Unquiet

My last [two][1] [posts][2] dredged up concerns over self-censorship, especially when I talked about imagining myself in the shoes of a suicide bomber. I hope I made it clear that the exercise was entirely theoretical, for the purpose of making some sense out of such senselessness. But that’s not what I want to talk about now.

[1]: http://blog.unquiet.net/archives/2005/07/08/fear/
[2]: http://blog.unquiet.net/archives/2005/07/08/getting-past-fear/

This morning, I read an article from _The Chronicle of Higher Education_ entitled [Bloggers Need Not Apply][3] that chastised job-seekers for running blogs, suggesting that their personal nature (and the fact that blogs are not _per se_ a peer-reviewed medium) hurt more than helped most applicants.

[3]: http://chronicle.com/jobs/2005/07/2005070801c.htm

>We all have quirks. In a traditional interview process, we try our best to stifle them, or keep them below the threshold of annoyance and distraction. The search committee is composed of humans, who know that the applicants are humans, too, who have those things to hide. It’s in your interest, as an applicant, for them to stay hidden, not laid out in exquisite detail for all the world to read.

I disagree. It’s vitally important that potential employers or clients understand at least part of the greater person, not simply the narrow image presented by resumé and interview(s). “Ivan Tribble” suggests we tightly control our appearance to others, suggest we become our own _spin doctors_ and media handlers. If businesses don’t possess some level of expanded knowledge of their applicants, they risk the experience of a company I worked for six years ago.

The highly talented team leader of the design department had decided to move to San Francisco, so we needed a replacement for him. The Art Director and the team leader together interviewed a number of applicants, finally selecting one who seemed quite knowledgeable and able to bring incredible assets to the company.

Unfortunately, he was a con artist with very little web development skill at all. I remember being in the odd position as a Jr. Developer teaching basic HTML to the Sr. Developer. (Due to other circumstances, the HR department felt squeamish about firing him even though we all knew he was incompetent.)

Blogs provide a boon for HR departments everywhere - suddenly, it’s possible to get to know the real applicant, not just the ‘best appearances’ put forth in an interview. I’d much rather a company know about my quirks and embrace or at least accept them; in the same way, I would feel ultimately stifled working with a company or client with whom I had to censor myself.

###In Employees We Trust?
Tribble also states:

>The content of the blog may be less worrisome than the fact of the blog itself. Several committee members expressed concern that a blogger who joined our staff might air departmental dirty laundry (real or imagined) on the cyber clothesline for the world to see. Past good behavior is no guarantee against future lapses of professional decorum.

My ex cost me an important web development contract with an agency she had just left (prior to our move to Boston) because of several rants she had posted in her blog. I understand the business concern here, and I know that, within the blogging community, the issues have been rehashed many times.

The real trouble with Tribble’s logic lies in its paranoid and untrusting nature. He doesn’t look at potential colleagues so much as people as potential risks. While there exist unprofessional and reactionary employees who will air their dirty laundry to everyone they can think of at the least provocation, the majority of us are content to vent to our loved ones instead. What twist of logic makes Tribble think that a blog makes a difference in how much someone talks bad about his department? It’s foolish to believe that an unhappy employee will not communicate her unhappiness by any means available.

Moreover, in the case of those unhappy employees, why are we so concerned with appearances? Why not confront the issues that exist head-on, acknowledge the problems, and work in public to correct them? I’ve worked for companies that don’t even wish to discuss their problems with their employees. And you know, I usually left for better jobs in those cases.

Look, if you can’t place at least some trust in me, forget it. I don’t want to work for you. You want happy employees? Work with them, not against them.

###HR: Hell Reborn or Human Resources?

It’s no secret among family and friends that there’s no love lost between myself and HR departments. I prefer going directly to the people I’d work for, because they have the clearest expectations of what the position needs. 37signals, darling of the minimalist design movement right now, wrote [”Hire” the right clients][4] and said something that’s apropos here:

[4]: http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives/001053.php

>Should I hire this person or not? Just replace person with client and you’ll start to see the connection. Even though a client is really hiring you, in many ways you’re hiring them right back. You have to work with them. In many ways your future is tied to their performance. The relationship is tighter than you may think.

Tribble describes a fundamentally flawed hiring process: both sides shove their skeletons into their respective closets, adopt a _don’t ask, don’t tell_ policy, and it all reeks of the old axiom “Out of sight, out of mind.” Except we ignore each others’ foibles at our own peril. For me to hide my opinions and interests now means I must maintain that secrecy later.

The bloggers mentioned in Tribble’s article each suffered flaws that, though he is careful to point out were only part of the reasons for their rejection, obviously played a large role. The first wasn’t really all that interested in humanities, instead loving to program. The second blogged about everything, including his mental health, except for work. And the third’s friend revealed on a blog that the third hadn’t really done all the research he’d said he had.

_Obviously, Professor Tribble, none of these candidates were a good fit for your department. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure that out._ But Tribble then goes on to suggest that we, as potential employees, __initiate__ the relationship by breaking the employers’ trust, by hiding these ‘foibles.’ But how else would he have known that the first might abandon them for the computer labs three weeks in, the second could use some therapy, and the third had no scruples if it _weren’t_ for their blogs?

Somewhere along the line, the traditional hiring process got twisted into searching for the perfect employee. You know the type: can do every job in the company and even some the company doesn’t need, has twice as much experience as the industry is old, and will work for half the prevailing salary.

It’s not going to happen. You’re not going to find the perfect employee. I’m sorry to break it to you.

What if, however, there was a way you could find the __best employee__, the __best client__, the one that met your needs exactly?

The more honesty between us before we shake hands and sign contracts, the more likely we’ll have a long and fruitful relationship. It’s that simple. You know why? Because if there are elements about me that don’t meet your needs, that give you pause, that cause you to think twice about hiring me, you _damn well_ better think about that now and make the right decision for you and your company before you invest so much in me.

If we don’t both evaluate each other on an honest understanding of our benefits and drawbacks, we’re both at fault later on when problems arise in our relationship. If you want me to ’stifle’ and ‘hide’ my dark side during the hiring process, I don’t want to work for you. I don’t want our relationship to be based on deception. It’s that simple.

So I blog. And I might say some things you disagree with. But you can trust that I’m a professional and I’m a really damn good web developer.