|
> You’ve hired right? As a hiring manager you want someone with fresh successes in the area you’re hiring for. 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. |