Re: job screening question

[Mike Andrews <mikea () mikea ath cx>]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 09:36:47PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Steven Noble <snoble () sonn com> wrote:
> > I have talked to companies who have job openings many
> > months old for people who absolutely exist in the silicon
> > valley. The hiring company just thinks the people who
> > apply are over or under qualified.
>
> I thought someone was overqualified once. My decision was overridden.
> I turned out to be very glad it was. He didn't fit the role I thought
> I needed but I was able to turn him loose with minimal supervision.
> And I was able to go on vacation. :) That was so much more valuable.

I've seen people turned away for being "overqualified", when I would have
hired them in a heartbeat. The HR types seem unable to comprehend that
"overqualified" is not a bad thing, especially in the current economic
climate, and that it includes "qualified". Being able to bring someone in
and then take vacation time without having to worry about things going
casters-up is very valuable indeed.

> Now I know: tell the candidate about the work, all the work not just
> the job you thought you would hire for, and let him tell you whether
> any of it is beneath him. As long as you get all the skills you need
> on the team you can juggle the tasking.

Unless you have a policy that "Slot A only does Slot A work" stuffed up
some orifice. I've been there, and it is both stultifying and limiting. 

-- 
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mikea () mikea ath cx
Tired old sysadmin