To be fully honest, I am not a fan of the current HR (Human Resource) industry/practice today.
I have used glassdoor, indeed, monster, linkedin, and a couple others in the past. And my experience is that I rarely ever get any response from any online applications (including directly on the company websites). All my work opportunities (nine different employments, eleven if you count contract to hire) have come through a physical person whether that is a friend, acquaintance, or even a recruiter.
Yet when I interview through traditional means, my success rates to get offers are extremely high, nearly 100%. And usually with a day or two of my interview (which makes me think my salary request is on the low end, and never has a company offered more than my ask). So this makes me think there are a couple things I am doing incorrectly with online applications.
The easier and within my control is not using the proper keywords or catchphrases that will get me past the automatic filtering system. I have so many variants of my resume. I tailor my resume to the job positions. So I like to think that I should have been accidentally correct at some point.
The other reason is a bit scammish. I have seen a few of these practices myself.
The simplest one is that some companies are require to post positions publicly even though they already have someone in mind. This typically is with larger corporations and most definitely for contract-to-hire positions. As mentioned above, I have had a couple of these. This transition took time, and part of the reason is that HR has to post the job publicly and it needs to be up for a certain period of time. They will field the minimum candidates with the minimum amount of work. I may have been focused on my work, and I am not one to keep an eye out for what my managers do, but I am pretty sure they did not interview anyone. Eventually, I get transitioned to full-time employee status. Therefore, people saw the post, applied, and most likely never heard back.
Technically, this is not the job boards fault but it kind of is if they scrape these positions from the company websites which most of them do.
A more scammish practice is companies that are not real. They just post jobs to just collect data. I have worked for a marketing group, and there is a lot of bartering for personal information (especially behind the scenes). One of the biggest values to data is how much of their data is legit data. Job applicants on job boards are one of the best and easiest sources of data to be collected. I use a separate email and phone for my job search. After applying to certain unknown companies, I get sudden spikes of spam. Sometimes all it takes is just to publish your resume on the board which I typically get smaller spikes and more sporadic.
A similar practice but more borderline scammish is corporations doing similar practice but only to populate their HR system of records. Because they purchase bulk amounts of job postings, companies that have remaining posts will just use them to post non-existent positions. This has all sorts of implications. The simplest is just to have a queue of available candidates. Second, they can see how desperate the candidates are which can be used to set their expectations on how much they pay their current employees. Last, they can also use that on low-balling other or future candidates.
Suspiciously, even the job boards ads and site metrics seem to avoid how effective they really are. Many states number of users but they don't state how successful they are. Maybe it is also due to users abusing the system too. But if they claim number of users then they must take responsibility that number is somewhat accurate, thus they should have the ability to give some estimate on how successful users are. Otherwise, they should not market how many users they have.
References
https://zerista.s3.amazonaws.com/item_files/ab2f/attachments/458970/original/source_of_hire_2018_pdf.pdf
Showing posts with label job opportunity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label job opportunity. Show all posts
Thursday, September 9, 2021
Wednesday, September 8, 2021
Interview: Job Entails More than One Role
Release management is quite time consuming, similar to project management. So I find it odd when companies feel that they need to create a role that is really two or three roles. I can understand if they were much smaller in size, but they shouldn't be expecting people to have all the experiences they are looking for. Sure, I can fake it to land the job but I am still a loser that the company cares that I be more honest but will choose the guy who was most likely faking it.
I actually had an interview with a company that was hiring a release manager but expected that person to also code, deploy, and handle change management. I made the mistake of saying that is a lot of work for a single person (I also confirmed that this is a single person role, and not a team of people sharing all the responsibilities). Oh, and I also forgot to mention that the role is also a management position that will have future direct reports in a year or two (which really means 2+ years), so they are also looking for someone with direct report experience.
In the corporate world (I worked for two fortune 10 companies), each with the responsibilities they listed are handled by multiple individuals at full-time capacity. There are people who does change management full-time and coding full-time and plenty of managers who do not do any of that level of work. Deploying is something some developers have to do if there are not enough resources, and none of them enjoy doing that. Plus, a lot of release management is also during off-business hours.
So, I was honest and explained that it was a lot of work for a single person, and that it would be difficult to find someone that really wants to do all that much less someone who has the experience of each one. Of all the release managers I have met, I think only one colleague and myself had development backgrounds. I have had no RM managers with development background, nor worked with one. We also had to work with a team of change management people.
I think I wasn't selected because I had no direct report experience even though I gave them some of my leadership roles. The reason is that seemed to be the low-energy part of the interview. The interview was at least able to fake excitement over my other skill sets.
The other day, I saw the role was re-posted again on the job boards so I guess they haven't found a person yet. A year and a half later, the position is still available.
I actually had an interview with a company that was hiring a release manager but expected that person to also code, deploy, and handle change management. I made the mistake of saying that is a lot of work for a single person (I also confirmed that this is a single person role, and not a team of people sharing all the responsibilities). Oh, and I also forgot to mention that the role is also a management position that will have future direct reports in a year or two (which really means 2+ years), so they are also looking for someone with direct report experience.
In the corporate world (I worked for two fortune 10 companies), each with the responsibilities they listed are handled by multiple individuals at full-time capacity. There are people who does change management full-time and coding full-time and plenty of managers who do not do any of that level of work. Deploying is something some developers have to do if there are not enough resources, and none of them enjoy doing that. Plus, a lot of release management is also during off-business hours.
So, I was honest and explained that it was a lot of work for a single person, and that it would be difficult to find someone that really wants to do all that much less someone who has the experience of each one. Of all the release managers I have met, I think only one colleague and myself had development backgrounds. I have had no RM managers with development background, nor worked with one. We also had to work with a team of change management people.
I think I wasn't selected because I had no direct report experience even though I gave them some of my leadership roles. The reason is that seemed to be the low-energy part of the interview. The interview was at least able to fake excitement over my other skill sets.
The other day, I saw the role was re-posted again on the job boards so I guess they haven't found a person yet. A year and a half later, the position is still available.
Monday, April 27, 2020
My Job Search Experience from Nov 2019 to Mar 2020
I found a new job a while ago. One of the major reasons why there have been few posts lately. I have a little breather now that I have exhausted my need to learn as much as I can about my new role (even though my employer did stress on my learning at such a pace).
For a quick conclusion, I recommend looking for work through recruiters. They know which opportunities are live and hot. Applying directly to companies was hit or miss. Online search was really a waste of my time.
When my threshold was passed, I accepted all recruiters. I have to say that it was actually kind of refreshing to actually see responses. Not all recruiters were active, but I would say that at least 50% of recruiters did respond after their "fishing" expedition.
Most recruiters found me on LinkedIn. With all recruiters, I asked a simple question or expressed interest. Those that did not respond, I did not follow up. Those that did and requested resume, then ghosted after I provided a resume were added to my grey-list. If multiple recruiters found me from the same company and ghosted, that company was blacklisted.
But at least 50-75% of recruiters did respond with a response... even a simple 'thank you' before ghosting was sufficient for not being blacklisted. Almost all recruiters with an Indian accent ghosted me or simply said thank you then never heard back again.
I was honest about my compensation but did not give it up freely. I always lead with that it was negotiable. If they were forceful and I was interested in the position, I always gave higher than my range and added that my main focus was on how well we matched. This strategy worked quite well for me. I thought I would lose some opportunities, but all that were interested in me got me further into the interview process. In almost all cases where I was no longer considered, I was honest with them that I did not seem the best match for them, but willing to work hard, and lowered my compensation accordingly... so I was not surprised.
25% of the recruiters that did respond, I did get interviews. Most of my interviews went very well. And as mentioned, I was not surprised to be rejected to some of them. I was also very upfront about my existing opportunities. I had three companies interested in overlapping periods of time. I think I had a good chance with all three with one already given a verbal offer.
I honestly said that I had other opportunities. I also said that they were my top pick (which it really was) but also explained that I still wanted to complete my due diligence. They were more than happy to give me the time (I said a week, probably could have gotten two but I did like that job).
First one had a delayed response, and couldn't give me a firm confirmation. They couldn't pay my asking price. In my first interview, I did tell them that my interest is in the job which did fascinate me. I was also not a perfect match experience-wise as they were looking more for a business PM and I was more technical. I felt the director still liked my style. Unfortunately, timing and compensation did not work out. The job opportunity was about the same. The one thing going for them was that they were a smaller company which I preferred. Interestingly, they had considered me about half a year ago. If they had offered at that time, I would have accepted. In the end, I was honest in that it is difficult to pass on an existing offer to a potential offer and that my compensation was met.
The other one after an interview found that the role was not what I expected.
My suggestions would be Amazon and Snap. Amazon was reasonably responsive for certain roles. They do cleanup their posts so that old posts will eventually be closed. Positions that are interested do let you know your status well. Snap was very responsive, and quite mature in their process in that they do consider non-digital factors.
I did understand that I was probably on the lower-end experience-wise and on paper. I believed I would still have excelled in the role for myself and the company if picked.
Surprisingly, I had better hopes for Google. I still found that they still had my application for an opening almost ten years ago and that it was still open. I also have not heard back on the opportunities I applied to this year.
For a quick conclusion, I recommend looking for work through recruiters. They know which opportunities are live and hot. Applying directly to companies was hit or miss. Online search was really a waste of my time.
Searching Through Recruiters
Because I found all non-referral based jobs through recruiters, my inflated ego wanted to try to find an opportunity on my own. I had avoided all recruiters. I did have a timeline though.When my threshold was passed, I accepted all recruiters. I have to say that it was actually kind of refreshing to actually see responses. Not all recruiters were active, but I would say that at least 50% of recruiters did respond after their "fishing" expedition.
Most recruiters found me on LinkedIn. With all recruiters, I asked a simple question or expressed interest. Those that did not respond, I did not follow up. Those that did and requested resume, then ghosted after I provided a resume were added to my grey-list. If multiple recruiters found me from the same company and ghosted, that company was blacklisted.
But at least 50-75% of recruiters did respond with a response... even a simple 'thank you' before ghosting was sufficient for not being blacklisted. Almost all recruiters with an Indian accent ghosted me or simply said thank you then never heard back again.
I was honest about my compensation but did not give it up freely. I always lead with that it was negotiable. If they were forceful and I was interested in the position, I always gave higher than my range and added that my main focus was on how well we matched. This strategy worked quite well for me. I thought I would lose some opportunities, but all that were interested in me got me further into the interview process. In almost all cases where I was no longer considered, I was honest with them that I did not seem the best match for them, but willing to work hard, and lowered my compensation accordingly... so I was not surprised.
25% of the recruiters that did respond, I did get interviews. Most of my interviews went very well. And as mentioned, I was not surprised to be rejected to some of them. I was also very upfront about my existing opportunities. I had three companies interested in overlapping periods of time. I think I had a good chance with all three with one already given a verbal offer.
I honestly said that I had other opportunities. I also said that they were my top pick (which it really was) but also explained that I still wanted to complete my due diligence. They were more than happy to give me the time (I said a week, probably could have gotten two but I did like that job).
First one had a delayed response, and couldn't give me a firm confirmation. They couldn't pay my asking price. In my first interview, I did tell them that my interest is in the job which did fascinate me. I was also not a perfect match experience-wise as they were looking more for a business PM and I was more technical. I felt the director still liked my style. Unfortunately, timing and compensation did not work out. The job opportunity was about the same. The one thing going for them was that they were a smaller company which I preferred. Interestingly, they had considered me about half a year ago. If they had offered at that time, I would have accepted. In the end, I was honest in that it is difficult to pass on an existing offer to a potential offer and that my compensation was met.
The other one after an interview found that the role was not what I expected.
Applying Directly to Companies
This was close to a waste of time. But do apply to companies that you heard good things about their hiring process.My suggestions would be Amazon and Snap. Amazon was reasonably responsive for certain roles. They do cleanup their posts so that old posts will eventually be closed. Positions that are interested do let you know your status well. Snap was very responsive, and quite mature in their process in that they do consider non-digital factors.
I did understand that I was probably on the lower-end experience-wise and on paper. I believed I would still have excelled in the role for myself and the company if picked.
Surprisingly, I had better hopes for Google. I still found that they still had my application for an opening almost ten years ago and that it was still open. I also have not heard back on the opportunities I applied to this year.
I did apply to several other lesser known companies within a certain geographic region with almost nearly zero responses. It was so terrible that I even started to question the very rare companies that did respond which made me think they were ultra-desperate to fill a position. That is a turn-off for me because those positions are rarely any good and often not the same as advertised.
Online Search
I used all sorts of sites: LinkedIn, indeed, glassdoor, monster, dice, etc. All of these have miserable success rates for me. These opportunities include known businesses and unknown businesses. Except for the job board sending the automated email, there is rarely any responses from any company. A lot of posts that I found do get closed and then I'll find another open exactly the same.
For a period of time, I was dedicated each day to apply to at least 5 positions a day. I probably applied easily over 200 positions with maybe 1 response.
Timing
Of course, timing is very important. I probably was in a terrible time-frame of Nov - Feb. I was lightly searching as early as May. I actually did not hear much from recruiters near the end of the year going into January. Suddenly in February, I started getting almost too many calls. Now with COVID, there probably will not be many opportunities now.
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Job Search: Re-applying to Amazon, Google, other less known companies
http://blog.interviewing.io/no-engineer-has-ever-sued-a-company-because-of-constructive-post-interview-feedback-so-why-dont-employers-do-it/
I just read this article that I saw on LinkedIn. This got me thinking about my reaction to companies' response or lack of response. I know that is not what the article is about, but that is what triggered my thought.
I have applied to a couple positions, and only one interview. When the position closed, I received an automated email that I was not selected. I had an interview, was not selected, and received an automated email that I was not selected. The interview itself was not great, but that was more on the interviewer than Amazon.
Will I apply again? Yes. My experience with them is quite positive (relative to others), especially after each experience with another company like Google.
Google
Applying is simpler. I have applied years ago, and also a couple recently. No responses at all. The applications can still be found on their website untouched.
Will I apply again? I have to say that after a period of time after each application, I am less inclined to apply to Google. Today I even saw a couple new positions on LinkedIn, I shuddered, and didn't even bother to see the job description.
This position would also have been a 1.5 hour commute. Just because of the recruiter and her enthusiasm, I probably would have accepted the role if they offered. I received emails that I was not selected.
Will I apply again? Yes, and I would recommend others to apply to Snap.
I continue to look at opportunities to companies that have more personalized messages that are not automated.
I just read this article that I saw on LinkedIn. This got me thinking about my reaction to companies' response or lack of response. I know that is not what the article is about, but that is what triggered my thought.
Amazon
I was daunted by Amazon's initial application process. It was long and tedious. I actually avoided applying for a lengthy period of time because of it. But once completed, Amazon is impressively fluid to use compared to almost all other sites. Their interface is also levels better than other sites (including ATS systems which you think should be the best in market since it is their industry). I have to say that I am personally surprised.I have applied to a couple positions, and only one interview. When the position closed, I received an automated email that I was not selected. I had an interview, was not selected, and received an automated email that I was not selected. The interview itself was not great, but that was more on the interviewer than Amazon.
Will I apply again? Yes. My experience with them is quite positive (relative to others), especially after each experience with another company like Google.
Will I apply again? I have to say that after a period of time after each application, I am less inclined to apply to Google. Today I even saw a couple new positions on LinkedIn, I shuddered, and didn't even bother to see the job description.
Snap
Applied once, and had an interview. My interviewer was great: charismatic and a pleasure to talk to. She was very up-front about my shortcomings which I also agreed with but did argue that I had similar experiences. I was applying to a management role with no direct report experiences. I had many leadership experiences but clearly not enough.This position would also have been a 1.5 hour commute. Just because of the recruiter and her enthusiasm, I probably would have accepted the role if they offered. I received emails that I was not selected.
Will I apply again? Yes, and I would recommend others to apply to Snap.
Other Companies
Many companies are like Google. Even using Indeed or Glassdoor who automates some of these steps, I will still not receive any responses. I have most definitely skipped over companies that I have applied to previously where I have received absolutely no responses.
I have been highly selective in re-applying to companies that I have received no responses for.
I still re-apply to companies that I have received automated rejections.
I continue to look at opportunities to companies that have more personalized messages that are not automated.
My Conclusion About Feedback
I feel that this is a classic game theory situation. If all companies gave personalized responses, then they are all equal again. So a couple companies that do not will benefit because there is not enough to detract people who apply. The reasons that I prefer companies that give personalized responses is that others do not, thus benefiting those who do. And this is why most companies don't because it is practically the same state as everyone doing it but less effort.
Reference
http://linkedin.comSunday, February 2, 2020
Job Search: There Is NO Shortage on Skilled Workers, Just Shortage on "Below-Market-Pay" Skilled Workers
I have always been wondering how can the United States be short on skilled workers, because there are plenty of non-skills workers who do not enjoy their work. Maybe short on general workers to current jobs and unfilled jobs, theoretically. But even then that is very hard to believe because there are plenty of people who do very little in existing jobs.
And as I apply to several positions, the most common articles I read about is recruiters being inundated with thousands of applicants. When I talk to hiring managers, they most definitely are not short on candidates and most I have spoken to have had no problems hiring a fitting candidate within the last couple years.
When job posters have on their form your minimum pay requirement or pay history, this seems pretty evident that there is no shortage on people looking for skilled work (possibly other works; I have only searched skilled work).
One conclusion I can come up with that perhaps I am wrong is that HR really, really has no idea what they are doing. This is also a very high possibility in my opinion as they go through so many motions that make seem to limit their search on quality and possibly cheaper alternatives.
One example is that almost all jobs list out the requirements of the candidate to a generic person yet they require all candidates to tailor their resumes to them. They should be tailored to their target audience who are not generic people. In an opening for a manager, many descriptions will have a requirement with "ability to work in a team" or if they are a level higher "ability to work in a diverse team". The position is for a person specifically leading a team. Or another opening for an experience developer who has a specific tool experience that is almost irrelevant to the actual job. There are development posts where they require "X+ years of experience with Jira" (Jira is a bug-tracking tool). If they hire a developer that cannot figure out how to use any type of bug-tracking tool is not a developer worth hiring.
In either case, there is most definitely no shortage on skilled workers. Companies are either just too cheap to hire them or too simple-minded to identify them.
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Ongoing Path to Management
Ongoing Path to Management is to discuss about my attempts to get a people management (for the sake of these series will just be shortened as manager) role. I have known this was not an easy path, but one I believe is beneficial to the company given my experience and my ability to connect with other employees.
I also do not have a need to be in management. I am well content to do my job at my current position and current pay. I would still prefer to have more responsibilities and/or more pay. That being said, if I were promoted to management, I believe I would do a good job and I am willing to do the extra work. The reason I want to do this because I believe in doing what is good for my group.
There are some other obstacles to my path due to my personal beliefs which I will address in another post. Today, I just want to address a more obvious problem for everyone that is interested in becoming a people manager.
From my experience, the fastest way to become a manager is to know the right person. No experience, no skills, just being in the right place at the right time. I have seen fresh graduates promoted to management within a year of working. Even those who did not even want to be a manager. Majority of them have no idea how to lead a team: causing confused team members, setting unreasonable goals, creating many social impacts, etc. Simply by knowing the right person will get you promoted (for many different reasons).
And then there is the very long and difficult path that depends a lot on luck. The luck is primarily based on your work for a company that is mature enough to have a structured method of promoting. Although luck like knowing the right people is still important, but has less of an impact which could increase your chances. At these firms, you can work hard and work several years to eventually be promoted to management role. You will have a better chance if you work for someone that is in a volatile position.
By volatile position, I mean that the position (not necessarily the person but could be driven by the person) has a high potential to change. The simplest is that the person is going to retire. The person will leave and a gap needs to be filled. Next is the person that is ambitious or really skilled. Basically, the person needs to move out of the role so that it becomes available and you have to be the best option.
Sorry for all the negativity. So more positively, I have always been a go-to person for some people around me for advice on career, work, projects, or even very situational scenarios. I have always been the fastest to learn. Among my team, I have almost always had the most projects, most tasks with equal or better quality with no complaints.
But all this is not important at all to management (at least in today's corporate management). All that really matters is the people you know. Not just any person, the right person whether they work for a good or bad company. If you do not know the right person, you will never be promoted even if you are the star employee. Sadly, the "right" person typically is not someone who is a good manager (although possible).
If you work for a good company, time may be worth spending to achieve that goal. For a bad company, the expense of being promoted may not be worth the sacrifices. I do not just mean financially (or sexually). I mean sacrificing your morals.
I am unwilling to lie or cheat. I would rather work cheaply until I find the right place to work that truly appreciates their employees. My recommendation to all is to keep an eye out for good people. Do not be afraid to approach them. Connection is important in this world if you want to make an impact and have more control over your own life. Hard work can only get you so far individually in current workplace.
I also do not have a need to be in management. I am well content to do my job at my current position and current pay. I would still prefer to have more responsibilities and/or more pay. That being said, if I were promoted to management, I believe I would do a good job and I am willing to do the extra work. The reason I want to do this because I believe in doing what is good for my group.
There are some other obstacles to my path due to my personal beliefs which I will address in another post. Today, I just want to address a more obvious problem for everyone that is interested in becoming a people manager.
Catch-22
One of the biggest obstacle to getting a management role is the need to have management experience. The follow up question is how many direct reports have you managed. But all managers must have had no experience or directs reports before they became a manager.Opportunity
From my experience, the fastest way to become a manager is to know the right person. No experience, no skills, just being in the right place at the right time. I have seen fresh graduates promoted to management within a year of working. Even those who did not even want to be a manager. Majority of them have no idea how to lead a team: causing confused team members, setting unreasonable goals, creating many social impacts, etc. Simply by knowing the right person will get you promoted (for many different reasons).
And then there is the very long and difficult path that depends a lot on luck. The luck is primarily based on your work for a company that is mature enough to have a structured method of promoting. Although luck like knowing the right people is still important, but has less of an impact which could increase your chances. At these firms, you can work hard and work several years to eventually be promoted to management role. You will have a better chance if you work for someone that is in a volatile position.
By volatile position, I mean that the position (not necessarily the person but could be driven by the person) has a high potential to change. The simplest is that the person is going to retire. The person will leave and a gap needs to be filled. Next is the person that is ambitious or really skilled. Basically, the person needs to move out of the role so that it becomes available and you have to be the best option.
Leads
From my experience, I believe that most managers are more leads. They have the know-how, they delegate, they review the product, but most do not care for the person's growth, the person's career, or if very unlucky, do not care for you at all. They do not set you up for a raise or for a good review. They see annual reviews as a waste of time. They only want to lead and force you to follow, just as they have to follow their superiors.
Because most managers are leads in reality, this confuses the title of managers because that creates poor standards of what a manager should do. For those who are new to the workplace, expectations of a manager becomes much harder to maintain across the company.
Because most managers are leads in reality, this confuses the title of managers because that creates poor standards of what a manager should do. For those who are new to the workplace, expectations of a manager becomes much harder to maintain across the company.
Turnover
Perhaps I work in very unsafe work environments my entire career, but I see that there are very few good managers.
My speculation is that good managers rarely leave a company (or let go). So to me, most companies are hiring just bad managers. This is also my belief why I am unable to randomly find a good company to work for. Because good companies do not have turnover to have roles to fill. Good companies will have good managers who most likely have good references so there is no need to reach out to find random candidates.
My speculation is that good managers rarely leave a company (or let go). So to me, most companies are hiring just bad managers. This is also my belief why I am unable to randomly find a good company to work for. Because good companies do not have turnover to have roles to fill. Good companies will have good managers who most likely have good references so there is no need to reach out to find random candidates.
Good employees leave bad companies. The silver-lining is that they learn why certain processes are in place or why certain good practices are done.
People, People, People
I was brought up that good work will eventually be promoted. I hated playing politics. I have had my work credit stolen. I have been passed by another with less experience who was later fired within months. I have been told that the company cannot afford to hire helpers but yet when I leave, they eventually have to back fill with multiple people. I have won contracts with clients who eventually canceled their contracts with my former company shortly after I left.Sorry for all the negativity. So more positively, I have always been a go-to person for some people around me for advice on career, work, projects, or even very situational scenarios. I have always been the fastest to learn. Among my team, I have almost always had the most projects, most tasks with equal or better quality with no complaints.
But all this is not important at all to management (at least in today's corporate management). All that really matters is the people you know. Not just any person, the right person whether they work for a good or bad company. If you do not know the right person, you will never be promoted even if you are the star employee. Sadly, the "right" person typically is not someone who is a good manager (although possible).
If you work for a good company, time may be worth spending to achieve that goal. For a bad company, the expense of being promoted may not be worth the sacrifices. I do not just mean financially (or sexually). I mean sacrificing your morals.
I am unwilling to lie or cheat. I would rather work cheaply until I find the right place to work that truly appreciates their employees. My recommendation to all is to keep an eye out for good people. Do not be afraid to approach them. Connection is important in this world if you want to make an impact and have more control over your own life. Hard work can only get you so far individually in current workplace.
Monday, April 8, 2019
glassdoor.com (first impression, three weeks)
I have been passively looking to see what new opportunities are out there, and was suggested to use a few sites. One of the sites was glassdoor.
I still went through the usual agony of filling in yet another profile and job history. It does have an importer, but obviously my formatting is not obvious enough for the automated process. I think it took more time to correct than just to enter the details myself. The process is very standard, no love or hate.
Once the profile is created, it is pretty simple to apply to job posts that are connected via glassdoor. After a couple job posts, I actually started avoiding job posts that required me to apply via the employer's company site. Why is that not automated to pass my details to the company site? Honestly, I did not care much because they were mostly larger corporate companies which I was not in the mood of applying to at the time.
After a week or two, I actually had real calls for phone interviews from the actual employer. This was actually pretty amazing! I have to admit I was very impressed with this. I did not apply to that many. The interviews were legit and did not waste my time.
I was impressed because I had very little luck in the past with job boards: monster.com, dice.com, etc. (more than ten years ago). One of the biggest problem was that I was constantly called by recruiters. These recruiters clearly do not read the resume and are just fishing for anyone that would respond, then figure out if they are a fit. I tested this by clearly putting on my resume that I am not looking for work in my current state, yet all the opportunities are for that state.
Reference
http://glassdoor.com
I still went through the usual agony of filling in yet another profile and job history. It does have an importer, but obviously my formatting is not obvious enough for the automated process. I think it took more time to correct than just to enter the details myself. The process is very standard, no love or hate.
Once the profile is created, it is pretty simple to apply to job posts that are connected via glassdoor. After a couple job posts, I actually started avoiding job posts that required me to apply via the employer's company site. Why is that not automated to pass my details to the company site? Honestly, I did not care much because they were mostly larger corporate companies which I was not in the mood of applying to at the time.
After a week or two, I actually had real calls for phone interviews from the actual employer. This was actually pretty amazing! I have to admit I was very impressed with this. I did not apply to that many. The interviews were legit and did not waste my time.
I was impressed because I had very little luck in the past with job boards: monster.com, dice.com, etc. (more than ten years ago). One of the biggest problem was that I was constantly called by recruiters. These recruiters clearly do not read the resume and are just fishing for anyone that would respond, then figure out if they are a fit. I tested this by clearly putting on my resume that I am not looking for work in my current state, yet all the opportunities are for that state.
Cons
For whatever reason, I cannot update the experience field on their website. I have tried multiple times and multiple browsers. It appears to save once I enter the experience detail, but once I refresh the page, it disappears.
Reference
http://glassdoor.com
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
I am a Release (noun) Manager, not Release (verb) Manager
I've been getting several calls from cold-calling recruiters for positions seeking a release manager. After a couple questions, I end up correcting most callers that they are looking for a release engineer. I rather call them deployment managers because most of them understand that rather than release engineer.
This site provides a good explanation of the difference between the two.
I am a release manager (release as a noun), not a release manager (release as a verb). In my line of work/responsibility, I do not actually release any code or compile any code or touch any code (except maybe to forward the package to the operations team which I really should not be doing).
Another way to look at it is that I am like a project manager who are managers on the project level while I am a manager on the release level. If a problem is on the project level (something wrong with project requirements) then it is managed via the project manager. If that same problem cannot be remedied within the release schedule, then it becomes a release level problem thus requiring a release manager to review the impacts.
A release (in my world) is a set of projects to be deployed within the same window. The projects may have weak or strong correlations with other projects within the same release. Not all companies require a release manager as most companies deal with only single project releases. There may be several projects but none are dependent on the other so can always be deployed independently, or small enough to be easily managed by the development teams or existing project managers.
Our releases typically have 2-4 large projects, several small projects, and other production issue patches. For us, releases require quite a bit of coordination due to limited resources including both human resource and hardware resources. Our environments are hardware dependent costing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars so we cannot just simply "spin" up another test environment.
The release manager does not (in my opinion) have the authority to make a final decision on how the new issue should be resolved. The release manager has to be capable of providing the different options and the recommended course. The product, customer, or client should make the ultimate decision.
Typical choices could be:
This site provides a good explanation of the difference between the two.
I am a release manager (release as a noun), not a release manager (release as a verb). In my line of work/responsibility, I do not actually release any code or compile any code or touch any code (except maybe to forward the package to the operations team which I really should not be doing).
Another way to look at it is that I am like a project manager who are managers on the project level while I am a manager on the release level. If a problem is on the project level (something wrong with project requirements) then it is managed via the project manager. If that same problem cannot be remedied within the release schedule, then it becomes a release level problem thus requiring a release manager to review the impacts.
A release (in my world) is a set of projects to be deployed within the same window. The projects may have weak or strong correlations with other projects within the same release. Not all companies require a release manager as most companies deal with only single project releases. There may be several projects but none are dependent on the other so can always be deployed independently, or small enough to be easily managed by the development teams or existing project managers.
Our releases typically have 2-4 large projects, several small projects, and other production issue patches. For us, releases require quite a bit of coordination due to limited resources including both human resource and hardware resources. Our environments are hardware dependent costing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars so we cannot just simply "spin" up another test environment.
The release manager does not (in my opinion) have the authority to make a final decision on how the new issue should be resolved. The release manager has to be capable of providing the different options and the recommended course. The product, customer, or client should make the ultimate decision.
Typical choices could be:
- delaying all phases to accommodate the new timeline
- removing the project from the release (there still exists risk that this still delay the deployment if there are issues removing the project)
- do not fix and deploy with a known defect (adds risk to customer satisfaction and/or data integrety)
- shorten the timeline of a future phase if possible (typically requiring a group to work overtime)
- use the buffer time if one was implemented (typically adds risk to a shortened quiet period)
Reference
http://www.plutora.com/insights/2014/release-management-vs-release-engineering/Monday, October 27, 2014
Work: When did 50 miles become a local distance for new job opp?
I received a random recruiter call. After the introductions, he tells me that he is looking to fill a position. I responded that I am currently employed but willing to listen to the details. He says that it is local. After giving me the location, I said that it was a pretty far distance. He then states that it is local... 50 miles.
50 miles?! That's local? That would probably be a 2 hour commute... maybe 1.5 with no traffic but for work that will always be rush hour... so probably more like 2.5 hours and possibly even 3-4 if there is an accident. And this is my estimate just for standard places, but I have to cross a major city plus that area is known for its traffic jam. I quickly declined to save us both time.
And where do these people even get my information? This person has my mobile number and my latest work location. I do not post my mobile number, and my resume doesn't even have my current employment. This really makes me suspicious on what information some of these recruiting companies share. I doubt my current employer would share this information, so that would only leave the one recruiter company that got me my current job who would also have my mobile number.
I really hope legislation would someday force companies to report where they obtain personal information. Companies should not be making money from my information (which does not even include that this seems like some form of privacy invasion) without my consent. If they are unable to provide the proper trail of information, they should be fined and I should get a cut of the money for my troubles.
Companies sue other companies and even individuals just for using their name. Shouldn't there be some sort of copyright issue for companies distributing my resume especially if they are profiting from it either monetarily or valued data? While they are at it, they should make it illegal to waive your right to allow them to bypass it.
50 miles?! That's local? That would probably be a 2 hour commute... maybe 1.5 with no traffic but for work that will always be rush hour... so probably more like 2.5 hours and possibly even 3-4 if there is an accident. And this is my estimate just for standard places, but I have to cross a major city plus that area is known for its traffic jam. I quickly declined to save us both time.
And where do these people even get my information? This person has my mobile number and my latest work location. I do not post my mobile number, and my resume doesn't even have my current employment. This really makes me suspicious on what information some of these recruiting companies share. I doubt my current employer would share this information, so that would only leave the one recruiter company that got me my current job who would also have my mobile number.
I really hope legislation would someday force companies to report where they obtain personal information. Companies should not be making money from my information (which does not even include that this seems like some form of privacy invasion) without my consent. If they are unable to provide the proper trail of information, they should be fined and I should get a cut of the money for my troubles.
Companies sue other companies and even individuals just for using their name. Shouldn't there be some sort of copyright issue for companies distributing my resume especially if they are profiting from it either monetarily or valued data? While they are at it, they should make it illegal to waive your right to allow them to bypass it.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Work Life: LinkedIn, More Recruiters than Professional Contacts?
I occasionally log into LinkedIn to read some of their articles. Although somewhat amateurish, they are rather insightful in getting me to think although no always in agreement (at least not 100%) with the article. Every so often, I get a new request from someone that wants to be added to my contacts list.
If this keeps up (although would take a rather long time), I may eventually end up with more recruiters than business professional contacts. This got me thinking that LinkedIn really needs a new feature to separate recruiters from my regular contacts.
First, recruiters really know nothing about me. Personally, I think they are just poaching my contacts list. I have added one or two that I have worked closely with in the past but have since removed them from my list. I may consider keeping recruiters that really are professional contacts. I may consider adding them if my contact list was not shared with them.
Second, they do not care about my work. They do not provide any value to my professional portfolio except maybe to make my contact list look larger. But, I know plenty of excellent people with very few contacts. Do they really look at my list for referrals? How would they know who I actually work with?
Third, I do not want to be adding recruiters while being employed. I do not this it looks good when your managers or coworkers (who are also on LinkedIn), suddenly see an influx of recruiters on your new contacts news. I do not wish to risk my boss to think that I am a liability to the team.
But, I am curious what they have to offer. Although I am not interested in leaving, I still need to do my due diligence as a professional. LinkedIn would provide an excellent portal for me to see what other opportunities are out there. Somehow I am meeting more people who are also looking for work, and reference would be a much better way to introduce someone to an opening. I think there are some good benefits LinkedIn should look into for these types of avenues. It will grow higher quality candidates, as opposed to candidates from the masses (i.e. Monster, Dice, etc.).
If this keeps up (although would take a rather long time), I may eventually end up with more recruiters than business professional contacts. This got me thinking that LinkedIn really needs a new feature to separate recruiters from my regular contacts.
First, recruiters really know nothing about me. Personally, I think they are just poaching my contacts list. I have added one or two that I have worked closely with in the past but have since removed them from my list. I may consider keeping recruiters that really are professional contacts. I may consider adding them if my contact list was not shared with them.
Second, they do not care about my work. They do not provide any value to my professional portfolio except maybe to make my contact list look larger. But, I know plenty of excellent people with very few contacts. Do they really look at my list for referrals? How would they know who I actually work with?
Third, I do not want to be adding recruiters while being employed. I do not this it looks good when your managers or coworkers (who are also on LinkedIn), suddenly see an influx of recruiters on your new contacts news. I do not wish to risk my boss to think that I am a liability to the team.
But, I am curious what they have to offer. Although I am not interested in leaving, I still need to do my due diligence as a professional. LinkedIn would provide an excellent portal for me to see what other opportunities are out there. Somehow I am meeting more people who are also looking for work, and reference would be a much better way to introduce someone to an opening. I think there are some good benefits LinkedIn should look into for these types of avenues. It will grow higher quality candidates, as opposed to candidates from the masses (i.e. Monster, Dice, etc.).
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Interview: Lost Opportunity becauase Out of Town
I do not know if there is a way to actually remove your resume from the market when you are not proactively searching. But on rare occasions, I do get an opportunity that is of interest. The latest one was basically for the same job but higher salary, so I went along with it.
I had a phone interview and thought I did decently well. I was a little concerned because we did not get very technical. Since a headhunter had found this position, I had to wait for the interviewer to speak with the headhunter. I guess technically he would be consulting agency looking to hire me for their client... but they are still basically headhunters providing a service layer for the client.
I heard back in two weeks from the headhunter that his client wanted to bring me in for an on-site interview. Unfortunately, I am out of town for a while working on a project for another few weeks. I had explained this situation to him and the client during the phone interview. One of the questions I had asked the interviewer was how quickly they plan to fill the position. His reply was that they would like to fill it quickly but will take their time to make sure they have the right person.
As an alternate solution, I offered a video conference but the headhunter rejected that idea. So, I guess I am just out-of-luck on that opportunity. It actually did sound interesting and I had intent to consider their offer.
Another practice that I do not fully understand is expectations to have an on-site interview the next day. I am not sure how they expecting those working to be able to do that. I would think that you want to find the best candidates, but it seems that is not the case.
Even if I was in town, I would not have scheduled time off. I may request for time off possibly the following week if my work was light and not critical. I believe that I should at least give 2 weeks of notice. Also, anything less than a week gives me the impression that they are in a rush to just fill a position. Then, it is not one that I want to leave my current employment for. From my experience, these types of hires rarely consider your future within the company. If the interviewer had answered that they planned to fill the position in two weeks, I would have politely declined earlier and saved us both time.
I had a phone interview and thought I did decently well. I was a little concerned because we did not get very technical. Since a headhunter had found this position, I had to wait for the interviewer to speak with the headhunter. I guess technically he would be consulting agency looking to hire me for their client... but they are still basically headhunters providing a service layer for the client.
I heard back in two weeks from the headhunter that his client wanted to bring me in for an on-site interview. Unfortunately, I am out of town for a while working on a project for another few weeks. I had explained this situation to him and the client during the phone interview. One of the questions I had asked the interviewer was how quickly they plan to fill the position. His reply was that they would like to fill it quickly but will take their time to make sure they have the right person.
As an alternate solution, I offered a video conference but the headhunter rejected that idea. So, I guess I am just out-of-luck on that opportunity. It actually did sound interesting and I had intent to consider their offer.
Another practice that I do not fully understand is expectations to have an on-site interview the next day. I am not sure how they expecting those working to be able to do that. I would think that you want to find the best candidates, but it seems that is not the case.
Even if I was in town, I would not have scheduled time off. I may request for time off possibly the following week if my work was light and not critical. I believe that I should at least give 2 weeks of notice. Also, anything less than a week gives me the impression that they are in a rush to just fill a position. Then, it is not one that I want to leave my current employment for. From my experience, these types of hires rarely consider your future within the company. If the interviewer had answered that they planned to fill the position in two weeks, I would have politely declined earlier and saved us both time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)