May 11, 2009 at 8:57 am
I have some suggestions. For one, don't hire a title or a list of qualifications. Instead, hire a person who has talent who could perform the job. Be willing to train someone who isn't a perfect fit. It's hard to believe but no one is perfect.
Next, if you want a DBA, you're going to have to define what that is in the job posting. Then list skills you want in order of importance. List no more than five skills that are a must; list no more than five that are important but can be learned through training; list no more than five that are nice to have. A laundry list of skills is meaningless if they're not in context of what the position entails.
After that, you need to sell your organization. Why would someone even bother to apply if they don't know that you're a good organization to work for and they would want to work there. You expect applicants to prove to you why you should hire them. You need to prove to the applicant why they should work for you.
May 11, 2009 at 9:09 am
webrunner (5/11/2009)
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos042.htm- webrunner
Interesting link. I think it's a hard thing to define, and such a small % of people that it's not as well understood as developer, sysadmin, etc.
May 11, 2009 at 9:14 am
Bob Griffin (5/11/2009)
Here comes a curveball. Instead of focusing on the best way to find and screen DBA talent, spend that time looking for an excellent technical recruiter. Hiring talent is a specialty. If you don't do it every day, odds are you are going to do the process poorly.
I agree that this can be valuable, but a good recruiter tends to be an individual, not a company. And they are as likely to move on as your hires. Which means that you can easily lose that investment.
May 11, 2009 at 9:29 am
Part of finding a good recruiter is one who is committed to the business. One that is successful, has lots of experience, and enjoys the work. So I disagree that you are as likely to lose a good recruiter.
Might be bleeding into another topic post: "What makes a good technical recruiter." ? At least five years experience, great references, etc.
I do agree that it is an individual and not a company. This gets back to building your network. If the recruiter leaves company A to company B or to work for himself as a recruiter, then you follow them.
Good recruiters, just like good DBAs, exist. Once you find the good one, you have a specialist that you can call on when you need him.
May 11, 2009 at 9:32 am
May 11, 2009 at 9:57 am
I think using personal networks can be very helpful. However, there are two significant drawbacks. One is that, unless you have an extraordinarily large network, you really limit your search to people just like yourself. Sometimes it is useful to have an employee that has a slightly different network, has life experiences different from yours, brings a different point of view to the job. The other is that, although you may get someone who is pretty good and fits well with your team, you miss the chance to get the best person for the job. Personally, I would use a combination of resources. By all means, use the personal network. Lots of times that will identify someone who is not necessarily looking for a job. You just shouldn't limit yourself to that exclusively.
May 11, 2009 at 10:07 am
I'd agree with you, and even my network, which is large because of this site, isn't necessarily going to help me find a DBA in Denver.
But, I think it might be the best place to start. Go with your network for 30 days first and see if you can get value before posting on Monster/Dice.
May 11, 2009 at 10:08 am
Samuel Vella (5/11/2009)
Problem with the "point and click" interface of SQL Server is that a lot of DBA's can get through their day job without having to *think* about what they're doing.
Sure, until the pawpaw hits the ceiling fan, but then what?
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
May 11, 2009 at 10:38 am
GilaMonster (5/11/2009)
Samuel Vella (5/11/2009)
Problem with the "point and click" interface of SQL Server is that a lot of DBA's can get through their day job without having to *think* about what they're doing.Sure, until the pawpaw hits the ceiling fan, but then what?
They post an URGENT message on SSC...
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
May 11, 2009 at 10:43 am
And we solve it.
hey, just hire a monkey, give him a macro that gets to the forums here 🙂
May 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (5/11/2009)
hey, just hire a monkey, give him a macro that gets to the forums here 🙂
As long as his salary gets spread among the people who actually do the work, I'm happy with that. :hehe:
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
December 24, 2013 at 3:52 am
I use Glassdoor to search for jobs, but mainly use it to weed out companies that may not be a good fit for me. Current employee's can write reviews about what it's actual like to work for you. No more employers saying one thing and finding out it's opposite.
I dislike using recruiters because getting the company name is like pulling teeth, and finding a half way decent one is a monumental feat. I once had one insist on meeting me at the interview to "introduce me" to the interviewer. They send my resume to jobs I'm obviously not qualified for (like tossing crap at a wall and hoping something sticks). And I've had them waste too much time trying to "get to know me" before finding me a good job fit.
My social network includes 100's of people, but they are so disparit that most may not be helpful in finding a job that fits my skills and personality. And many of my contacts have careers all across the board of professions, which limits the numver of people I can ask.
December 24, 2013 at 6:08 am
I got my current job by simply sending a resume "over the transom" as they say in the HR world. The company had a site only a few minutes from where I was living and had some IT openings. I found their website and posted. Got a job with them a short time later although it was at a different location farther away (where I am right now and loving it - just released a new database solution to production today - yippie!!).
I've done the Monster/CareerBuilder/Dice thing, too, but as others have pointed out, it seems to be overwhelmingly recruiters and staffing companies. I'd suggest any company have some kind of ability to post directly to the company online or at minimum an email address for resumes and such. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my mind someone who has taken the time to at least look up your company and apply directly is displaying a bit more in the initiative department and thinks there might be a good fit.
Not that it guarantees a match, mind you, but if I were hiring I'd tend to look for people like this first and then go from there at least as external candidates go.
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery.
____________
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.
December 24, 2013 at 11:41 am
Core6430 (12/24/2013)
I dislike using recruiters because getting the company name is like pulling teeth, and finding a half way decent one is a monumental feat. I once had one insist on meeting me at the interview to "introduce me" to the interviewer. They send my resume to jobs I'm obviously not qualified for (like tossing crap at a wall and hoping something sticks). And I've had them waste too much time trying to "get to know me" before finding me a good job fit.
That seems to be a bit of an oxymoron. You complain about them sending your resume to jobs you're not qualified for but then you complain about getting to know you so they might be able to do that job a little better.
As for getting the company name from them, that will obviously come out when you finally get an interview. I know lots of folks might consider interviews for companies that you don't like as a waste of time but I consider those to be the best interviews because they're a great place to test what works and what doesn't during an interview. And, who knows... maybe a company that you wouldn't have previously considered working for might turn out to be the proverbial diamond in the rough.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
December 24, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Jeff Moden (12/24/2013)
That seems to be a bit of an oxymoron. You complain about them sending your resume to jobs you're not qualified for but then you complain about getting to know you so they might be able to do that job a little better.As for getting the company name from them, that will obviously come out when you finally get an interview. I know lots of folks might consider interviews for companies that you don't like as a waste of time but I consider those to be the best interviews because they're a great place to test what works and what doesn't during an interview. And, who knows... maybe a company that you wouldn't have previously considered working for might turn out to be the proverbial diamond in the rough.
The recruiter spent an hour talking about his car. Didn't ask me anything about my skills, experience, or work history. Utter waste of time.
As far as not knowing the company prior to applying: There are some companies I refuse to even consider based upon their mission statements, branding, or public persona. Take A&F for instance. I disagree with the message they send to young girls, and refuse to associate in any manner with them. There are also companies that I've applied to in the past, gotten a job offer, and declined it. It would be embarrassing for me to reapply out of ignorance.
You stated that think they are a "great place to test what works and what doesn't". I'd rather do that on my own time, on my own schedule. Have you seen how long these interviews take?!? It's common for an interview to last 4 to 6 hours. For every interview I go to, I have to take a full day off from work (since none of them can start at 8 or noon). And I still have obligations at work. I have projects with deadlines that I'm obligated to meet. If I take time off for an interview it could mean that I'm working nights and weekends to make up that time. Interviewing with a company is a huge investment of my time and resources.
I don't know, to each his own, but in my opinion... nailing an interview is done by preparing ahead of time. Before you ever get to the interview you've already put in the work on how to frame your work history and skills to showcase how it can benefit that company. You should already have a really good answer to the dreaded "what is your biggest weakness" question, and all the other common interview questions asked. You should be able to talk about your last work experience and discuss the projects you worked on and how you either overcame a major obstacle, or grew as a leader, or made your team a more cohesive unit. You do all that outside of the interview, so when you get to the interview you know what you need to highlight, how to present it in the best possible light, and how to best showcase your skills. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time, and you leave the door wide open for someone like me to step in and get the job.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply