What I learned from Google – You Get Fifteen Years – Unchartered Waters: “This is what struck me: Where were the old dudes?“
“During my interview at Google, I realized something very important: You get fifteen years.
“That is to say, your half-life as a worker in corporate America is about age thirty-five. Around that time, interviews get tougher. Your obligations make you less open to relocation, the technologies on your resume seem less-current, and your ability find that next gig begins to decrease.”
At 41 I’m definitely feeling the same thing that Matt Heusser describes. And I’m sure a lot of that comes with having children early in life – Bonnie and I had Robert at 25, Emme at 27 and James at 30. I’m now looking at two kids going to college in the next few years, while many people our age only now have babies or toddlers.
But issues like relocation or forgoing a decent paycheck for the possibility of future compensation in the form of stock options? Immensely complicated when you have a family of five to provide for and consider.
As my own job hunt continues, I’m disheartened to find fewer and fewer companies willing to make compromises for people with lives of their own.
What makes it particularly frustrating is that there seems to be a push back against telecommuters. It’s stupid and regressive.
I’m perfectly willing to compromise on pay and a cushy workplace if it means I’m able to stay home and work at my pace in my environment. But expect me to work for coolie wages and drive to the office every day? You must be joking.
Do you really expect to work at home every day? My department at MIT allows telecommuters, but not every day, and only after the staff member has proved themselves.
I think you’re suffering from your move to the Cape. We have tech jobs we can’t find people for, and have been searching for months for suitable (non crazy but qualified) candidates. You have an artificially lower pool to select from.
In the case of Macworld and the two years of freelancing I’ve done since then, location was irrelevant. It’s only this crop of irascible interviews I’ve had lately where the managers I’m interviewing with seem put off by the idea of telecommuters. And quite frankly, for my job, I shouldn’t need to be in the office – I’m writing, researching, interviewing on my own. Location is secondary to content production.
Fortunately, I had a good interview today where it would be 50/50 home and office. That might work.
As to your point about the Cape, yeah. Tell me about it. It’s a desert down here professionally. Unfortunately, we’re not in a position to move – at least not until we have jobs. It’s a chicken and egg problem.
I’ve successfully resisted my urge to write about my two experiences being recruited by Google for a long time. It may have to wait, but it is an interesting tale which expands greatly on some of the points raised in the article.
In hindsight, having spoken with a LOT of Ex-Googlers I’m glad that neither opportunity ever came to fruition, because in both cases I would have been screwed. I’m in Operations and Google treats their Ops team worse than shit. The tales I’ve heard are horrific, yet the Stockholm Syndrome runs deep in there.
@Helen: I find it difficult to understand why a prestige, high-visibility employer like MIT has difficulty finding qualified, “non crazy” candidates, or why telecommuting is so restricted in your organization because of lack of trust.
“Proved (sic) themselves”? You mean, even with the typical battery of pre-employment interviews, drug tests, background and reference checks, plus the ability to fire without consequence during probationary periods of 30-90 days, your manager still cannot evaluate an employee’s performance based on quality and quantity of work? As opposed to what, what color socks they wear or how engaging they are at the company picnic?
Sorry, but I suspect that your have a management competence issue there, not one of supply and demand.
Marcia: well, the salary can’t trust Fidelity. Of course, we don’t require people work 80 hours every week either.
We have a position open for a programmer (requiring Oracle skills) that we have not been able to fill for a YEAR. There is no management incompetence where hiring is concerned, We do realize we “underpay”, but the Oracle programmers all seem to have jobs or have craziness.
Example: a person who was invited for an interview, insisted she did not need directions (“I went to MIT, I know my way around!”), then called 15 minutes AFTER the interview was to start admitting she was lost. She sunk herself, then she proceeded to badger the hiring manager as to why she didn’t get the position (three calls in fifteen minutes, plus several emails that same day).
Issues include:
(1) no drug tests, no background checks, and reference checks which are difficult because anyone who gives a reference knows they might get sued if it’s negative.
(2) probationary period is six months, and even within that period, firing someone is difficult.
We realize (1) and (2), so we have been stringent and not just gone with a random person, knowing we can’t easily get rid of them if they don’t work out.
I should say we had one good candidate, somebody working at a small college in the Boston area, had the skills we needed, meshed well with the group members, had solid references, didn’t make the “crazy” antennae on my head stand up, but she decided she’d rather stay there than move to MIT.
In terms of telecommuting, are you advocating that organizations allow it without trust? Should everyone in every job be allowed to telecommute without proving themselves first?
One of our key staff works 60% off site (and funky hours at that, 4am-7am, 10am-2pm, 5pm-6pm, due to child care requirements), 40% on site, but she gets her job DONE. I’m not saying it’s impossible, and hell, 30% of the staff in my department travel 20% of their time for work purposes, but telecommuting is not for everyone, and should not be a guaranteed right without knowing the employee is dependable.
argh. not “trust” Fidelity, TOUCH Fidelity.
Helen:
Telecommuting isn’t a blanket work/lifestyle that will suit every employment situation. You’ve laid out some good reasons for why it may work only in limited aspects for your business. But there’s more to this, and I’ll spin it out as a separate blog post to explain in greater detail.
having worked at MIT in central IS, I would not blink at all if sock color and company picnic participation were not a big deal. I was dinged on a review because I “didn’t eat lunch in the lunchroom enough”.
I couldn’t bring myself to explain why: “Well, if some of these people could CHEW WITH THEIR MOUTHS CLOSED, I might.” Seriously. I worked in IS, and they were complaining that I didn’t leave my office enough.
So MIT may not be the best example.
Helen:
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
In answer to your question, yes, I believe that telecommuting should be the expectation from day one unless it is necessary, as in network administration, for the employee to be physically on the job.
I know a few programmers with Oracle and other skills, but they are unemployable because they are (gasp) over 60 years of age. Perhaps consider a non-traditional employee?
On the subject of “meshing”: why is it that people can’t just work when they’re at work, rather than gossip about their wedding showers or brag about their participation in extreme sports? I was in HR for 25 years and left because I couldn’t deal with all the BS about “fit”. A job should not be a replacement for someone’s high school or undergraduate experience.
Marcia: we would hire somebody over 60. I have a new hire starting in my tech support group next month who is 64.
It’s not a matter of wedding showers or extreme sports, in terms of meshing. But in a small, tight programming group, I’ve found it advantageous to have people who can get along. I believe in complementary skills, but having people who are so divergent in views that they can’t get along can impede every day work.
We’ve had candidates who:
- had very poor English skills
- didn’t like the idea of working in higher ed after seeing our work style. I’m not even sure what this candidate did not like in particular. It may have been a red herring excuse.
- Had an excellent resume, passed the screening interview, but when the candidate showed up they couldn’t complete a simple programming problem put up on a white board. This happened with three different candidates!
- Seemed to be a different person than who submitted the resume. I wondered who the heck sent in the credentials, and had the person who showed up for the inteview chained them to a radiator in a mausoleum, and come in their place.
- Applied from a non-Boston location and expects relocation expenses if hired, which we cannot provide.
- One candidate thoroughly enjoyed not working (had been laid off from their last position) and did not want to stop taking unemployment, but for the fact it was running out. During unemployment this candidate had made no effort to keep their skills up to date.
There are more examples.
We are in the process of upgrading the position to provide more money in an effort to attract a different set of candidates.
I should qualify that I don’t work for IS&T (formerly known as I/S) at MIT, and don’t pretend to understand their performance appraisal process.
Helen,
Thanks again for the courtesy of your second reply.
I’m appalled by the behavior you’ve outlined. No wonder you are hesitant to permit telecommuting!
Many thanks for giving an over-60 tech support person a job. That’s terrific!
Best of luck with your search and for your department’s continued success in 2012.