High Tech Jobs, Longterm Jobs = Polar Opposites?
I have always understood that in my line of work (IT Systems Engineer) that moving from company to company, contracting, etc. was a way of life. It was almost an un-written code that after x amount of years it was time to start looking elsewhere. Almost like you made your contribution (hopefully for the better) and was time to move on.
This process concerned me in some ways just from the stability side, but was always exciting since you had new challenges. Working as an independent consultant for a while was awesome, unfortunately not as fun when you are planning a family.
I always wondered why this type of process seems to happen at a higher rate in high tech jobs than in other types of jobs. Is that just a perception I have?
With that said it seems once the layoffs come around all of the sudden the mind set changes and people no longer think in the same manner. No they want that long term availability. Maybe that is because when you have a job, you are more comfortable looking for that opportunity.
Although I always keep an eye on that "next job" because the other nature of this type of job is they companies tend to have a higher turn over due to profit or lack thereof. Maybe that is the cause of the mind set to move on after x number of years exists in the first place?
How is this in other sectors of the "high tech" jobs. Same? Different?
All I know is with the things the way they are I always try to have an out.
- Clintre's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I know very few techies who have worked at any given place for more than 5 or 6 years. I'm approaching 5 1/2 years at my current gig right now and it is by far the longest I've been anywhere. That is really just because of lack of good opportunities due to the nearly non-existent job market for software developers during that time.
Frankly, I think that traditionally the best way to advance a technical career and keep from getting stuck in a rut was to move around.
"Frankly, I think that traditionally the best way to advance a technical career and keep from getting stuck in a rut was to move around."
Could not agree more. Especially if you are at a place working on a single technology.
Which is exactly where I am now...
Unfortunately what I've found is that two things are going on... as I've said before most companies only want to hire people who are 110% matches to their current and expected future language/tools/platforms. Employers are usually not willing to hire people who are close and allow them to learn on the job (understaffed) or train them (no budget). Also all experience must be on-the-job or it is not taken seriously. Self learning or strictly class work is generally not accepted. Companies also have a tendency to prefer to bring in contractors or hire new people when they choose to explore new technologies rather than let their existing employees learn them or send them for training. They usually use the excuse that they can't afford to lose the existing knowledge for maintaining the existing systems. They usually claim that there will be opportunities for existing employees, but they often don't follow through with that.
Anyway, what this all leads to is people moving around to companies that will allow them a chance to "keep current". If you follow the job search forums you will see a lot of people advocating fibbing about skills and experience in order to get around the massive job description requirements. Unfortunately, this is I believe a lot of why employers think that so many candidates suck, which leads them to pile on yet more requirements trying to weed them out. So it becomes a vicious cycle.
The industry seems to have no way to develop talent, and then complains that the universities aren't churning out enough cookie cutter grads with the exact buzzwords they are looking for.
Things weren't always this way. Back in the 1980s and 1990s a lot of employers were willing to give people with solid fundamentals the chance to learn new things, work on new things and even send people for training. Unfortunately it seems like those days are long gone. It sometimes makes me angry that people are largely considered over the hill and useless once they hit 35.
I had an older Chinese professor during my time at RIT who would sometimes stop our computer engineering classes and give us some wisdom...often on the topic of what it means to be an engineer. He would stop class, walk away from the whiteboard, sit down at his desk, and contemplate for a few seconds before speaking to us at our level. Looking back, he would do this when he realized us students were lost, or not thinking about the solution to a given problem.
I will never forget what he said once [paraphrased]: "What is the difference between a technician and an engineer? A technician follows a procedure, but an engineer thinks and creates. It's not important to memorize, but to understand. Graduating with a B.S. degree in engineering means you have the ability to learn."
I took that to heart. OK, so I don't know the new Language-X of the week. That shouldn't matter - it can be learned. As engineers, we have the concepts down, and have [hopefully] proven we can learn.
So it's ashame that companies are looking at buzzwords versus experience. "Would you rather have someone who memorized the times-tables, or someone who can multiply?"
I think a lot of the reason that employers are looking at buzzwords versus well rounded experience and an ability to learn, adapt and be creative is that they want instant gratification and they want someone else to foot the bill for education for them. When a job market goes through a crash like we saw between 2001-2004 and there are huge gluts of candidates I think that part of the bulking up of arbitrary requirements and the reliance on buzzword filtering is at least partially response to try to weed down hundreds of resumes to a manageable number. I believe that in many cases employers and recruiters got spoiled during a time when they didn't have to work very hard to get top-notch talent for peanuts and so their ability to find and evaluate candidates on more difficult to measure criteria have atrophied. Unfortunately I believe that is leading to the disconnect where we have employers who think no good candidates are available and workers who have talent that is going to waste.
That is good wisdom.
My current boss is really one of my favorites I have ever had. He truly understands and believes that there is no one who knows everything about technology. He has told me before that he would rather have someone on the the team that understands that being able to find answers are far more important than how much you know.
Because even if you have a lot of knowledge there will always come a time that you do not have the answer. What you do at that moment really shows how good you are.
I wish more managers out there thought that way. I fear that softwarejanitor is right and it comes down to buzzwords more than anything now days.