While companies focused on performance have always been selective about the quality of the people they hire, more companies are becoming creative about exactly what they are looking for. The unemployment rate means there is a lot of talent waiting, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the talent available identically matches open jobs and corporate culture. Rather than searching only for “identical-to-the-job-description” skills, more companies are expanding their views and focusing instead on transferable skills). This approach can yield candidates who bring core skills, solid aptitudes and fresh perspectives—and that’s a combination that can drive performance and provide a unique competitive advantage.
While the market is hot in CDMA, it’s looking for skilled engineers in other applications as well.
Those whose resumes are clear, concise, and list current technologies, longetivity at past positions and can show excellent cost saving results are sure to get an interview. Salaries have dropped a bit, as there’s now more competition but there are also great jobs available. Most companies are looking to hire before the fall season and will now have budget approval, so get out there and make it happen!
-Dayna Romanick
Sr. Recruiting Manager
Silicon Elite
“Those whose resumes are clear, concise, and list current technologies, [longevity] at past positions and can show excellent cost saving results are sure to get an interview.”
Don’t you think companies (and the economy) would be doing a lot better if that sentence read, “Those who would be best for the company are sure to get an interview”?
We, the best of the waiting talent, are not sure to get an interview. In fact, interviews are few and far between. So called “technical” recruiters tend to be technically incompetent. Most of them could tell the difference between an outstanding candidate and an inadequate candidate even if the outstanding one bit him in the ass! Just look at the resumes of the recruiters themselves (e.g. their LinkedIn profiles) and you’ll see the problem. In many cases, their past experience is poor preparation for their current role. In almost all cases, their technical education is nonexistent.
Next comes the hiring manager. This is usually a person who is very busy throughout the year, doing the things that he is good at. When it comes time to recruit, he puts on a different hat, one he might be less comfortable wearing than his usual hat. The first thing he usually does is to write the job description and pass that to the recruiter, who doesn’t really understand it. If the job description is not well though out and the recruiter doesn’t understand technology, then the hiring manager has put into place a process that could very easily eliminate the best candidate before his resume even reaches the manager.
For example, the job “requires” x number of years of paid SystemVerilog “experience”. The best candidate found another way to learn SystemVerilog. Furthermore, this candidate won Think Verification’s 2nd anniversary Article Contest (http://www.thinkverification.com/articles/1-main/47-article-contest-2009-.html) with an article that includes a discussion of HVLs. You’re going to let your “technical” recruiter eliminate him from consideration?
And why did you sent a job description to your recruiter as your first action? Don’t you already know someone who might be perfect for the job? What are your LinkedIn connections for? You at least try to keep in touch with them, don’t you?
When interviews do come, far too much emphasis is placed on the technical test part of the interview (e.g. blank whiteboard). Not every great design verification professional can do very well with this kind of testing. So he tries to rescue the interview by describing a similar problem that he solved for Cosmic Horizon (the only business in the world dedicated to SPARC microprocessor core verification). How could he have solved that problem is he is as bad as your test suggests he is? But you’ve stopped listening! He failed the test and you can’t get past that.
As for a record of longevity at past positions, we can’t falsify the past on our resumes, so advice to the job seeker on that point isn’t very helpful. That’s why these comments aren’t for the job seeker. They’re for the decision maker. He’s the one who needs help. Again, what the decision maker needs to remember is that he’s looking for the candidate who would be best for the company. It’s not about longevity at past positions. It’s about longevity at the next position! For clues, look at what the candidate is passionate about.
I’ll give you an example of a case where past longevity is a poor predictor of performance. My father is on his fourth marriage. What woman in her right mind would marry a man who has already been married three times? But if you look a little closer, you’ll see that he was still very young by the time his first two marriages ended in divorce. His third wife died of cancer. He’s much older now. And this fourth marriage has lasted more than ten years.
I’m sure to get an interview? My last boss wrote a great letter of recommendation for me. Along with supporting details, he basically wrote that you would be a fool not to hire me. I never asked him to write the letter. If you’re a fool not to ultimately hire me, what are you when fail to even invite me for an interview, particularly when the job is microprocessor core verification? So before you pat yourselves on the back for how selective you have always been about the quality of people you hire, ask yourselves how you could have let a candidate like me slip through your fingers for so long.
(Note that for brevity, “he” above refers to “he/she.)