(e-mail address removed) (Robert Maas,
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
writes:
But such skills as needed to hussle a job under the current system
are irrelevant to many kinds of work, such as computer programming.
It really sucks that good skilled people with lots of other skills
are neglected for employment because they don't have that one
specific skill job-hustling and none of the employment agencies are
willing to do their supposed job.
A lot depends on what you define as job-huslling, but good peple skills
and communication skills are still important even for programmers. While
much of the work you do as a programmer involves sitting at a terminal
cutting code, this is only part of the job.
The days of a programmer being given a task and then they just go off to
wherever they do their work, code like mad and then deliver the finished
solution are gone (actually, I'm not even sure they ever really
existed). These days, programmers need to have good communications and
people skills to extract the true requirements of the software from the
client and to work well with others on the team. In fact, to some extent
this has become an even more difficult task as the general level of
computer literacy has increased. Now, more often than not, in addition
to system requirements, you also get clients telling you how to program
the solution. often the requirements are difficult to identify because
they have presented you with what they think is the solution rather than
describing what they want. You need good peple skills so that you can
extract the real requirements from what the client gives you - you can't
just accept what they tell you, implement exactly that and then expect
they will be satisfied with the result. You need to make them feel
comfortable enough that you can discuss the problem they want to solve,
feel free to ask questions and be able to extract what you need without
making them feel uncomfortable, threatened or concerned that perhaps
your not terribly sane or don't understand the problem. It is only
through good inter-personal skills that you can extract the information
you need to gain sufficient understandinig of the problem to come up
with a good solution. (there are some exceptions of course - writing
your own software to solve a problem you already know and understand and
then hoping to sell the solution to other for example).
Good communications skills are also required because fewer and fewer
programming jobs represent just a single developer working in
isolation. More often than not, there will be a team - possibly a small
team of only a couple of people or maybe a large team of 30 or more. To
actively participate in the team, you need to be able to communicate
with them and you need the people skills necessary to fit into the
team.
having been responsible for employiing staff, both for small companies
and larger beurocracies, two things jump to my mind when I see an
application from someone who hasn't worked for a long time (BTW, 17
years of unemployment is an excessively long time - not sure I've ever
heard of anyone not having any employment for 17 years who wasn't in
prison or in a coma!). The first thing I'd want to know is why they
haven't had a job for 17 years. If there answer involved a lot of what
sounded like excuses or blaming the system or something akin to a victim
attitude, I'd probably write them off. Anyone who hasn't been able to
adapt to changing circumstances and an evolving world and stil comes up
with nothing but excuses or considers themselves a victim of situation
and takes no responsibility for their part in their situation is
unlikely to have the problem solving and outcomes oriented focus I would
be looking for in an employee.
The second thing I'd possibly want to know is what they had been doing
over that 17 years and what they had done to try and get a job (assuming
they wanted one over that whole period). The problem I would have with
employiing anyone who had been unemployed for 17 years is with the fact
that if they couldn't solve their unemployment problem for that length
of time, can I have any confidence they will be able to solve any of the
problems they are likely to run into while working for me. At the end of
the day, you have to weigh this person up with all the other applicants
you have that have recent employment, possibly recent track records of
work completed, recent education or even just youthful
enthusiasm. sometimes, peple will have very good reasons for not having
worked for 17 tears (such as prison or a coma). For this type of
situation, I think your better off being honest and stating why you have
been unable to work for so long. Yes, it may cost you a job, but it may
also get you one. Not everyone will automatically right someone off
because they have a criminal record or a history of mental illness or
whatever. Yes, there are small minded bigoted people who will just write
you off, but they would have written you off already just because you
haven't worked for 17 years. There are some out there who are honestly
prepared to give people a second chance. There are also a growing number
of people out there who have either suffered some significant physical
or mental illness who can have a better understanding and greater
acceptance of such things. Whatever the case, I suspect you are more
likely to find someone who is willing to give you a chance once they
understand why you haven't worked for a long time and that there is a
good reason for it. Complaining that you couldn't get a job because of
low paid overseas competition, lack of money to access and stay current
with modern technology or because the current hiring practices are too
myopic to see your potential are not valid reasons, only excuses.
Is any of this fair - no, probably not. However, it never has been and
never will be a fair world. Good people get screwed over all the time
and bastards are often very successful. What is important to
realise is that the individual plays a significant role in determining
what their situation is. Very few are simply passive victims. It is how
you handle the situation you find yourself in that matters more than the
causes of what put you there.
While it is positive to see someone wanting to get something happening
by starting their own projects and lookinig for others to help, I do
have to wonder why not just join an existing project. Establishing a new
project, particularly one with multiple contributors, is a difficult and
time consuming process. It is also one that usually requires someone
with strong peple skills and a certain level of charisma and ability to
inspire others to be a success. You will be able to get far more mileage
out of working and contributing to an existing recognised project in a
much shorter time than you will with starting your own project. In
particular, a reasonably well know project with a good profile can be
worth a lot. In addition to being able to point to something you have
done which can easily be verified, you are also likely to make
connections with people who would be willing to provide references or
act as referees for jobs you apply for.
For the record, I do believe the way job interviews are handled and the
way applications are processed is fundamentally flawed. My personal
preference for assessing someone for a job is to give them a simple task
that will take about a week to complete and assess how they deal with it
and what they come up with. This lets me see how well they fit in with
the rest of the staff, how well they handle obstacles and whether they
actually can deliver the goods. It may cost a weeks wages to find this
out, but generally, it works a hell of a lot better than making largely
arbitrary assessments based on an interview where all you can tell is
whether the person is a good interviewer or not. Unfortunately, too many
employers are worried about doing tis in case they get problems with
litigators, unions or government beurocracy concerning hiring and
firing - though this varies a lot from country to country.
Tim
