|
|
|
|
|
|
by more_corn
1045 days ago
|
|
|
I would have no idea where to put you. You’re not an individual contributor (probably?). You’re probably looking at executive track. CTO at a company that needs strategy around devices with embedded circuitry? Cofounder at a startup making a hardware play? The problem is that if I were hiring for that role you’re not on the top of my list because you’re not coming right out of that role. You’ve hired right? As a hiring manager you want someone with fresh successes in the area you’re hiring for. The first five minutes of an interview cover recent accomplishments at the level you’re interviewing for. Don’t focus on your degree. Figure out where you would contribute the most value and double down on that. Figure out how people hire CTOs and plug into that pipeline. You might need to sign on to a company circling the drain to get current CTO on your resume. I had a friend who was CTO and the company was facing funding issues. He left and was unable to find someone who was both qualified and willing to take a job at a place where the stock grant was probably worthless. But that would be perfect for you because it gets your résumé refresh with a current cto job, heck, you might even find a place where your deep experience and skill can save the company. You saw that spin builds on a raspberry pi 4? That’s not right. They could do better if they had someone like you. There’s all kinds of that going on. |
|
|
My approach has always been very different I guess. Likely because I have seen so many shifts in technology. As an example, when I was attending university for electrical engineering FPGA's didn't exist. I had to learn FPGA's years later (used PLD's and PAL's before that). The same is true of so many things.
When hiring engineers, I have always cared far more about how they think, how creative they can be and how well they can learn new technologies. To me that has always been far more important than getting someone who, as an example, has been driving Javascript for the last ten years, is an expert, yet could not make a shift to WASM if their life depended on it.
I'll give you a real-life example. I'm expert level with AutoCAD and Solidworks. I got a contract with an aerospace company. They used SiemensNX for their 3D CAD. I had to learn it and become capable enough to to do the job. It took me about two weeks to make a pretty solid transition. The software is different enough that you can't just jump into it, although, yes, skills I had with other tools helped. That's kind of the point, I am was making. Experience and flexibility to learn are valuable when combined.
Your comment exposes that I think of the hiring process differently than, perhaps, most, and that likely influences how and what I present to others when applying. In other words, what I see as a strength, to others, might come across as a weakness or just confusing.
Thanks.