Good engineers do not submit resumes.
Adam Rifkin stashed this in Hiring
Dude please... that's not bacon, it's TURKEY BACON.
I've seen a lot of very meh engineering candidates over the past few years, so I can see the logic behind the Yammer folks stance on engineering resumes, but that article has a confusing message: if you're unhappy with your job and looking for a change, tough shit because we're only hiring people that are happy and not looking to move on.
The problem I see with the Yammer stance is this: if you only hire through referral, then you only get people who think the same way as the people you already have, which leads you to a pretty undiverse group. That lack of diversity leads to groupthink, which can prevent you from finding new and interesting solutions to problems. Referrals are great, don't get me wrong, but you need fresh blood too.
The other problem that Yammer has is that it's 230 people.
That's too big to appeal to someone who wants the stock and the exhilaration of "the startup experience", but too small for someone conservative who wants to work for a known winner like Google or Facebook.
it occurred to me on the drive into work this morning that they're a Rails shop... 'nuff said?
The guy does seem prone to hyperbole "If an engineer has submitted a resume, I know it's no good." Unbelievable as it may sound, I have met the mythical engineer who has a resume, and can program well. In fact, I'd posit, if you can get good hygiene, you've got the trifecta.
I've always thought the recruiting stuff is highly dependent on what stage you are in, and what problems you are trying to solve. At a 200-300 person startup targeting social media for the enterprise, it doesn't seem like a bad strategy to go for referrals, as you are likely not optimizing for a diversity of ideas (never bad), but rather people who come on, work collaboratively and consistently get stuff done. It may be hard to do all the hiring you need to though, in which case you need to revert to resumes -- which ain't all the bad (a bit time consuming maybe.)
I think the biggest mistake is small startups who rely only on/heavily bias referrals. It's a bit like inbreeding, because your employee pool is small, you often don't get exposed to the diversity of talent you need to make a healthy team. Whereas if you cast your net a bit wider, you may have to do a bit more work interviewing, but you can get some unexpectedly excellent talent.
That's awesome. So many companies pay lip service to being a fun place to work that it's depressing.
There's a huge difference between A) saying "I'm a funny person. Trust me." and B) telling a joke that makes everyone double over with laughter.
Most companies say "We're a fun place to work. Trust us." Instead, Scopley just made us all double over with laughter.
Show, don't tell.
TBH I don't get it.
Ok...I get the bacon...I love bacon. I want to work with people who love bacon. I want to work with people who are funny and interesting.
What I don't get is the insistence xbox, pingpong tables, and multiple kegs on tap powered by iPads.
The tours I've seen of "fun" places to work amount to no more than a set of frivolous toys designed to attract 21 year olds who haven't matured enough to understand the concept of coming in for the daily stand up *on time*.
Why do startups design their workplaces to appeal to the exact type of person who is going to quit or move on the instant things get difficult, cash gets tight, and people need to buckle down?
I want to work with professionals who know how to enjoy themselves. Not gamers who need to be entertained before they code.