John, I completely understand where you're coming from and don't disagree. However, this position is designed to bring somebody in, get them some certifications, get them security clearance, and then bill them out to clients (usually takes about a year). After that year period, when they move on to billable work, we think bring in another jr. person, and the cycle repeats itself.
The people who come in through this position generally have very exciting careers while with our company because they are in a position where their positions change based upon their experience. Perhaps in year 2 they're working in a secure environment certifying machines fulfill the security requirements. Year 3, they are deploying ArcSight environments. Year 4, something else. The position grows with them. For those reasons, it is more important to me to find somebody who is hungry and motivated to advance in their career (which is why I would shy away from a person who is seeking a jr. level position 10 years into their IT career). I appear to have struck a chord with some and I apologize for that. I realize the people who are on this list that would fall into this category likely have a very good reason since they are passionate enough about their careers to get involved with IT outside the workplace. However, for every 1 person like yourself, there are a number of others who don't have the same background that you do. -Evan On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <[email protected]>wrote: > > From: [email protected] [mailto:discuss- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Evan Pettrey > > > > Most of the resumes I've been receiving have been coming from people with > > 10+ years experience who are still in jr. roles. > > > > I'm not looking for an incredibly deep skillset, just somebody who is > > motivated to do more with their careers. I'd rather have a candidate who > is > > fresh and hungry than a seasoned vet who is still looking for a junior > position. > > I'll tell you what I think about that: > > I am a person with 10+ years experience, who is considering a job change, > due to recent acquisition of what was formerly a really cool startup where > I > work. For now I'm still in the Sr. position, so I'm not going to > voluntarily jump to a Jr. position, but my position was eliminated and I > haven't been laid off yet, so I'm actively looking around, anticipating > that > I might be forced to make that jump. As I look around, I find... Due to > the state of the economy, there are lots of jobs out there, but they're all > looking for Jr. people. This means I'll have no choice but to apply for > positions where I'm overqualified, and just as you expressed, a lot of > businesses choose not to hire people because they are overqualified. "You > must have no ambition, because you're applying for this job." or "I know > you'll leave as soon as you can. I want to hire somebody who actually > *wants* this job." > > I think I'm clever. When I apply for a position where I'm overqualified, I > try not to make myself appear overqualified. I'll chop everything off my > resume that's over 4 years old, eliminate any management experience, > dumb-down my previous titles, and put a positive spin on the perceived > difference between my age and career. Show up totally subservient and > obedient, bowing to the infinite wisdom of my superior officers. "I > decided > to make a career change a few years ago. I was a software developer, > decided to go into IT." Or "I was in IT, decided to go into software > development." Both are kind-of true. Throw in some life-changing events, > such as getting married, buying a house, having a baby, and people are > willing to accept the fact that your career is younger than you are. "I > was > a party animal, and suddenly needed to grow up and change..." Be energetic > and positive, try to win them over. Because my wife and house and baby are > depending on me to sacrifice my dignity and get that Jr. level job. > > Next, I want to address the philosophy of "I want to hire somebody who > actually *wants* the job." Suppose you hire a 3-yr Jr person. Well, 4 yrs > from now, they won't be a 3-yr Jr anymore. Suppose you hire somebody who's > overqualified and who's going to leave as soon as they find a better > opportunity. Guess what, that's no different from hiring an ambitious Jr > person. How long will the overqualified person stay? A year? Three > years? > How long will the Jr person stay? Four years? More likely two... I think > we're comparing 1-3 yrs of the overqualified person, versus 2-4 yrs of the > Jr person. Guess what, a year or three from now, you'll have a highly > qualified Sr. person willing and able to help you find and hire the Jr. > replacement you need, while he/she goes on to a better paying Sr. position > somewhere else. Or you get another year from the Jr. person, who then > leaves on 2-week notice. > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
