Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Part 3: The Raised Bar and the Sinking Quicksand

Despite the multiple hoops I have to jump through, I'm finding that the prize on the other side is sometimes snatched away. I feel sorry for Contracting companies right now because they're getting hit from both sides: the Scylla of desperate employees trying to squeeze top dollar from their contract, contract-to-hire, or direct-hire options; and the Charybdis of employers wanting fast movement through their own glacial slush.

To be specific, I have had three job opportunities that have taken the following steps:

1. Beg the contractor to find them someone--anyone. The water-cooler story was one place where the hiring manager said, "I'm so desperate I'm willing to stand out on the road with a cardboard sign, in a chicken suit, to draw people in the door!"


2. Hurry up and make this great guy wait. The company representing me says, "They loved your resume, and want to interview you right away--how soon are you available?" Then proceeds to be unable to get a straight answer as to when they'll interview you: is it this week? Next week? Either nobody at the company actually planned ahead, or multiple agencies are stoking my ego before the company's actually heard of me (possible)


3. Stop the Train! It's getting too close to the station! There's always something that stalls the last step. If the whole operation died at the beginning, that would be one thing--I'd immediately assume the problem was with me. But what's happening is that the company finds some fault with me, something about my skills or personality that's "not a good match" despite being happy with everything up to that point.

This is all well and good--as I told one apologetic interviewer, "I understand that these things take time and you want to think it over. I'd rather you know that I'm the right fit than have you place me somewhere I won't bring value to you." (Been there, done that, it's part of why I'm now looking, thankyouverymuch)

The problem is that these particular companies I mention are making things worse for themselves. What happens is that with each candidate they reject, they raise the bar: reasons for rejection go from "Not talented" to "Not friendly" to "Wrong Hat Size." While this is happening, the work piles up and the project deadlines slide farther towards infinity. The work environment becomes a morass of quicksand that guarantees failure because even if they do find Mister or Ms. Right, that person's going to drown in a muddy mess. They're going to be miserable and bail on an impossible workload, muttering under their breath the whole while about what a crazy place that was.

One frustrated contracting rep told me he vented on the company. "Look," he said, "If I send you seven people a week, you tell me there's something wrong with all of them, and a week later they've all got high-paying jobs in your area, then the problem isn't the people." I don't blame him: this particular position has been open since July 2007. It's now June 2008 and the position is still unfilled. The last I heard was that they were insistent that they needed someone yesterday and it's getting more urgent by the minute. The other two companies have been 6 months and 70+ candidates, respectively (see previous post).

As desperation grows, "We need someone to hit the ground running" is the catch-phrase. But in which direction will they run?

Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Part 2: The Buyer's Market

I was let go in March. The only employment statistic worse than March's unemployment rate...was April's unemployment rate. So that means I'm up against a lot of competition. I also have to be less mercenary than my competitors: I can't take a 6-month contract and pick up and go, moving anywhere in the country. I have a family to take care of, but neither would you see me sacrificing my time with them to fly somewhere every Monday and come back every Friday.

What this means is that the companies who are looking now have the luxury of picking and choosing. They can also take their time. For my part, I have to commit far more time and effort, and hit the largest number of opportunities to improve my odds. Where a typical job hunt involves a phone pre-screen, a phone interview, and a quick in-person interview, now the decisions I've tried to sway have required the following of me:

• Psychological profiles


• IQ Tests


• Agreement to be investigated for criminal, credit, and personal history


• Online skill assessments


• Preliminary phone screens


• Technical phone screens


• In-person preliminary interviews (usually technical)


• In-person "get to know you and see if you fit with the team" interviews

More than one place has done all of the above. Most at least do a choice of IQ or Personality, then skill assessments, then the rest. It takes a lot of my time, and if you think about it, it takes a lot of their time, too. They have to read resumes, call clients or companies, assemble interview teams and schedule the appointments.

I was told that one place has been through 70 interviewees and still not filled the position. Imagine that for a moment. With three employees managing the process, a conservative estimate will come up with the following numbers:

• Psych/IQ - 1/2 hour (1 employee schedules, evaluates scores, and handles e-mails)


• Resume - 1 hour (2 employees spend a half an hour reading and discussing, and we'll assume they just read the one, and even be generous and lump skill tests in)


• Phone screen - 3 hours (2 employees X 1.5 hours)


• In-person Interview - 4.5 hours (3 employees X 1.5 hours)

Even skipping some steps, we have 9 hours per candidate, times 70 candidates = 630 hours to fill one position. I can't imagine spending 630 work-hours on anything that isn't directly related to a project.

What I haven't figured out is how anyone gets anything done in this model--after all, how many hours in a day do we have?

Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much, Part 1: The Opportunity Cost

Looking for a new job has been interesting, to say the least. When economic jitters hit a company, it's often surprising to see what bizarre steps they'll take to save money. No one has time for close analysis of financials in a business: that's the kind of thing you hear in Mutual Fund reports. Without taking a look at the waste, a company often makes guesses. They cut things that seem expensive. And in the effort to stop waste, that lack of forethought instead wastes more.

For the first time in a job search, I'm running across more than one position that is "cancelled". At some point along the way, the company just calls the whole thing off. "They cut the budget," I am told. "We had to cancel the position. Maybe we'll regroup in the fall."

The problem with this is seldom that the company spent too freely on a hiring binge. Usually the position was shopped out because there was a need for it. Something was getting held up, and now that something is not getting the attention it needs to get better (expect said something to possibly be amputated or outsourced by Q4 if things don't improve).

In tandem with my previous post about wanting the moon for the price of a cup of coffee, I just came across a position that was resubmitted into the system after being canceled. Same company, same job title, but at lower pay. And with some expensive buzzwords tacked on, the kind that normally push this job's salary in the other direction. Thankfully, we didn't get far with me before it was cancelled. But I suspect that the protests that the hire "can't afford to be done" are simply incorrect:

It can afford to be done. When you take into account what it'll cost not to.

DWIM! ("Do What I Mean!")

I had an interview yesterday. It was described as a Senior level position that involves planning, analysis, architecting and design of a short-term project. This was the "personal interview", that initial sit-down that some companies will do just to see if you're the kind of person they want to work with. I was told that the way this company operates is to make the second interview technical.

I was not surprised when the first thing we did was sit down with my resume and start asking technical questions about my skills. I was disappointed, but not surprised.

If you're in a technical field, you're probably used to reading descriptions that don't match the interview. You're probably also used to interviews that don't match the job. What they tell you about the company is whether they are:

• greedy
• just incompetent
• some combination of both

Greedy:

I regularly run across jobs that say they are "Senior Level", but the pay is Junior. I see "Junior Programmer" jobs that want the candidate to have years of experience and strong skills in things that can only be learned by reaching Seniority, such as modeling, business analysis, and formal documentation. Both of these indicate that your potential company does not wish to pay you. They want something for nothing, and they're probably wasting a lot of money cranking through employees who don't match. Don't become the next embittered disgruntled ex-employee of a place like this.

Incompetent:

I also see the Bad Match: skills specifically poor to the position, or in contradiction with each other. "Web Designer" should not say, "Must have strong skills in SQL, Stored Procedures, database." "Senior C# Programmer" should not say, "Must know HTML." And last, when you see "Java Programmer wanted: must know MS SQL Server, PHP, Microsoft", you should assume Incompetency A: they don't really understand what they need the job to do, or Incompetency B: they've compiled random spaghetti-code apps from multiple platforms over the years, and they want you to manage the mess.

Both:

The bottom line is that the companies I am encountering in my region want a Formula One driver for Cabbie pay, and they're going to put him in a beaten-up Buick without a pit crew. First place is the expected result. There will be no room for Second. The last guy came in Second. That's why we're hiring you.

By the way, that Senior level position that involves planning, analysis, architecting and design of a short-term project? It was listed as "C# Programmer"

Lollipops and Rainbows

When you interview with a company, anyone you talk to will tell you that the place is a wonderful place to work. This makes sense: the people you're talking to work there because they believe that their company is a wonderful place to work. Otherwise, they wouldn't be coming in day after day.

Or they're lying because they're desperate to get you in the door.

At the interview for my last job, my boss said, "We're a small company, so we're like a family. Everybody who works here, has been here for years. They love it here. No one...ever leaves because they want to." There are enough landmines in that statement to tell you otherwise, but my problem in believing it was my confidence in myself. I thought, "I can already tell that at best that statement is partially true, but I'm going to change their minds when they see what a great worker I am."

It was quite a surprise on my very first day to be kept two hours late in the boss's office while he spun me a tale of woe: the development team used to be 3 people, but two of them quit. As did the head of sales. I got a long story about how awful they were as employees, how misguided of them it was to leave, and by the way, we're suing them as well. Followed by more stories about exactly how bad some of the other people who worked there had been.

It was even more surprising to find out that the one other developer left on the staff had only started a few weeks before me. As did one of the two network techs. Leaving only 2 of 6 employees as anything resembling "long-term". Digging around the network revealed quite a number of names of people who weren't working at this place any more.

When I get into an interview, I have a trick for finding out if it's a good place to work. I wait until the end of the interview and get into a short "chit-chat" conversation with whomever is interviewing me. If there's a programmer in this mix, that's ideal. I'll give you this example from my interview yesterday:

Employee: Well, that's it then. You're free to go. *laughs*
Me: (smiling) Great! I'm going to get back out there and enjoy this beautiful day!
Employee: That sounds great. I wish I could do the same.
Me: You will! (checking watch) It's already 4 o'clock, and it's a Friday. You've only got one hour left, haven't you?
Employee: (bitter laugh) Ha! That would be nice. But that never happens.
Me: Well, I'm sorry to hear that. But just the same, I hope you have a good weekend.

If a place is really awful, they'll answer that last line with "I'd like to, but I'll probably be spending it here." No company will ever tell you outright that something sucks about their work environment. Ask them directly because they expect you to, but whatever they say, either read between the lines or toss it out after you get a chance to chat outside of the interview.

Tactics like this save you a lot of trouble: it's easier to find out if a place sucks with a little light banter than it is to hear how family-oriented a place is, and not know until the first time your child is sick that they don't want you leaving to take them to the doctor. Unless you take your laptop and promise you can check your e-mail. And will make up the hours when you come back in--working from home never counts. Most companies that I have had experience with consider this arrangement to be very generous, because it gives your family permission to need you, so long as you do your best to never stop working.

Try this trick when you interview, and you can easily arrange it to your circumstances. If it's a late-morning meeting, make a comment about going to lunch. If it's a lunchtime meeting, thank them for being willing to work through just to interview you. And any time in the afternoon, as you go, visibly count the hours to 5:00 and make a comment like I did above. Pay close attention to what they say, and respond to it sympathetically to see if they say more. A decent place might tell you that today they won't be going home on time, but this is unusual because of X. Or that they stayed late every night this week, but they're happy because they're going home early on Friday.

Even then, trust your instincts. Go with your gut. My biggest mistake at my last job was being willing to ignore the feeling and believe I could make the company better.

America: More Sides, More Stories, More Content

I'm sure there are more reasons behind my being let go. As much as I try to do my very best at every job (no, really--at times it's kind of creepy, the degree to which I apply my work ethic to myself), I would be a fool to think things are ever simple.

The problem is, you can't go down that path because it leads you to wonder what the thing is that caused you to be terminated. I was looked right in the eye and told, "You're a wonderful person, and you know we mean that because you know we've had some really terrible people before...and I'm sure we will have them again. But we have to let you go." In other words, let a good person go and start fishing around for bad ones? Knowingly telling someone that you love them and want to get rid of them means:

a) They're lying, and they really think you're a terrible person. But they also think you'll shoot up the place. "What would get you to walk out that door? That's what I'm going to tell you."
b) They're lying, but they can't tell you what pushed you out (for example, the boss's cousin needs a job and yours will do just fine). Sometimes it'll pain them because they really do want to keep you, but it's out of their hands.
c) They thought you were a good person, but then something about you set off an alarm.


You have to watch that last one, because it will always grow behind your back, and you won't know until it hits you. It may hit you so hard you never got the license plate of the Thing That Ran You Down.

A good rule of thumb is to avoid talk that is not work-related. If I have to talk about myself or my thoughts or opinions outside of tech, I try to make it as neutral as if you'd read it on the news. Or parrot a similar thing, from a completely different context:

"Of course, other countries have done X with that idea instead of Y ...",
then nod in acknowledgement at the response and offer little to no opinion.

We can all stand to improve ourselves, but you can't stop to look back and find the unknowable because the wondering will drive you mad. It will lead you down wrong trails and cause you to second-guess yourself, and that can be fatal at your next interview.

You will always be yourself: just continue to try to be better at it, and that's all that matters.

They Like Me! They Really Like Me!

Well, here we go again. Once more, I am told that I am a joy to work with, and do such a good job. Such a good job, that I have to go. Go on, you're "let go", like I've been paroled from prison.

In this case, we have a project where the original developer was burned out and quit in frustration, but not before writing a ridiculously low estimate. The shop goes entirely off the direct-bill, hourly model: you're only okay so long as at least 37 hours of your 40 can be charged to someone else. When Project Lowball runs out of hours, you're hosed. Carry forward the sins of the last person, and dump them on the next.

This also happened to a friend of mine: he went to a shop of 100% billability. They told him they'd give him his first billable project next week, but first they needed him to help them configure some in-house stuff. He believed them until he saw his first 2-week paycheck. They paid him for the Thursday and Friday of week two where he'd started working on a project, but the week and a half they had him working on their architecture, he didn't get paid for. When he quit, his supervisor actually blew up on him, yelling about what a "traitor" he was and telling him the company would sue.

That's the big thing--my (now former) company tells its ex-employees they'll be sued, too. As does another company I know of. All of them see people as "a drop in the bucket. If we don't fill it up fast enough, dump it out and go back to the ocean for more." And they know that as a business, they have to pay for lawyers, while the average person doesn't. I had strange voice-mails and e-mails contradicting the "you don't have to go home, but you can't work here" conversation I'd had. These are documented things, and they're designed for lawyers to use against you when they draft the threatening letter reminding you what a bad person you are.

Strangest of all was being told I'm fired because they can't afford to pay me when I'm not billable...then wanting to know if I was planning on working for two more weeks on the project.

It's good for morale if you tell your employees that the guy that left is going to be sued: it instantly turns a good person into a bad one. Damn, he must have been stealing, doing coke, and having sex in the conference room if my boss says they're going to court. People will easily believe bad things about others because that's what they're used to: it confirms the general cynicism that comes from being an adult.

About that bucket: are those drops water? Or blood? Time will tell...