On Hiring

First, an important disclaimer: These ARE NOT my words.

I saw an excellent thread by Paul Cantrell (located here) about hiring in the modern era. Having dealt with all of this stuff myself, it struck a chord with me. Then, in the replies, Rob Isaac followed up with the suggestion that these posts be condensed into a page with a catchy domain name which could be freely shared for folks who are experiencing a job rejection for the nth time.

I do not have a catchy domain name (I assume Rob meant something like "www.thanksforapplyingbut.com"), but I thought I'd take a stab at memorializing this particular series of posts because it's a Sunday in late June, it's hot outside, and I'd rather be on a computer than pulling weeds. Again, NOTHING that follows this belongs to or was said by me, although (having now been on both sides of the interview table at multiple employers) I agree with everything stated below.

What follows is the exact text of Paul's posts:

Paul Cantrell

There's a spiel about job listings I regularly give to students who are going on the tech job market (an utterly miserable and exploitative experience, the way we treat new entrants to the field…seriously…ugh). The students never quite believe me when I give it, but I give it anyway — and I'll now be using this job listing as yet another piece of evidence (if it’s real, which it may not be!).

The upshot of the spiel is “job listings usually don't mean what they say, no matter how clearly they say it, and you can’t really read them literally.”

1/

A grab bag of of things that usually go in that spiel:

- Most job listings are formed using a fill-in-the-blank process (like Mad Libs), without any concern for whether the parts make sense together (like Mad Libs)

- That fill-in-the-blank process is frequently done in part or in whole by someone in HR who isn’t even on the team that’s doing the hiring, doesn’t understand the tech, and doesn’t know the position or the team’s needs

2/

- “Years of experience” often does not literally mean years of experience; it means something about what internal rank or salary track the position will be slotted into, and thus how the company will treat the person who’s hired into this position

3/

- Mention of a specific technology often does •not• mean they’ll only consider someone who already knows that technology, but instead may mean things like “HR asked the team and they said they use this language,” or “the CEO heard about this and wants it in our job listings,” or “we heard we can pay developers who using this language less money,” or “well we had to put SOMETHING”

4/

- For all the reasons above, “job requirements” are frequently not requirements at all; they’re the company sending out •vibes• about the position — either to attract candidates, or (at least as likely) to please internal stakeholders with no consideration for the actual effect on candidates

- So don’t feel constrained by the published job description

5/

- But there •are• real requirements

- usually unstated

- that often even the interviewers doing the hiring aren’t aware they’re applying

- and they’re frequently social / shibboleth / ingroup / identity requirements

- specifically sexist, agist, and racist

- but also internal company churn / fomo / turf war stuff

- all of which has nothing to do with your worth as a human being

6/

- The only ways through / around all this that I’m aware of involve

(1) making real connections with real human beings whenever possible, not just job listings,

(2) continuing to try and try and try (ugh), and

(3) believing, deeply believing, that the hiring process is 95% not about you — which is a cruel truth, but also a good reminder not to internalize the way businesses treat you.

7/

A cruelty of all this is that it rewards the people who are already the most privileged, the most likely to believe in their own ability / worth regardless of external cues, perhaps the most likely to overestimate themselves.

When a job says “5 years of FancyFramework experience,” I guarantee you that there is a lopsided distribution of identity traits (male, white, etc) to those people who are applying anyway despite only using FancyFramework for 2-3 years. And I guarantee you some of those people who don’t meet the “requirements” will be under real consideration for the hire.

It’s a self-selection process that amplifies any inequality a person can internalize.

8/

At least one person says the original QP is satire, which I can easily believe:

https://hellinger.wtf/@holger/116829396745060640

The real evidence here is not “ha, this one company did a stupid, look at the screenshot;” it’s that, satire or not, when people see that listing, the common reaction is “oh, ha, yeah, that totally happens.” (I remember a listing that required 5 years of Swift experience just 1 year after the language was released.)

I do wish our hiring processes were more humane. But they’re not really for humans, are they?

/end

Website coded by Delta Sierra, all content on this specific page (notthatdelta.neocities.org/jobs) belongs to Paul Cantrell (unless otherwise noted). Hosting provided by Neocities.