Say a word about poor junior
This article is perhaps a reaction to the post about the principles of working with novice developers that is too close to the heart. I also tried to express a general opinion about the adequacy of some methods of recruitment. I must say that this is my personal opinion and I have no special experience in hiring newbies.
Probably one of the strangest articles in the series “100 best questions when applying for a job” is the assumption that applicants will answer honestly to their questions. Yes, the applicant first read this article and will know how to answer is not worth it! And even if not, then I am sure all applicants have their own ideas about what answers they expect from them. And, as far as possible, try to match them.
Why it happens? It's simple, the one who listens to applicants (meaning not HR, but a representative of the company) has already got a job at this company and considers those answers that he is ready to give himself suitable. Therefore, it is difficult for him to understand how different qualities a successful employee may possess. As well as it is difficult to understand why to dissemble at the interview - his honest answers came up in due time. It is also extremely difficult for them to imagine that the applicant can understand that his sincere answers will differ from those expected, and still consider that they are suitable for this job. Especially if it is an inexperienced student who does not have to choose something - he is not welcome anywhere. So we have to forget about honesty, and just give the expected answers, and then we hope that their real qualities will not fail.
In general, I admit that the reception of an employee can be a fierce contest with interrogations and screening out anyone who, even for a second, made him doubt his trustworthiness. Such an approach will screen out a lot of potentially good employees, but will not allow unreliable people to join your team. With a large number of applicants for the position, you can make such sacrifices, especially since these will mostly be victims from the side of the company.
')
But I would also like to see articles that would tell about approaches that are not so categorical, especially since they are often based on principles that differ little from shamanic dances with a tambourine (read superstitions). Yes, and in the IT field is not that a very big competition.
When you read on Habré that the junior should not ask a few questions, but also should not ask a lot of questions, you want to howl: “Did you happen to come to the university astrology?”. If you graduated from a technical college, then how can you not be confused by the subjective terms “a lot”, “a little” in an article that claims to be technical? This is what distinguishes scientific articles from pseudoscientific: scientific ones try to give unambiguous criteria, and pseudoscientific - suitable for all who hear them.
Or this advice: “Give the junior an indefinite assignment and see if he will guess to make it quickly” (the quotation is not exact, but the meaning has been conveyed). Quick for what? For “to make qualitatively before the end of the entire project” or “to have time to show the prototype to the impatient customer”? How can you not give criteria for assessing the speed of its offer at least something to measure? Do not you think that a specialist is someone who can find the optimal solution for specific needs? But these needs should be voiced, or give him at least the tools for their self-assessment — contacts of interested persons, examples of deadlines for completing tasks — at least something.
“As I am for university #” signals for the author about his inability to manage his time. Or maybe a student wondered about the fact that he was tired of praying before a teacher for absenteeism of classes, topics that he already knew or, on the contrary, he didn’t understand thoroughly and therefore skipped them to spend time on more effective self-study? Of course, a programmer needs knowledge of mathematics, although it is rarely required in some areas, which is why many people underestimate their need. But often, universities do not cope with the presentation of such material, and sometimes they still need to spend time on poorly organized lectures and seminars.
Ideology for the author is also a bad sign. At the same time, the author does not deny that he himself chose the technologies more convenient to him, only spent more time on this. Again, the same criteria - more, less. Where are the objective criteria for the fact that the programmer is “ideological”, and did not understand the technologies and chose a more suitable one? Deadline? Which one Wide outlook? How much? As a result, the author has only marked the poles, and we have to guess about their borders just as the author suggests newcomers to guess about unnamed dates.
Another author is confused by sudden coursework, part-time work and other distractions from the necessary work maneuvers. And this is for the author a sign of irresponsibility. So, responsibility is the ability to answer for mistakes. Own, and often not very. This is when, because of his absence from work because of some confusion, an employee will spend the next few days until late, and will buy cookies for all his colleagues who have suffered because of him. And the absence of suddenness is luck or the ability to successfully predict the future.
I am not an expert, but it is obvious to me that the reception of novice developers is accompanied by big risks and expenses for their training. Spending will consist in projects not executed in time and distraction of experts on questions and explanations. So, the best, in my opinion, where to start working with a novice developer is to define the limits of investments that the company is ready to spend on the newcomer, and try to formalize the relationship with the newcomer in such a way that not only the company but also the these boundaries.
At the interview, you should try to convey information about these boundaries to the applicant and talk about the risks that you see in his attitude to work and his experience (for example, the problem of looping on one technology or the problem of ignorance of mathematics and basic analysis of algorithms). And so that both parties are really interested in the search for truth, it’s worth giving a chance not only to those you are sure of, but also to those who are sure of themselves - then there will be no interest in deception.
Here's how to achieve this, with examples of the development of evaluation criteria, and it would be interesting to find out in such an article.
On the general problem of such articles
Probably one of the strangest articles in the series “100 best questions when applying for a job” is the assumption that applicants will answer honestly to their questions. Yes, the applicant first read this article and will know how to answer is not worth it! And even if not, then I am sure all applicants have their own ideas about what answers they expect from them. And, as far as possible, try to match them.
Why it happens? It's simple, the one who listens to applicants (meaning not HR, but a representative of the company) has already got a job at this company and considers those answers that he is ready to give himself suitable. Therefore, it is difficult for him to understand how different qualities a successful employee may possess. As well as it is difficult to understand why to dissemble at the interview - his honest answers came up in due time. It is also extremely difficult for them to imagine that the applicant can understand that his sincere answers will differ from those expected, and still consider that they are suitable for this job. Especially if it is an inexperienced student who does not have to choose something - he is not welcome anywhere. So we have to forget about honesty, and just give the expected answers, and then we hope that their real qualities will not fail.
In general, I admit that the reception of an employee can be a fierce contest with interrogations and screening out anyone who, even for a second, made him doubt his trustworthiness. Such an approach will screen out a lot of potentially good employees, but will not allow unreliable people to join your team. With a large number of applicants for the position, you can make such sacrifices, especially since these will mostly be victims from the side of the company.
')
But I would also like to see articles that would tell about approaches that are not so categorical, especially since they are often based on principles that differ little from shamanic dances with a tambourine (read superstitions). Yes, and in the IT field is not that a very big competition.
About the article itself
When you read on Habré that the junior should not ask a few questions, but also should not ask a lot of questions, you want to howl: “Did you happen to come to the university astrology?”. If you graduated from a technical college, then how can you not be confused by the subjective terms “a lot”, “a little” in an article that claims to be technical? This is what distinguishes scientific articles from pseudoscientific: scientific ones try to give unambiguous criteria, and pseudoscientific - suitable for all who hear them.
Or this advice: “Give the junior an indefinite assignment and see if he will guess to make it quickly” (the quotation is not exact, but the meaning has been conveyed). Quick for what? For “to make qualitatively before the end of the entire project” or “to have time to show the prototype to the impatient customer”? How can you not give criteria for assessing the speed of its offer at least something to measure? Do not you think that a specialist is someone who can find the optimal solution for specific needs? But these needs should be voiced, or give him at least the tools for their self-assessment — contacts of interested persons, examples of deadlines for completing tasks — at least something.
“As I am for university #” signals for the author about his inability to manage his time. Or maybe a student wondered about the fact that he was tired of praying before a teacher for absenteeism of classes, topics that he already knew or, on the contrary, he didn’t understand thoroughly and therefore skipped them to spend time on more effective self-study? Of course, a programmer needs knowledge of mathematics, although it is rarely required in some areas, which is why many people underestimate their need. But often, universities do not cope with the presentation of such material, and sometimes they still need to spend time on poorly organized lectures and seminars.
Ideology for the author is also a bad sign. At the same time, the author does not deny that he himself chose the technologies more convenient to him, only spent more time on this. Again, the same criteria - more, less. Where are the objective criteria for the fact that the programmer is “ideological”, and did not understand the technologies and chose a more suitable one? Deadline? Which one Wide outlook? How much? As a result, the author has only marked the poles, and we have to guess about their borders just as the author suggests newcomers to guess about unnamed dates.
Another author is confused by sudden coursework, part-time work and other distractions from the necessary work maneuvers. And this is for the author a sign of irresponsibility. So, responsibility is the ability to answer for mistakes. Own, and often not very. This is when, because of his absence from work because of some confusion, an employee will spend the next few days until late, and will buy cookies for all his colleagues who have suffered because of him. And the absence of suddenness is luck or the ability to successfully predict the future.
My opinion
I am not an expert, but it is obvious to me that the reception of novice developers is accompanied by big risks and expenses for their training. Spending will consist in projects not executed in time and distraction of experts on questions and explanations. So, the best, in my opinion, where to start working with a novice developer is to define the limits of investments that the company is ready to spend on the newcomer, and try to formalize the relationship with the newcomer in such a way that not only the company but also the these boundaries.
At the interview, you should try to convey information about these boundaries to the applicant and talk about the risks that you see in his attitude to work and his experience (for example, the problem of looping on one technology or the problem of ignorance of mathematics and basic analysis of algorithms). And so that both parties are really interested in the search for truth, it’s worth giving a chance not only to those you are sure of, but also to those who are sure of themselves - then there will be no interest in deception.
Here's how to achieve this, with examples of the development of evaluation criteria, and it would be interesting to find out in such an article.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/222969/
All Articles