Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm skeptical of any list, but I thought it was timely.
Here is another article to keep in mind every time somebody shares on the here that they are well qualified yet don't get a job offer after interviewing for a job they are perfect for. I'm not suggesting they made any of these errors listed in the article - just highlighting the point that we see a sliver of the big picture here on the forum and can't possible make the distinction whether it is the individual or the economy that resulted in the outcome. Too many factors...
I'm skeptical of any list, but I thought it was timely.
Here is another article to keep in mind every time somebody shares on the here that they are well qualified yet don't get a job offer after interviewing for a job they are perfect for. I'm not suggesting they made any of these errors listed in the article - just highlighting the point that we see a sliver of the big picture here on the forum and can't possible make the distinction whether it is the individual or the economy that resulted in the outcome. Too many factors...
NRG this is a great list for those who actually get interviews. My favorites are bad mouthing your current or former employer and being rude to the receptionist.
One place I worked, the receptionist was married to the boss. He interviewed but she gave the thumbs up or down.
I was once offered a job at the start of an interview. They'd been watching me chat with the other folks in the reception area and were looking for someone who could strike up a friendship in a prison waiting room.
One strategy that has worked for folks is to have business cards printed up with your photo, contact information and type of position you are seeking. On the back, do a bulleted list of your key resume points.
Attach this to every resume you hand in (not possible with online applications, of course, but try to always do it in person if you can). Give it to people you meet at networking events, or wherever you are where you've discussed that you are looking for work.
70% of employed people say they got their job through a personal contact. Even when people don't know you, if you look like you might be a good employee, they will pass along your card if they end up talking to someone who might need someone like you.
Not sure how this works for high end jobs, but for entry level jobs, it's dynamite.
You can order 250 for a minimal cost and it would be rare for someone to not have a job by the time they are at the bottom of the box.
I was once offered a job at the start of an interview. They'd been watching me chat with the other folks in the reception area and were looking for someone who could strike up a friendship in a prison waiting room.
Guess that's an industry thing. The times I've been in charge of hiring (technical folks), I look for someone that's going to be heads down, doing their job, rather than by the coffee maker gossiping all day. I'm guessing you were interviewing for a sales or PR related job?
I'm skeptical of any list, but I thought it was timely.
Here is another article to keep in mind every time somebody shares on the here that they are well qualified yet don't get a job offer after interviewing for a job they are perfect for. I'm not suggesting they made any of these errors listed in the article - just highlighting the point that we see a sliver of the big picture here on the forum and can't possible make the distinction whether it is the individual or the economy that resulted in the outcome. Too many factors...
Except it seems to list reasons that contradict each other "you were underqualified or overqualified" "You talked too much or too little" "You lacked skills or were TOO perfect", etc.
Certainly advice such as being on time and friendly to everyone you meet is sound, but I hope everyone knows that.
They should maybe add "you had to go to the bathroom in the middle of a 2.5-hour 'speed-dating' interview with 5 people one after the other for 30 minutes and no breaks in between"? That's not an experience I want to relive
Guess that's an industry thing. The times I've been in charge of hiring (technical folks), I look for someone that's going to be heads down, doing their job, rather than by the coffee maker gossiping all day. I'm guessing you were interviewing for a sales or PR related job?
Sort of.
A friend is a trainer on the West Coast. Her mission is to get tech folks and scientific types to work together in teams and to be more effective team leaders and supervisors.
She say's it is like pulling teeth. The engineers want to do their team training at their own computers. Even once their supervisors insist that all be in the same room, they want to huddle over their cell phones. Supervisors don't want to have anything to do with the folks they supervise. And so on
Even though they understand that they can accomplish more as a team and have data and evidence to support that, they are just so uncomfortable with it.
Her son works for a company that designs medical devices. They go to extraordinary lengths to develop teamwork. Once the product is ready for the market, they sell the company, not just the product, and then reorganize for their next project.
Regularly, several of his coworkers are not invited back on the next project. Not because they are not good at what they do, but because they are not good at working in teams. They just want to put their heads down, as you say, and focus on their own thing and it slows everyone down.
It seems so foreign to me. But each to their own I guess.
A friend is a trainer on the West Coast. Her mission is to get tech folks and scientific types to work together in teams and to be more effective team leaders and supervisors.
She say's it is like pulling teeth. The engineers want to do their team training at their own computers. Even once their supervisors insist that all be in the same room, they want to huddle over their cell phones. Supervisors don't want to have anything to do with the folks they supervise. And so on
Even though they understand that they can accomplish more as a team and have data and evidence to support that, they are just so uncomfortable with it.
Her son works for a company that designs medical devices. They go to extraordinary lengths to develop teamwork. Once the product is ready for the market, they sell the company, not just the product, and then reorganize for their next project.
Regularly, several of his coworkers are not invited back on the next project. Not because they are not good at what they do, but because they are not good at working in teams. They just want to put their heads down, as you say, and focus on their own thing and it slows everyone down.
It seems so foreign to me. But each to their own I guess.
I can't speak for all types of engineering, only software engineering, but the supervisor/team/engineer dynamic you've mentioned is all too familiar to me. I've been on both sides of it.
There are a few challenges. One, is that the only manager qualified to "lead" a team of software engineers is the guy with greater skill than his most skilled engineer. Most of the supervisors that I see that are that are having "team problems" failed as an engineer or were never an engineer in the first place. They got the job of leadership because someone thought they seemed confident, and had a great voice and haircut, or maybe they succeeding in leading some other effort, and someone made the mistake of thinking a leader is a leader and the same management style will be successful in software, miscalculating the differences and the reality.
They fail to realize that a software engineer does his best teamwork at the computer. Through emails, IMs, forums and similar, he is likely collaborating with coworkers and maybe even folks all over the world are helping him make the product better. A software engineer cannot be productive if he is talking or if lots of others are talking in his nearby vicinity. It's a job that requires too much focus for that. He'll never get anything done if pulled into conference rooms often.
I got my undergrad and my first masters at traditional universities. My second masters was obtained through an online program at a traditional university. The teamwork in the online degree was tremendously better than any teamwork I saw during the "face time" education, yet I never met my classmates face to face. I think part of the reason is that face time requires everyone to be in the room at the same time, whether they want to or not and whether its the most productive time of day for them or not. Some folks are morning people, some folks are night people. Getting a thread going in mail or discussion group that encourages collaboration without forcing people to schedule a conference room just to show their face typically goes a lot farther in actual effective teamwork than these pep rally sessions that HR types come up with.
However, I've been on the other side of that too (supervising engineers), and I find that motivating software engineers is an impossible task. You have to find ones that are already self-motivated, and find ways of putting them on tasks that they find challenging and exciting. The teamwork and everything else that makes a company effective just falls into place when that happens. Forcing them to spend time in a conference room doing team exercises will be perceived as an unproductive waste of time, demotivate them, and essentially defeat the purpose of the exercise.
As far as cross-department teamwork.... non-technical people should not be interfacing directly with the engineers. Business analysts and subject matter experts should be in the meetings gathering the requirements and writing them up and serving as liason to both sides. Sadly, some companies see this as an unnecessary expense, try to forego the positions, and in most cases the result is chaotic ineffective teamwork attempts.
Once again, may not be applicable to all forms of engineering, it just sounds like one of those strategic objectives that was designed by someone who doesn't even understand an engineers mind.
Hey guys, something you were talking about caught my eye - I have also noticed when looking at Triangle area jobs - often multiple job posts are the same job (different recruiters). This makes the job market, at least on online job boards, appear to be bigger than it actually is. I've also noticed many more 3, 6, and 12 months contracts rather than full time jobs. Not a particularly good sign.
A friend is a trainer on the West Coast. Her mission is to get tech folks and scientific types to work together in teams and to be more effective team leaders and supervisors.
She say's it is like pulling teeth. The engineers want to do their team training at their own computers. Even once their supervisors insist that all be in the same room, they want to huddle over their cell phones. Supervisors don't want to have anything to do with the folks they supervise. And so on
Even though they understand that they can accomplish more as a team and have data and evidence to support that, they are just so uncomfortable with it.
Her son works for a company that designs medical devices. They go to extraordinary lengths to develop teamwork. Once the product is ready for the market, they sell the company, not just the product, and then reorganize for their next project.
Regularly, several of his coworkers are not invited back on the next project. Not because they are not good at what they do, but because they are not good at working in teams. They just want to put their heads down, as you say, and focus on their own thing and it slows everyone down.
It seems so foreign to me. But each to their own I guess.
Glazersight's post #118 is spot-on. I'm hardware and not software, but I do some small amount of firmware, and I work with software folks.
"...accomplish more as a team..." Accomplish what? Many folks are not good at teamwork, granted. But (and this is the aggravating thing that teamwork proponents seem to miss, time and time again), not all tasks are amenable to teamwork, or are amenable to the TYPES of teaming that seem to be pushed. Mechanical, electrical, and software engineers may be working in close teamwork...sitting in different cubes, manipulating common drawings or databases, and collaborating with tons of people through phone, email, user fora, etc. This teaming is invisible to the manager that does not wish to see it...
I have always loved the quote about nine women not being able to have a baby in one month. That was in response to a specific project management fallacy of adding people to a project to attempt to shorten the schedule. It can apply in another way, though: at the end of the day, only one person can do a certain task (the actual birthing). Teaming can provide SUPPORT (midwife, doctor, whatever), but there is a distinct difference. For tasks like this, the engineer HAS to "...focus on their own thing..." in order to do it.
Take-away: sure, some engineers work poorly in teams. But on the flip side, imposing teamwork where it is does not make sense causes poor results also.
Hey guys, something you were talking about caught my eye - I have also noticed when looking at Triangle area jobs - often multiple job posts are the same job (different recruiters). This makes the job market, at least on online job boards, appear to be bigger than it actually is. I've also noticed many more 3, 6, and 12 months contracts rather than full time jobs. Not a particularly good sign.
Yes, I've mentioned that here and it's certainly true. This is why I'm very skeptical of any "best of" list that claims to compare number of openings vs. number of qualified candidates, etc. Their data collection methods are pretty terrible. Lots of ads only indicates one thing: a high recruiter to actual opening ratio.
The headhunter agencies around here have gotten into this trend of hiring recent college graduates to do the recruiting, no experience required, they just train them to do it using the process the agency has adopted. I guess its like an internship with them with promises of big commission, and I'm guessing for a marketing major or whatever it's better than having no job at all after graduation. There seems to be high turnover among them too, I'm constantly getting calls from the same agency, and it seems that except for a few exceptions, its rarely the same 22-year old twice.
What I don't know is if the high ratio of recruiters to actual positions exists elsewhere in the country since I've lived in this area for a while, and the practice of recruiting has changed a lot during that time.
Sometimes the recruiters that call me aren't even local, they're cold calling out of DC or Denver or San Jose or somewhere else. Sometimes they don't even know the difference between Raleigh and Charlotte but they call to see if there's interest anyway.
It's not uncommon at all for me to see the same job re-posted with minimum to no rewording by 6 or 7 different agencies, giving the illusion of half a dozen jobs for every one actual opening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"you were underqualified or overqualified" "You talked too much or too little" "You lacked skills or were TOO perfect", etc. 
