August 12, 2024 at 12:00 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Hiring in IT and Relevance of Domain Experience
August 12, 2024 at 6:39 pm
I remember reading about someone who was being hired for a role in a film which was about a dancer. The conclusion was that it was much easier to teach a dancer to act than to teach an actor to dance. Trying to hire someone who could both act the part and dance severely limited the available choices.
Expanding this to the world of IT, I'd say don't limit yourself to considering only those with both IT and subject-matter knowledge, unless there are many suitable candidates. And trying to teach a subject-matter expert how to 'do' IT is equivalent to teaching an actor how to dance.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Martin Rees
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
Stan Laurel
August 12, 2024 at 7:11 pm
I have a few thoughts on what you've written.
You said --
Expertise and Knowledge: Candidates with specialized experience bring in-depth knowledge of asset management practices and industry regulations. Not only that, they are aware of the market trends that prove invaluable in making informed decisions.
I say --
Do not make assumptions. I have asset management company experience, but I have no idea what the market trends are and whether they prove invaluable to making informed decisions.
You said --
Immediate Impact: Experienced professionals with a solid understanding of the subject matter can quickly contribute to improving processes, minimizing risks, and improving asset performance without the need for extensive training.
I say --
Maybe. Odds are more likely these experienced professionals will need extensive training in other areas -- i.e. how your company operates and what it finds most relevant to the work of a SQL developers.
You said --
Reduced Risk: Domain experts are more likely to anticipate potential challenges and issues within asset management operations. This reduces the risk of errors or setbacks. Along with that, the learning curve is very low.
I say --
Domain experts may also be blind to the expertise they obtained at a previous company which blinds them to potential risks. Their learning curve might be much worse as they have to "unlearn" bad practices possibly.
You said --
Network and Connections: While this is not always necessary, people with specialized experience often have a network of contacts and connections. This can be beneficial to an organization when hiring other candidates in future (e.g. a new QA resource for our team).
I say --
Maybe, but only if they aren't a recluse and they care to share their networks with you for your benefit. Do not assume they will do this or wish to.
You said --
Innovation and Fresh Perspective: New recruits bring diverse experiences and new perspectives from other industries, thereby fostering innovation and creativity in overcoming asset management challenges.
I say --
The same could be said for people with advanced domain knowledge or others who have worked within your company. New recruits often aren't charged with "fostering innovation" though because they have to deal with the burden of taking on a new job, a new company, and existing work practices and traditions.
You said --
Cost-Efficiency: Hiring candidates without extensive domain experience could be more cost-effective in terms of salaries and training expenses, especially if they exhibit strong potential for growth and learning.
I say --
If you said that to me, I'd politely remind you that you'll pay me what I ask for so that we can work together.
In the end, always hire for talent and attitude and pay a premium for the best people.
August 12, 2024 at 8:20 pm
> And trying to teach a subject-matter expert how to 'do' IT is equivalent to teaching an actor how to dance.
MMM... usually, but not always. I'd love to have a domain expert move into IT as a BA!
Don't make the assumption that what "we" do is somehow harder than what "they" do. Also, somebody who's young and a digital native can be a great IT hire, absorbing new IT skills very fast.
OTOH, Joseph makes a great point about previous-company domain experience sometimes serving more as a constraint on how able the person is to learn about the business from a new perspective.
As a followup thought, I'm not a fan of certification of skills as a proof that anybody is going to be "good at" IT. I'd put this in the same bucket as previous-company domain experience; might help, might not, or might be a hindrance -- just on the IT side versus the the business side.
So it mostly comes down to the person's flexibility and intelligence. As usual.
August 12, 2024 at 9:20 pm
I think you are cherry picking your examples
The most relevant information are the last 10 comparable hires.
August 13, 2024 at 7:37 am
> And trying to teach a subject-matter expert how to 'do' IT is equivalent to teaching an actor how to dance.
MMM... usually, but not always. I'd love to have a domain expert move into IT as a BA!
Don't make the assumption that what "we" do is somehow harder than what "they" do. Also, somebody who's young and a digital native can be a great IT hire, absorbing new IT skills very fast.
It's not a question of how 'hard' something is.
The original article was about hiring a developer with 5 to 10 years' development experience, and my comment was framed with that in mind: I should have made that clear.
I stand by my assertion that teaching a seasoned developer about asset management has more likelihood of success than teaching an asset management guru how to develop an IT system. Developers are used to learning about the subjects of their development efforts – in fact it's usually necessary to do so. SMEs, on the other hand, tend to be focused solely on their particular area.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Martin Rees
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
Stan Laurel
August 13, 2024 at 12:45 pm
> "...it was much easier to teach a dancer to act than to teach an actor to dance."
What a brilliant example Phil Parkin, thanks for sharing.
> "In the end, always hire for talent and attitude and pay a premium for the best people."
I see you point Joseph Termine; and quite agree to them. I believe, my reasons express the limitation of my experience and open mindedness.
> "So it mostly comes down to the person's flexibility and intelligence. As usual."
Very well summarized Lisa Slater Nicholls, thanks for sharing.
> "I think you are cherry picking your examples"
I so agree, Robert Sterbal-482516, I am still learning.
August 13, 2024 at 4:20 pm
I worked for a company that used to hire senior developers because it was easier to hire at that level than go through the bureaucratic hell of hiring a junior and promoting them later. We lost good people who should have been promoted and would have been but for that bureaucracy.
It would have been cheaper to promote them too once you factor in
For whatever reason, the company changed their approach and decided to run an experiment hiring people fresh out of college with no previous experience. This was probably one of the best recruitment decisions I have seen. They brought enthusiasm, willingness and ability to learn and very few preconceived notions. Every one of those graduates has gone on to bigger and better things.
Sometimes an experienced person has to unlearn previous behaviours and approaches when they start a new job. This can be hard for many reasons.
One thing I have learned about recruiting over the years is that how someone performs in an interview and how they perform on the job are two separate things that occasionally coincide. I've had unspectacular interviewees who have been far more talented than their interview would suggest, hard working and reliable. I've also had the mirror image of that. People who interviewed well but found myriad ways to disappoint.
When I think of the saying "it's not what you know, it's who you know" I think of the people I know and trust and who they would recommend. That has been a far more reliable indicator of performance so tapping into our personal networks is normally the 1st port of call when recruiting.
The joy of recruiting graduates is that haven't really learned how to BS yet. They have a tendency to be their wonderful selves.
August 13, 2024 at 4:29 pm
Out of interest, David, when hiring fresh out of college, did you filter depending on what they'd studied, or did you keep things completely open?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Martin Rees
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
Stan Laurel
August 13, 2024 at 4:40 pm
It sounds like you and your manager have a healthy working relationship. You should appreciate and protect that. I agree with both lists, and I have been both of those candidates at different times. The real determinant for whether your new hires will be successful or not will be (1) their work ethic and (2) their willingness to be team players. These are hard to predict on the front end no matter how good your interview process is.
August 22, 2024 at 10:40 am
Another advantage of taking on a less experienced person (as long as they aren't shy) is their ability to ask a "stupid" question. In an established team, this can lead people to reconsider the "we've always done it like that" approach.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply