Self Selection

Selection criteria. A buzzword shopping list of essential and desirable technologies, frameworks, languages, and more. Sometimes you have to wonder just how many people actually have this seemingly unique combination of buzzwords, or has the requisite number of years experience in each. Sometimes, the technologies listed are so obscure that you wonder how anybody could possibly qualify. 7 to 10 years Power builder experience, 5 years Java experience, extensive experience in T-SQL, .NET, Perl, SunOS and Altiris? ITIL certification?¹ Nowhere would this be a likely skill set, but in your average city? You've got Buckley's or none!

So, if you don't have all the buzzwords asked for in the selection criteria, what do you do? Do you give up, or do you have a crack anyway?

Do you think you fit the position or not?

Notice that when you’re instructed to address the selection criteria (at least in all criteria I’ve ever seen) it is not stated that you must address each criteria in the affirmative? There seems to be a misunderstanding amongst a lot of software engineers that if you don’t meet the buzzword checklist or you don’t have N years of experience in language Y then you cannot apply, or you are wasting your time if you do. This is certainly not the case. You can address the criteria in the negative and if you do, you wont be alone. Now I’m not saying if you have no skills whatsoever aligned with any of the criteria that you should go ahead and apply, but what I am saying is that by using your own judgment, if you think you fit the position, then you shouldn’t allow answering criteria in the negative stop you applying.

So how did the criteria become so exclusive, obscure and/or specific?

Employers are often over optimistic when looking at their requirement for skills. What should be a nice to have makes it’s way into the “Essential” section and sometimes things that are way out of scope (“I wonder if we could get someone who can manage the network too?”) end up on the “Desirable” list. Sometimes managers will look at every system, technology and IT requirement in the business and try to hire for all of them (perhaps you should avoid these!). Sometimes the criteria is developed by committee where all the developers and their managers get their say on what skill they want the new hire to have. Sometimes old requirements from past positions get recycled and thrown into the the mix (WTF is RELAX-NG anyway?). I’ve been bemused more than once in the past when I’ve seen advertisements in the wild that I’ve contributed to that also contain a slew of buzzwords or unrealistic expectations that I was not made aware of before publication!

So how do you address criteria in the negative?

I would encourage anyone to address criteria asking for a particular buzzword in a job description with how their skills fill the need that that criteria is specifying. For example, if the criteria states “N years experience with MS-SQL”, and I did not have experience with MS-SQL, I would address the criteria by explaining my experience in SQL and the number of RDBMS I have coded with and/or administered over the years.

If for example you have experience with PostgreSQL then say so and delve into the specifics of your experience such as management, replication, partitioning, scripting stored procedures in SQL, stored functions and scripts in PL/Python, optimisations etc. Give a specific example of where this skill set was used in a project and the technicalities and achievements related to it. At the code/application end, give an example of abstractions or helper functions (the reasons and benefits, not the code!) you’ve written to allow you to query that database in an easy way.

If you don’t have experience with a particular buzzword, but you can transfer the skills, then say so. Clarify that you do have the fundamental knowledge to get up to speed quickly and your underlying skills are transferable from buzzword X to buzzword Y. Addressing the criteria in this way is compelling. There is no unwritten rule that says selection criteria must be addressed in the affirmative.

Always address the desirable criteria, always.

Yeah, it’s not compulsory. Neither is cleaning your teeth. If you can’t answer in the affirmative, answer in the negative and detail the skill set and background knowledge that satisfy the spirit of the criteria. Sometimes you’ll unknowingly plant a gem that will greatly enhance your chances of winning the position.

Concluding thoughts.

In every interview I’ve ever been a part of, it is the ability and aptitude of the candidate and their team fit that gets them over the line. Employing software engineers is a heavy investment, and quite often the employer (and the interview team which most likely contains engineers) is looking at a medium to long term investment. This mindset favours aptitude, general and transferable knowledge, problem solving skills, adaptability and position fit over and above exactly fitting all selection criteria in the affirmative. If you think you’re a good fit for the position (even if that presents a big challenge) but are unable to answer all criteria in the affirmative, then apply anyway. Articulate demonstration of skill, even when answering criteria in the negative will always provide a compelling case.

Notes