By putting that very specific bit of Python arcana in our job ad, we were just scaring away lots of potential candidates who could have done the job just fine. They stopped mentioning metaclasses in the ad and we've gotten some really good new hires since who are very competent, and best of all, are very nice people.
Nice people are where it's at. After all, we've gotta work together, and someone will always be able to learn the tech...
And then I start wondering what else is wrong with them...
Of course, if the job really is chaotic and high-stress, then that signal should probably stay in the job ad.
Or they're just randomly cut-and-pasting whatever fast-sounding lingo they've seen in other ads.
Either way, it's a negative tell.
I like how in a post about inclusive job ads, they still wanted to show off that they Exclude The Right People.
Their cultural based discrimination is obviously correct and should be applied universally; previous cultural based discrimination is a crime we should all strive to avoid!
I actually enjoyed the post (and agree with most of the points about writing job postings) and don't mean to be overly critical, I just think it's an interesting chance to reflect on how easily these habits come to us as people. (And so some of the language above is dramatic for effect.)
hostedgraphite isn't saying they don't want competent programmers, even if they've copped the brogrammer attitude in the past, but rather, to leave the brogrammer stance at the door. if you can't do that, then (and only then) don't apply for the job because you probably won't fit in (and likely as a result, won't be as successful).
we wear different faces at different times (shout out to billy joel!), and can discard one (or put it in the back pocket) as desired/needed.
It is absolutely a label that is applied to people. Sitting here, I feel like I am part of the specter of brogrammers that looms over the industry. Whether it was their intended usage or not, I feel like this term is referring to programmers like me.
Their job ad is not going to have the context of this blog post. Their job ad doesn't say "no brogrammers, but we don't mean men who work out and code, we actually mean the toxic culture of exclusivity that you would see in a frat." Nope, their job ad just says "no brogrammers". If I saw that I would assume that their culture would be toxic toward me.
Please stop using this term. There are people out there who feel like it applies to them and it alienates us. I agree with OP, it is not a term that encourages inclusivity because there is a stereotypical image of a person that comes to mind when it is used.
And that is particularly egregious in a post about how word choice can make your job less appealing to groups.
>revised: your contributions will be exercised by more than fifty billion events per day
Why does 125 * 10^3 vs 50 * 10^9 influence diversity hiring?
The scientific study the blog references does not mention anything about altering numerical figures (such as altering a numerator from 3 zeroes to 9 zeroes) to be more inclusive.
Also, why is "code" a taboo word for inclusiveness? Here's female Ginni Rometty using the phrase "lines of code".[1] Another female (also a non-programmer) Mary Barra using the phrase "lines of code".[2]
[1] "New cars today have 100 million lines of code": https://www.ibm.com/ibm/ginni/01_06_2016.html
[2] “A car today has hundreds of millions of lines of code,” : http://www.triplepundit.com/2017/07/gm-boosts-stem-education...
https://www.girlcodethebook.com/
One of the girls there describes her expectation of coding as coming from Hollywood: indecipherable zeroes and ones, weird symbols, all very fast-paced. When she saw that it was just "System.out.println()" to make something appear on the screen, she realised how much more mundane this all was.
I guess this sort of suggests that "code" is some kind of secret, difficult thing, which may be off-putting to some people. I agree that most people wouldn't balk at the word "code", but if you can make even fewer people balk, why not do it? The worst that can happen is that you broaden your search and get more people applying for your job.
The other issue is HR usually does the postings, where they just get handed some skills and they make up random numbers and go from there. But seriously, you don't need a Java guru that has achieved nirvana with the JVM to write CRUD apps, so why not just advertise what you're actually looking for?
I’m kind of being devils advocate here but I do find it a drag to work with people who can’t read between the lines sometimes and get the gist of what someone means rather than feeling excluded by they’re word choices.
[edit, but leaving original off-the-cuff comment] I think if your goal is to create an inclusive workplace then editing your communications in ways like this will be useful. I think its incorrect to think that being inclusive means hiring people that aren't confident in their skills.
I'm simply pointing out that what I am for is being who we are as individuals. Everyone. If you exclude yourself because of the way I write my job posting, then we probably wouldn't work well together. If I over edit my job posting and it doesn't reflect the way I actually communicate on a day to day basis; guess what, we probably wouldn't work well together either. Why? Because I'm not going to edit my communication style, I'm going to be who I am.
If I'm the author of the original job posting... You're coming from the stance of assuming that I need to be edited. My communication style is horrible and exclusive. None of those words were offensive, obviously exclusive, etc[1]. So, I don't think I do need editing. I'm not an asshole, I work well with women and people of all types, thus I am not going to change. However your view assumes because I wrote my job posting that way that I am a women alienating asshole that does not value inclusion.
I want people that can work together and not let minor communication issues get in the way of their productivity or happiness. We should be teaching people how to read a job posting and infer that they could be a fit and apply. Applying is far away from accepting the job, if you sense any red flags you will have an opportunity to explore them. Don't get held up by the job posting.
[1] Okay - I do not agree with the use of rockstar & ninja terms
They were just more focused on personal growth in the second description. Rightfully so! But maybe I didn't get some subtle clues (just European). :-)
We value the ability to work with others over exceptional technical skills. That is, while there is value in the latter, we value the former more.
No "no", no defensiveness, but the preference is clear.
"Here, we place a strong focus on ability to work with others and collaboration. Success requires teamwork!"
Don't justify your preference, just state it directly. It's not about tradeoffs, it's that we're fundamentally doing something collaborative -- everyone needs to be on the same team.
That message is lost when you just say "nice, caring humans".
Imagine how it would look if they wrote "no pushovers or girly-girls, please"
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Avoiding plummets into flamewar is why we have that guideline, so please follow it, as you should follow all the guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
It's interesting to read the experiences of trans people who have truly seen both sides.
Here's one definition I found: http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=ChrisTTT
A computer programmer with such strong skills and so much specific experience that they are the equivalent of a rock star in the domain of software. Many people play guitar pretty well, but only a few become rock stars. These programmers can develop more software than 5 - 10 newly hired regular programmers because they know what needs to be done and how to do it. They also might set the architecture of the product that dozens will build upon.
What's wrong with that?
- If they are expected to do 5-10 times the amount of software development as a regular new programmer, are they going to be offered 5-10 times the regular salary?
- Are all the other programmers at the company dramatically more effective than a regular programmer? Most competent people don't think of themselves as being exceptionally better than their peers, so if that's the case, they probably shouldn't bother.
- Or, are the other programmers at the company just regular ones, and the incoming new person is expected to be more effective than all of them combined from day one? That's a lot of pressure to put on one person. What was the answer to the salary question again?
- Many people who have developed exceptional skills in one area have neglected other areas. What types of personal problems is the company willing to tolerate for the privilege of hiring rock stars? Is alcoholism okay? How about being sexually creepy towards co-workers, due to lack of social skill practice? How about body odor? Not that all exceptionally skilled programmers have these types of problems, but you have to make a trade off somewhere. Really, how much are you paying them? Because someone who is 5 or 10 times more productive than a normal programmer without being a socially impossible weirdo is likely already in a job paying far more than what hr had in mind for this position.
Is there no place for a programmer who's just basically competent and professional and will work for an average salary? Do you want to drive those programmers away?
Hiring managers that have this attitude are not the next Steve Jobs, that's for sure.
Steve Jobs specifically looked for the "multiplier factor" when hiring: In choosing key members of his team, he looks for the multiplier factor of excellence. Truly outstanding designers, engineers and managers, he says, are not just 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent better than merely very good ones, but 10 times better. Their contributions, he adds, are the raw material of “aha” products, which make users rethink their notions of, say, a music player or cellphone.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/weekinreview/31lohr.html
To someone willing to burn out a promising young programmer to get their startup to hockey-stick upwards, it's a good deal.
tackle is a very exclusive term, consider the language you use on tech sites and how it can exclude others from tech.
If you require someone that can "develop more software than 5 - 10 newly hired regular programmers", just say so (and good luck).
They are just a one person department/wrecking team who can take on a team of many, they are genuinely interested in problems that are the rockstars, not themselves.
I've found a certain percentage of folks wanting to be recognized or move into a position of rockstars are often more attracted to positions attracting rockstars, wizards and ninjas all trying to rock out, cast spells, and throw stars in the same room. There is no ladder into rockstarism, only a track record that is remarkable and speaks for itself.
Like a lot of fields, the quiet people in the room are often the smartest and most interesting. Finding a way to get them onto teams where they can make a huge difference is key.
1. all else is not always equal, and the most technically proficient developer is not always the one that adds the most to a given team (and in fact is not even always a net-positive)
2. Great developers don't always self-identify as great developers, and conversely not-so-great developers do occasionally self-identify as great developers.
In short, I suspect they're trying to weed out a psychological profile - not aptitude per se.
It's one of those words I thought I understood just from its contsruction, but the more I see it used by others, the more confused I get.
i don't see these phrasings as tied strongly to inclusion of specific underrepresented gender, sexual preference, racial or ethnic groups. many white males who dislike brogrammer culture will find these phrases more appealing too.
also, these phrases actually advertise for a different type of job in a different type of company, a company that isn't looking for a ninja/messiah to save its ass and make all the critical decisions singlehandedly, a company with a management team that isn't a gang of lazy, entitled, technical illiterates who are ignorant about how to organize and run a software dev operation.
in other words, this company is not just looking for a bro (sucker) to dump all the shit on (exploit). this company knows what it's doing.
[1] http://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com/static/documents/Gauch...
As a female junior software dev, I honestly would be more likely to apply to the revised job ad than the original. So, good job to them I guess.
If you consider that eliminating your chances of getting the job, I would re-evaluate your own application not the job ad.
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/07/less-exclusi...
