Interview
in [Java Help]
|
From: Lew on 5 Oct 2009 20:56 Tom Anderson wrote: > Also, patronising as this is, some excellent advice my father once gave > me was the usefulness of "friends in low places". In practice, getting > things done is easier if you know the receptionist, the secretary and > the security guard than if you know every C*O on the org chart. Just to further endorse this point, sales training literature emphasizes the importance of the secretary/receptionist/admin.asst. to anyone desiring access to his/her boss. Smart bosses put a lot of faith in such personnel, and approve of them filtering out losers. -- Lew
From: Arne Vajhøj on 5 Oct 2009 21:26 Leif Roar Moldskred wrote: > Arne Vajh�j <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote: >> And I don't think IT is that much different from other >> businesses regarding whether management has a past >> doing what the company actually do. >> >> I very much doubt that the managers in car companies can assemble >> a car, managers in airlines can fly a plan, managers in oil companies >> can drill etc.. > > Well, no, but they know the _business_ of assembling a car, flying a > plane, drilling a well and so on. > > A (good) manager at a car plant will know about the product line, > cost and maintenance times on robots and production equipment, part > storage and order chains, quality standards for the product, health > and safety standards for the employees and so on. > > While there are exceptions, of course, in my experience there is a > surprising lack of knowledge about the _business_ of software _both_ > among managers in IT companies _and_ among many developers. As an > industry it seems rather infantile and unprofessional, stubbornly > unable to look inwards at its own workings. In my experience both IT managers and senior developers usually has a very good understanding of the business they are in. Arne
From: Eric Sosman on 5 Oct 2009 21:27 Lew wrote: > Tom Anderson wrote: >> Also, patronising as this is, some excellent advice my father once >> gave me was the usefulness of "friends in low places". In practice, >> getting things done is easier if you know the receptionist, the >> secretary and the security guard than if you know every C*O on the org >> chart. > > Just to further endorse this point, sales training literature emphasizes > the importance of the secretary/receptionist/admin.asst. to anyone > desiring access to his/her boss. Smart bosses put a lot of faith in > such personnel, and approve of them filtering out losers. "I observed here and there many in the Habit of Servants, with a blown Bladder fastned like a Flail to the End of a short Stick, which they carried in their Hands. In each Bladder was a small Quantity of dried Pease, or little Pebbles, (as I was afterwards informed.) With these Bladders they now and then flapped the Mouths and Ears of those who stood near them, of which Practice I could not then conceive the Meaning. It seems the Minds of these People are so taken up with intense Speculations, that they neither can speak, nor attend to the Discourses of others, without being rouzed by some external Taction upon the Organs of Speech and Hearing; for which Reason those Persons who are able to afford it always keep a Flapper in their Family, as one of their Domesticks; nor ever walk abroad or make Visits without him. And the Business of this Officer is, when two or more Persons are in Company, gently to strike with his Bladder the Mouth of him who is to speak, and the right Ear of him or them to whom the Speaker addresses himself. This Flapper is likewise employed diligently to attend his Master in his Walks, and upon Occasion to give him a soft Flap on his Eyes; because he is always so wrapped up in Cogitation, that he is in manifest Danger of falling down every Precipice, and bouncing his Head against every Post; and in the Streets, of jostling others, or being jostled himself into the Kennel." -- Lemuel Gulliver -- Eric Sosman esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid
From: Arne Vajhøj on 5 Oct 2009 21:35 Arved Sandstrom wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>> Arne Vajh�j wrote: >>>> Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>>> It's not that the managers themselves - as people - are defective. >>>>> It's the system that's defective. Next time you get a chance look >>>>> at your organization or one that you have dealings with. If the >>>>> structure is one of top-level non-technical managers supervising >>>>> intermediate-level non-technical managers, who in turn supervise >>>>> bottom-level non-technical managers, who in turn supervise >>>>> technical people, you've got a problem. >>>> >>>> Manager may not know about writing code, but they should know about >>>> managing. >>>> >>>> Since their job is to manage not to write code. >>>> >>>> First level management actually do benefit a lot from >>>> understanding what the work is all about. >>>> >>>> But higher up the food chain it is all budgets, ressource >>>> planning, strategy etc.. >>> >>> Budgets and resource planning, sure - that's pretty interchangeable >>> managerial stuff. But strategy, at any level of an IT organization, >>> requires technical savvy. It doesn't mean that a manager four or five >>> levels up needs to know how to write code, but they'd best be able to >>> listen to a technical architect without getting a glazed look in >>> their eyes. And IT managers two or three levels up had best be able >>> to talk to a senior developer, when the occasion demands, and have >>> half a clue as to what the developer is telling them. >>> >>> Managers in other industries don't get these free passes like IT >>> managers seem to do. A manager in most other sectors actually has to >>> know a fair bit about the nuts and bolts of the job. But in IT it's >>> seemingly OK for a manager at intermediate and senior levels to know >>> extremely little about technology. I don't think that's acceptable. >> >> If the manager has the skill to hire the right people and to >> make those people explain the technical matter in plain English, >> then they can do quite fine. > > It all depends on how "plain" the English needs to be. I wouldn't be > surprised if each of us has had times when a relative or friend is > curious about what we are doing at work *right now*, and we find it very > difficult to explain in anything but the most general terms. If they have the learning ability of a good manager and the knowledge about the business side as a good manager, then that should not be a problem. >> It is like programmers using cryptography. Very few really >> understands all the math behind it but chose to base >> decisions on summaries from trustworthy sources. > > True enough, as far as it goes. But any developer who uses cryptographic > software is well-advised to be conversant with things like the JCA. IOW, > you don't have the math to either develop or analyze a crytographic > algorithm, but you're still well-informed otherwise. You can (and > probably do) spend years developing this kind of knowledge as a > developer if you claim to have in-depth knowledge of application security. A good IT manager should also have spend some years developing understanding of people especially developers and projects especially IT projects. >> And I don't think IT is that much different from other >> businesses regarding whether management has a past >> doing what the company actually do. >> >> I very much doubt that the managers in car companies can assemble >> a car, managers in airlines can fly a plan, managers in oil companies >> can drill etc.. > > I suspect a considerably higher percentage of managers in non-IT > businesses can actually do some of the basic tasks involved in their > business, or at least are well-informed about what those tasks entail. > I'm not talking about CEOs of large companies here, but the lower and > intermediate levels of management. I see a different picture. > I myself truly believe that IT is treated differently, that it's > perceived to be a field where you can drop in a non-IT type as a manager > and that's OK. They drop in non-XX types in XX as well. If the manager understands managing incl. asking the right people the right questions, then it works fine. Arne
From: Dagon on 6 Oct 2009 13:23
Ken T. <nowhere(a)home.com> wrote: >I had an interview today. It didn't go as well as I would have liked. >It didn't go badly but I wasn't familiar with everything my potential >employer did. That sounds pretty normal for many jobs. You should do your best to prepare and at least know what they do and if possible what tools they use for what, but you can't be expected to have used every tool they use. There are sections of "the industry" that are quite specialized, though. In these cases, an employer might expect you to have done pretty much this exact job before, with the same tools. >When did it become necessary for a developer to not only know the >language used inside out, but also the APIs used, the third party tools >used, and basically to have done the same job for the last five years. When there are other developers who appear just as smart and generally competent as you who _HAVE_ the specifics, they're going to get the job. No use complaining about that. You can sometimes play up your general skills and speed of learning, but some jobs they really do want a short-term plug-in task performer. Which isn't you, if you've not done that task before. The thing to complain about is that the hiring manager didn't tell you this on the phone screen so you could prepare (or set your expectations that this is a practice interview rather than a real chance at work you'll want). Generally, expect to go on dozens of interviews. Most will be bad fits for your desires and skillset - go to them anyway, you can learn a lot about how different companies do things. >I thought that the whole point of a good computer science education was >that you could apply what you learned to any language or API. Well, yes and no. There is no one point to a good computer science education; it doesn't guarantee a job of any specific type, and it doesn't even prepare you fully for any actual job. It _DOES_ give you a good basis from which to start learning specifics of jobs. You can apply it to any language or API. And you _HAVE TO_ apply it to languages and APIs to be valuable to an employer. >BTW, this was for a Java position with a focus on Swing. I'm an expert >Java developer and a damn good swing developer. There are just parts of >the API swing API that I have yet to have needed and those I'm unfamiliar >with (many having to do with look and feel). So if they're hiring a PLAF designer/developer, you're probably not a good fit. If they're hiring a general Java/Swing developer, they interviewed very badly and miss out on you. If the company seems a wonderful place to work and you think you just had a bad interview, you can sometimes call the hiring manager to ask what you should have done differently to prepare, which may or may not lead to another interview. If the company seems clueless, move on to the next. -- Mark Rafn dagon(a)dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/> |