't apply anyway. The thing about a startup is, there are five or ten of you. This isn't just another job. You generally don't just come in at 9, work work work, maybe take lunch with your teammates, and trip it out at 5. You don't just attend the company Christmas party. A startup is typically very much like a family, because everything is riding on everyone. When someone quits IBM, the teammates write it off as a “whatever”. When someone quits at a startup, you spend some serious time looking around to make sure there's nothing scaring them off, because every individual counts a great deal.
In short, culture is critical, and even as a married father of two, signing up for a startup is signing up for a culture and a tight-knit group of friends as much as it is signing up for a job.
I have lived through 2 mass exoduses, where a company started going downhill and the top 50% of developers all leave within 6 months of each other (often in groups).
There is nothing inherently special about a startup. Many established companies have make or break projects, and working on them requires the same sort of commitment.
In short, don't take shit off of potential employers. If they can't get it together enough to get back to you and treat you with whatever level of respect you expect, then that's a sign that you probably don't want to work there.
But you're right, it is a bigger deal.
It is really not, I have been round and round about this with every organization that I have been in that does these. The only thing it displays is the persons ability to answer trivia and solve puzzles. These are not the characteristics of a great developer, the characteristics of a great developer are simplicity, creativity and rapidly adaptation.
You would be better off handing them a paint brush and a canvas and using that as a measure of their creativity. If that seems like a weird concept, then you start to get a picture of how far off these trivia puzzles are, they are literally of no value, not only that they can filter out the best candidates and worse yet they make a company seem like a bunch of elitist that think they are smarter than the average bear.
I believe Google hiring practices that favor these kind of logic puzzles is one of the reasons they have had such an issue innovating in the market place. An overwhelming focus on hiring the technically smartest guy in the room, by nature filters out the most creative guys in the room (it's a right brain, left brain thing). The trick is finding the guy that is right in the middle of the two.
The problem is that you're asking candidates to spend 1+ hour before you've even given them a personal response. I've seen positions with well known companies who ask you to do 4+ hours of work before they even talk to you in person. Imagine if every company did that?
Who said anything about 9-5? I previously worked at a fast-paced startup for 2 years, which is well represented on my resume. I have a good idea what I am in for.
I do agree with some of your points though. Anytime I hear the "we have xboxes" I immediately translate that to we pay crap and hope the kids we hire don't notice in between games of CoD. The other day a guy was giving me a pitch to come work at his startup and kept talking about the xbox and the office location. Note to companies pitching to potential employees. Idea, equity cut, and salary in that order are way more important than having Aeron chairs.
My friend who worked there (and, in fact, recommended me) told me the developer doing the interviews has never actually recommended a single candidate and is no longer allowed to do interviews.
This could still mean that I'm stupid and incompetent but it seems like they missed out on a lot of talent because of the egotism of a single dev they had hiring.
Also I did a fair amount of the interview on a rooftop, trying to quietly and safely get down without a ladder. Fun times.
He asked a technical question to which I answered a more or less standard response. He told me I was wrong. Being a bit stunned (it wasn't a hard question), I asked him what he meant. He gave me a reply that was quite incorrect.
Now, in a normal interview situation if this occurs, I see it as an opportunity to have a conversation. I can explain my point and the interviewer can respond. You can find out a lot about an organization with this kind of interaction.
But in this case, the interviewer just kept saying I was wrong and never responded to my questions or gave an explanation why his answer's were correct except to say that they were. It was very troubling.
I didn't get the job. This might have been because of this interview directly but it certainly was at least partially the cause since I really didn't have much enthusiasm for the next 3 interviews. A company that would allow someone with social interaction issues run an interview is very problematic. I can't imagine who could have done well in that series of interviews given the circumstances.
I can see talking in a monotone and fidgeting as an annoyance, but was it show-stopping?
The refusal to answer why your response was (in his opinion) wrong is definitely a problem.
I'm worried about this because I've been unofficially diagnosed with Asperger's (I believe I'm not, but I'm definitely borderline / close) and I intend to run a company. I do fidget and miss some clues, but I'd have answered if someone asked me why I believed an answer is wrong.
Edit: I'm sorry if I came across in such a way to merit a downvote. I was genuinely interested in the answer. I'd also appreciate an explanation of what sounded "wrong" in my post.
Like I said, I'm used to working with all types of developers. I usually get along well with my colleagues. I have no trouble with any kinds of quirks--I probably have some myself. The issue was that this person was not capable of running an interview. He couldn't deal at all with a minor conflict on a technical question. This kind of thing can lead to a company not getting good results from the recruiting process which is what the OP is about.
Anyway, it's a serious condition, but beneath it is a real person who may be a great person. Or not. Just like everybody else.
I think it's more likely that the guy got interviewed by an anti-social jerk.
This sort of thing is a standard process in many companies - precisely to avoid the single-person bias mentioned in other post.
Besides, the interviewers (in the properly organized case) are usually one's future coworkers - and if you did not like them maybe working there would not have been a good idea for you to begin with.
"...didn't have much enthusiasm for the next 3 interviews..." - this is your mistake. You should have treated them totally indepentently, and possibly asked the other interviewers about the incorrect question. Chances are they'd corrected that guy during the offline discussion.
"A company that would allow someone with social interaction issues run an interview is very problematic." - not at all. They gave that person a chance to learn. They gave you a chance to preview your future coworkers and make a decision.
I think multi-person interviews are a critical part of getting a good atmosphere in the team.
On the other hand, ditching your rounds with the subsequent interviewers just because you became emotional about one of them does materially decrease your chances to get a job - instead of one "bad interview" round feedback you got that one plus all the subsequent ones. This is a sub-optimal strategy. And, arguably, a waste of both your time and the remaining interviewers'.
So if he was trying to use Joel's technique, shouldn't he have at least engaged in a conversation? If he was doing it, he was doing it very badly. I'm pretty persuasive when it comes to technical issues. I'm frequently wrong and lose many a battle but I win them too at least as often as I lose. I can tell you I wasn't getting any feedback that he was interested in resolving the conflict. Just that he wanted me to acknowledge that he was right. He wasn't.
If the goal was to challenge me, it backfired. After this incident I had little interest in continuing the interview. It turned me off on the company pretty conclusively. And then I was angry because I felt my time had been wasted. Not a good outcome for me or them.
Wait, what? Unless this is some figure of speech I'm not familiar with, this requires some explanation.
tl;dr somersaulted.
I don't think I'd have taken the job anyways -- their application is kind of stupid and their employees all drink a ton of Kool Aid and think it's the best, most influential thing ever.
We have one telecommute worker and he is about 60% as effective as he was onsite. That's somebody we had onsite for six months before he started telecommute. YMMV, but that's why companies don't like telecommuting.
It isn't that we have our heads in our asses, we just know it is a poor substitute for having you onsite and we avoid it if we can.
semi-active search time span: ~4-5 weeks
where: just craigslist & python.org
what: sr. level web frontend or backend
companies: all small/startups, but none are well known in HN
emails sent: I'm quite choosy actually, only applied to ~4 positions a week, which equates to ~20 sent.
results: ~75-80% replied,
out of those replied: ~50-60% replied within a day or two, 2 took more than a week to get back to me, which strangely enough, followed thru with deeper phone interviews.
no on-site interviews (although ~25% I applied are remotes) until one of those turned out to be a recruiter.
Note: I wanted to avoid recruiters since didn't have good experience with them before. But this time it turned out pretty good, got to interview a few companies and landed a decent gig. But since this thread is about no response from direct emails, I did not include these data points from recruiter in my results.
Puzzles as a selection criteria - there will be false positives but too few false negatives.
Recently I was hiring for an online marketing position where being sharp with math actually matters, a lot. The candidate of 2 yr experience refused to take a screening test on aptitude. Very well, rejected as we have no data points of how sharp he was.
HR people like to keep lots of resumes on file, the fresher the better, so that when they're tasked with filling a seat immediately, they're not starting from zero.
The fact that this practice sucks for the job-seeker is of little concern; they've optimized their process according to their own needs.
80% did not respond at all . They did not acknowledge his contact attempt in any way whatsoever. Not a canned response confirming contact, nothing. Nothing.
I'm willing to bet very heavily on this representing complete incompetence at the organizations contacted.
This is prob the biggest point. Whats the problem? Even MEGA corp knows about autoreply emails.
Let's say MegaCorp Inc. wants to promote Billy, a great Jr. developer, into a senior role for a new project. The deal is done when the manager says "Billy, I want you to be the Sr. developer for X project." The thing is that HR gets in the way and says "well, we have to make this position available publicly so that we are complying with whatever fair labor and employment laws effect us."
Those 40 companies who didn't respond probably already had a Billy lined up for the job.
Bottom line: Candidates should always like you even if you don't like or need them, especially since you'll likely reject far more people than you hire.
One particular company I was interested in had few puzzles on their website. I once worked the whole weekend to solve them as good as I can. Spent lot of time writing a custom cover letter, resume and attached the C++ solutions to the puzzles.
Its been several months and I am still waiting for the damn reply!