An "Attractive" Salary

TheHackerCIO received a comment on Why Hackers Hate Headhunters, complaining about the "pointlessness" not to mention the "meaninglessness" of a Job Requirement Posting that calls the salary "Attractive." James Attard notes that it's totally subjective.

And what the company wants, or "requires" from prospective employees is far from subjective. They want someone, for example, with experience in using Hadoop for it's entire existence, since 2005, plus  4 years.

And they wonder why people lie!

But, suddenly, when it comes to offering a salary or compensation, they aren't so forthcoming! Now they pull out weasel-words and evade giving a straightforward answer.

Actually, the Headhunters don't get this hit for this one. It's the Pathological Corporations, which is the subject of another days blog.

I'm a big believer in mutuality, reciprocity, and contract. So, if the employer is requesting or requiring or desiring something of applicants, he should be offering something in return. To default on this principle is to undercut the whole basis of trust. It's actually a kind of theft. It amounts to saying, "I want all of this, and I'm willing to tell you in hideous detail what I want, but I'm not willing to tell you what I will give in exchange for this."

And it leaves the applicant in a difficult case. If a salary range is offered, he would be able to judge and measure how important this role is, both within the organization and in relation to other organizations. He is able to determine how scarce these particular skills are, which may affect his own Technology Radar. And, he can start to build a relationship of trust with this prospective employer: which is based upon exchanging value for value.

Another weasel-word used in this place is "market." How meaningless is that? Of course it will be a market rate. By definition, whoever takes this position will be setting the market price. Can you imagine a Bid-Offer spread at a stock exchange with an offer price of "Market?" How could anyone make a bid, without knowing the offer?

Thanks to my UK readers for this one, whom I hope help me out by promoting TheHackerCIO to other UK readers who might appreciate the content.

I Remain Faithfully,

TheHackerCIO

Never Hire The Greatest Scientist The World Has Ever Known

Once again, The HackerCIO is ticked. He's reading Beth Comstock's article:

How I Hire: There Is No Lone Genius

Since there is no Lone Genius, there must have been no Newton. And, obviously, no one should ever hire anyone like Newton. It isn't that everything Beth suggests is wrong. But consider how Newton contradicts this popular, conventional Whiz-Dumb. By her standards, one of the greatest, most innovative minds of all time should have been avoided by employers!

I don't know if Newton -- or for that matter, the very notion of the Lone Genius -- is romantic. Maybe the hacker soul isn't compatible with grokking that idea, but I know for certain that Newton was a complete and total lone genius. Experience and research about Newton indicate that his lasting success -- namely, in laying the foundations of modern physics -- resulted not a whit from any collaboration or teamwork. Newton never had any collaborator or competitor who drove him anywhere -- other than, perhaps, crazy. In fact, his competitions with Robert Hook had nothing but a negative effect on him and resulted in a reluctance to publish which only hampered the development of Science. He almost didn't publish his creation of the Calculus because of his competitive experiences.

Plenty of innovation resulted from this loner: The Calculus. The Physical Science of Mechanics. The Physics of Light.  Seems like he'd be pretty useful in a startup. Seems like a man with a biography called "Never At Rest," might have had a decent work ethic. 

Now consider the 4 traits proposed by Beth for hiring, but against the backdrop of Newton:

1) The fish out of water. Newton, the Loner, was the ultimate fish out of water. 

2) Someone who can FIO (Figure It Out).  Again, this non-team-player was the ultimate in FIO, fortitude and creativity. This is an employee who couldn't figure out the Mechanics of The Celestial Universe, so he invented Calculus as a tool. That sounds like the paradigm case of FIO!

BTW, I would never hire anyone who worked for the Peace Corps.

3) Candidates with design training. Newton learned tool-making and doll-house miniature building, as a child. Seems to me like design training. Again, these aren't team sports.

4) The well-balanced player. I doubt if Newton would be characterized as well-balanced, but he certainly balanced his equations! He mastered Calculus balancing it with Physics, as well as Alchemy/Chemistry and Religion. And on the business side he superlatively managed and led the Mint in the project of the complete recoinage of England. Pretty good business administration for a lone genius who never had a friend.

TheHackerCIO hates it when people denigrate the lone genius. Genius of any variety must be celebrated. Hired. Encouraged.  If only we could find plenty of these loners/geniuses. I'd hire every damn one! And he hates it when people worship the false god of teamwork. I hate prejudice against single player sports, too. Tennis is one-on-one competition. That doesn't teach life lessons?  What about the lessons of Golf, where you can play against EVERYONE, including yourself! Now there's a model for corporate emulation!!!

Why is it that while everyone loves innovation, they hate the lone innovator?

I Remain, With Edge Honed,

TheHackerCIO