At my current job, we used to advertise that we wanted someone with deep knowledge of Python, who had written their own Python metaclasses. How many of you know off the top of your head exactly what a metaclass is and why you would want to write one? While we did have one hand-rolled metaclass in our own codebase, it was just there, written long ago, worked fine, and didn't need any modification. None of us actually working at the job have to think about metaclasses on our day-to-day tasks.
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.
Yep, agreed! Thanks for sharing that, nice point. Most of the work we do as developers isn't the sort of John Carmack's Magic Numbers sort of wizardry, so looking for more of the same sort of dev skill can be counterproductive as you've found.
Nice people are where it's at. After all, we've gotta work together, and someone will always be able to learn the tech...
When someone asks me in a job conversation if I have some arcane bit of knowledge, I'm going to say yes if I know it, but I'm going to start worrying that they will expect me to use this sort of arcane knowledge on a regular basis.
And then I start wondering what else is wrong with them...
I'll add one - I immediately ignore any job ad that contains anything along the lines of "Work in an exciting/agile fast-paced, dynamic environment", which pretty much signals that only youngsters need apply.
Of course, if the job really is chaotic and high-stress, then that signal should probably stay in the job ad.
> No ninjas, rockstars or brogrammers, please; just nice, caring humans.
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.)
i think you might be conflating the discouragement of a behavior with the application of an identity to people, something the article seems to try to avoid.
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.
I understand that their message is "this is not a frat". However, I still absolutely hate the pejorative usage of brogrammer. People do not use it to exclusively refer to culture.
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.
I think you voice valid concerns, and avoiding language like this is probably the higher ground.
I could be wrong, but I don't think there is a general group of programmers who throw around the term "brogrammer" as self-descriptive identity. It's a term that originated as a pejorative, and usually there is an implied obliviousness or lack of self-awareness that accompanies the idea. The people you want to receive the negative "no brogrammer" signal may not get it.
It's not a direct or specific term, and its meaning morphs depending on who wields it. If you want to say "no binge drinking happy hours" or whatever, it might be better to say that directly.
I've definitely used the term myself in the past, but I can see how sloppy usage might alienate people who are decent people.
i agree that it’s often used pejoratively to define people. i was not trying to justify that kind of usage. i was simply pointing out that the article generally uses the term as an adjective, not as a noun (i.e., it’s something you can wear, not something you can be).
however you are right that the called-out text from the job ad uses it as a noun, unfortunately.
i’m curious why the phrasing makes you feel it’s toxic toward you personally (without a preconception either way on my part)?
>This is amusing and captures our opposition to Silicon Valley rockstar/brogrammer culture
If they are saying that Silicon Valley's culture is a brogrammer culture, they are probably talking about the culture of the dominant group there. If I worked in that area, I would be part of that dominant group.
So, my question is how they would screen out "brogrammers" during an interview process. I think someone looking to filter out this group would have a strong chance of looking at me and fitting me part of it.
If it is as pervasive as they say, then it probably includes me. That is how I see it used most of the time, describing tech's overall culture. I am part of tech's culture, and I am a fit white male who programs. I assume that I am perceived as a brogrammer by many people who use the term.
I get what they were trying to say; the way that they said it was inappropriate because it was structured as an attack on stereotypes and no kind of call out to behavior.
And that is particularly egregious in a post about how word choice can make your job less appealing to groups.
>original: Your code will be exercised by 125,000 events every second,
>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]
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.
I guess I could be classified under "POC," even though I'm half white. I was fully expecting this to be full of overly sensitive trite, but now I wish everyone writing job ads reads this first!
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?
On the other hand, if you were going to write your job posting the pre-edit way and the said applicant was turned off by it... will they even be a good fit in your org? Do you want to continue editing all of your communications?
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.
I don't think you're being a devil's advocate, I think it's totally reasonable. I don't want to hire individuals with severe self confidence issues. If I'm not sure about your code I'm going to question it in a direct, constructive manner. If you disagree with my criticisms I expect you to pull upon your knowledge and experience to defend it. If expecting competence makes me a brogrammer then so be it.
So you actually do want a workplace culture that alienates women and people of color?
[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.
This is why I had to put the devil's advocate part in my original comment because of this accusation. Obviously, I do not agree with purposely creating a workplace that alienates women but it would take me much editing/censorship and thought than I'm willing to give to make sure I don't write something in a way that you could misconstrue my words.
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
I think that assumption is fundamentally wrong -- that you have to tread softly around diversity or else it might be scared away. People who lack confidence are a liability, and honestly I'd rather leave a headcount unfilled than hire a baby bird who won't ever leave the nest. Maybe Google has the resources to cultivate candidates who make the company look better but I can't justify hiring people lacking important skills (e.g. basic confidence in their skills and experience).
I was actually surprised about the "alienates women and people of color" references. I couldn't find anything in the first job descriptions that was relating to gender, etc.
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). :-)
I would replace " No ninjas, rockstars or brogrammers, please; just nice, caring humans." with "Just nice, caring humans". "no..." sentences sound defensive to me.
"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.
Life involves choices, most of the reason I dislike the 'no brogrammer/ninja/rockstar/competent people' culture is because its so wishy-washy about what it actually does and does not like.
I'd rather know that my talents aren't welcome than waste time in meetings explaining why their feels don't make the code work. There are plenty of companies that want people who can manage to code something that works without involving 16 other people.
There are plenty of people who want to work in that environment and it helps me filter out the places I don't want to work by knowing they don't want individual contributors.
If ninja, rockstar, and brogrammer are meaningless words, which they are, then the best course of action is to leave them out, not use them. If someone thinks they know what a ninja programmer is, and knows whether they are one, they've already thought more about it than you really want them to.
The first part is important to signal that you aren't just trying to find people to work with, but that you also want to join up in a culture war, and a culture war requires promoting ideas to hate instead of letting them fade away.
Imagine how it would look if they wrote "no pushovers or girly-girls, please"
I honestly don't understand what any of this has to do with inclusion. Maybe the aim is to de-emphasize competitiveness, directness, and individual responsibility, which is fine if that's the kind of employees you want to hire. But is there strong scientific evidence that women lack these qualities compared to men? What if you'd like to hire people with the qualities of, say, the Williams sisters of tennis fame?
There is evidence that women are penalized for showing these traits. The same behavior is seen as direct and competitive in men and as bossy and stuck-up in women. Which is also why negotiating while perceived as female can be a very different experience. Generalizing, of course.
It's interesting to read the experiences of trans people who have truly seen both sides.
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.
- 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?
This is a shocking attitude. Assuming that a highly skilled software developer is more likely to have body odor, have poor social skills, be alcoholic, be sexually creepy, etc., is shocking to me.
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.
For a lot of places, the answer is yes. They do want to drive that person away. They want someone who will do 5x the work for 0.8x the salary because they think $TOPIC is their great calling in life.
To someone willing to burn out a promising young programmer to get their startup to hockey-stick upwards, it's a good deal.
All caps "CITATION NEEDED" comments provide no value. If you have an argument, make it. If you can refute the claims of other commenters and want to, then do so.
Kluny's response is correct, but I'll also add - when I see "rockstar programmer" on a job advertisement it reeks of "meaningless corporate BS" and/or "juvenile work environment".
If you require someone that can "develop more software than 5 - 10 newly hired regular programmers", just say so (and good luck).
Actual "rockstars" (I know a few who may qualify) don't look for positions calling for rockstars, mostly because they're a little more mature and focussed at any age.
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.
Every company, all else equal, wants the best talent available. There are two separate and not necessarily related issues here :
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.
Job postings that emphasize mandatory after-hours events especially based around alcohol are incredibly off-putting to multiple groups of candidates (senior engineers with families, introverts, non-drinkers, etc.). Things like "we have a beer keg in the office", "happy hours", or "work hard play hard".
many of the job listing phrases suggested by this post make the company seem more inviting, open, comfortable in general.
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.
"Evidence That Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality"[1] looks at wording of job applications effect on applicant pool. I know there are some start-ups[2] in this area trying to automate the process the author describes.
It's been found that women generally look at job ads and find the things they can't do. They will feel underqualified and not apply. I think that's the reasoning behind taking out "several years", etc.
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.
Why not just skip all the weasel words and have a big "WHITE MEN NEED NOT APPLY"? If you are looking to specifically discriminate against white males then say so, I'm sure the potential minority candidate would be much more encouraged to apply knowing that their major competition has been disqualified already.
Then what does it have to do with "diversity"? Why does the author even mention it if the only goal is to get more people to apply? Dropping your experience requirements in a job ad quite obviously would increase number of applicants, why do we need an article for that?
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.