this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
133 points (98.5% liked)

Showerthoughts

29522 readers
811 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago

I'm in HR and think about this a lot; it's (mostly) a marker of poorly run companies when they say experience in software X is required. Mostly these pets are using one of several software solutions and by saying a candidate must have experience in a specific software means the company is brittle; can't train, wants to hire non-thinkers and learners, and also likely isn't looking ahead at what will change in the future.

Software change will only accelerate likely, so hire learners.

[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 3 points 1 hour ago

I bring new software into my organization through two methods:

  1. Someone has used it before
  2. We are reasonably confident in our ability to use existing staff, possibly with a new expert hire or consultation

It’s pretty rare for a large org to do completely net new software. Training is usually a big deal if that happens. Massive layoffs are also a possibility (see enterprises being dumb about containers). Smaller orgs tend not to have this problem. If they do you can usually tell in an interview and just not go there. Devs are constantly experimenting with net new shit (current libs don’t do the thing; gotta find new libs). Again, smart leaders are open to this.

In general, staffing is a huge part of any of these decisions. You might not see the convo but it is most likely happening.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 28 points 3 hours ago

I have been working in tech since ~1995. I also have been in a hiring position since 2002 and own the top firm in our field. Here is my advice; lie.

Let me clarify. A lie is only problematic if by the time you start in that new position, you do not have the skills to back it up. If you can do the job and do it well, no manager will ever give a fuck about what you put in your resume.

PS: In most cases, the school you graduated from will only matter for your first job. In most cases, your GPA will never matter.

[–] BlueLineBae@midwest.social 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The first job I had was for a dinky little 15 person company. Obviously they didn't have loads of money and the way most corporate software contracts work is it's a lot cheaper for a period, like 1-2 years, and then the price increases. So they would jump ship before the price increase and use another product after that. So I ended up learning loads of different digital marketing platforms. I list them on my resume when I can, otherwise I just list the big ones and put something like "various digital marketing platforms". But thanks to all the magical algorithms that pick out what they need from all the entries, you pretty much have to have the exact platform they want on your resume in order for the bot to be satisfied. Some things I would understand, like if someone didn't know how to use key software for their field. But all the other stuff that gets tossed around should be considered "trainable" and not part of application requirements. Yet here we are...

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

ATS allows the least skilled people in a company (HR) to be even less effective.

It does, however, facilitate the easy scraping of applicant data, which can be packaged and sold.

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

In many industries hiring for attitude over aptitude is the key to true success. Just wished that was what most did.

[–] palebluethought@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

It happens pretty frequently in tech job listings, to have a requirement listed for more years experience in some technology than that technology has existed

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Counterpoint: They already know you can't "do" the job-specific tasks because you don't work there yet. If you know the tools, that's extremely helpful as they teach you what to do with them. If there's pile A and pile B and they're mostly the same except B already knows JIRA or Visual Studio or whatever, then that's a legitimate differentiator.

When the existing team is forced to get new software, there's a presumption that they already know what tasks the tools are supposed to help them do. There's no "other pile," so might as well suck it up and kill your productivity by ten percent for a year. It's okay though; you can improve it by 1% from the original baseline for nine years after, because the McKinsey and Accenture people totally promised us that makes sense. Rinse and repeat.