If writing and film are your true interests, you probably need to find something that gets you from A (where you are now) to B (writing and film) and positions you for that transition down the road. If the programming is rusty, that limits your options there (at least in the short term). I certainly wouldn't start sweating about cognitive decline in your 40s and 50s - it's several years away, and I don't think it's as common as you're likely reading about recently.
I write resumes for a living and give career consultations. Maybe 5% of my clients come to me with similar issues - they have accomplishments and work history, but really struggle to identify direction for their next move. During the writing process, I ask questions about things they did, and I've typically found that the things people talk about the most (or in the most detail) tend to be the things they are best suited for.
Start writing about what you did at your startup - things you were ultimately responsible for, things you are comfortable 'taking credit' for, etc. When you've done that, look back and see if you can identify any themes in there.
Don't worry about the startup failing, there are literally millions of people with similar stories of being part of a failed startup or even several. Look ahead while also thinking about what you learned during the process - what would you do the same way, what would you do differently.
I ran a large Java Users Group for several years when Java was part of Sun Micro and a handful of years after the transition to Oracle. I used to get swag for my members and did giveaways at meetings. I can say that Sun sent me jackets, shirts, books, you name it - once it turned over to Oracle, I had a hard time getting much.
Nice piece. I write resumes and give career advice to a lot of tech professionals, and what you wrote about applying for jobs and "not being sure if a human ever read my resume" hit home for me.
I don't trust that the algorithms will identify qualified people, and I think job search is too important a thing to trust to algorithms. Getting discovered within the traditional application process (LinkedIn, Indeed, applying through company website) is difficult, because you have a large number of applications, and many of those are entirely unqualified. When I was recruiting, it wasn't unusual to get 50+% of applicants for a Senior Dev role that clearly had never written a line of code.
It's a needle in a haystack problem, and the bigger issue is that at some point is the recruiter going to keep investing time looking through the haystack to find a couple needles, or will the recruiter identify a better way to find a few needles?
Direct outreach to recruiters through LinkedIn is what I coach my clients to do, and I provide specific language for that messaging which is just as important. Recruiters like hearing from qualified candidates, and if the recruiter gets enough messages like this he/she doesn't have to wade through the resume pile. It's a clear win/win.
I don't think that is contradictory at all to what I wrote. I agree, many recruiters will try to send you out to every client and every job they have just to maximize their chances of a fee. Those recruiters should be avoided.
If you've gone on 30 interviews and never landed one job, that might be something you need to also consider and look inward. Going 0-for-30 is pretty unusual, unless you were accepting interviews for jobs you were clearly unqualified for.
They may not care about what languages and tools you are using when they hire you, but that's how they find you. They aren't on LinkedIn search for "Software Engineer" in most cases - at least I wasn't.
I said bad "hire", not bad "interview" - this was by design. If a company makes a bad hire, it's not (generally) because the candidate was presented, but rather a flaw in their interview and vetting process. The "how" of the candidate appearing is mostly irrelevant at that point.
I'd bet your LinkedIn isn't optimized at all for discovery. Populate a skills section with languages and tools you use, and you'll often see an immediate uptick.
A bad hire isn't on a recruiter unless they are basically lying to the employer about the hire's credentials or background, and even then it's the employer's job to vet what is being said.
All of my recruiting work was retained for the last 5-10 years I was in business, and I wasn't recruiting executives. I'm not saying that is the norm (it definitely isn't), and you are correct that senior developers will not be approached for executive roles.
Higher level candidates will probably attract higher level recruiters, because the amount of time to place someone making $100K is the same amount of time to place someone at $500K, with the only difference being a $25K fee for the first person and a $100K fee for the second.
The article's methods are actually quite good. You should ignore most of the recruiter contacts - if the recruiter approaches you for a job that is clearly not a fit for your background, I'd dismiss that person as either not respectful of your time or incompetent, and both are good reasons to ignore that person down the road.
If you're getting a fair amount of incoming traffic, you're already optimized for discovery, so that is working. Telling recruiters "I'm only looking for jobs that fit these parameters" and then paying attention to the ones that are respectful of that will work to start a relationship. I had some relationships for the entire 20 years I was in the business, and some of those people I didn't make a dime off for maybe 15 of those years.
Tenure is a good one, but can be misleading. There are a few ways to make money in recruiting. Being really good at it and ethical is one way, but there are also people who are unethical and it hasn't caught up with them.
I would always suggest looking at their tenure. A new recruiter doesn't have the depth of client relationships to be all that helpful, but most new recruiters are 'sourcers' and not handling the client side (they are responsible for researching and bringing in candidates).
Good question. The bad ones don't go away immediately. They go away eventually, and are quickly replaced with another round of new hires. So you have maybe 10% of the industry that stays for the long haul, and 90% is a revolving door of college grads.
There are probably other industries that have similar models where most of the workforce is newbies at all times, but I don't have an example that won't be dissected.
The reluctance to work with recruiters is mostly the "time suck" element. If you were to chase every opportunity sent by recruiters you'd waste a ton of time, but you'd also maximize your potential for getting offers that meet your criteria (whatever those criteria are).
It was meant as a statement of fact. To oversimplify, if you limit the information you are willing to receive, you won't have all the information you could have.
My main issue with the original post was that OP was crediting a policy of reduced information with doubling their salary. That just isn't the case.
I don't think missing out and losing out are synonymous. I'm simply stating that if you decide to ignore any subset of potential opportunities solely due to the source, you are limiting your exposure to possibilities.
For example, if you don't have a LinkedIn profile, you will probably get far less incoming inquiries from hiring entities (external/internal recruiters, hiring managers, etc.). That's a decision many people make.
Everyone has autonomy in who they interview with - I'm not sure where that comment is coming from.
This isn't about autonomy or interviews. It's about the ability to say "yes" or "no" to additional information about opportunities. Nothing more.
EDIT: To address the Great Resignation thing, agreed there as well. I'm a resume writer/career advisor now and my business has been brisk. Lots of clients are changing industries to find more impactful work, better working conditions, etc. Obviously if someone IS leaving the workforce they aren't calling me to write their resume, but I'm seeing a lot of activity from people looking to find work they "feel better" about in one way or another.
I don't assume everyone is looking to advance to an exec role - in my experience, most actually are not looking for that at all. I tend to assume people aren't looking for exec roles.
"Advance your position" could refer to improved work/life balance, more time off, remote, whatever you value. I was referring to overall position (life quality), not on an org chart. I can see how that wasn't made explicitly clear.
Former recruiter here. You are spot-on about referrals, and having an insider advocating for you or just their willingness to make the recommendation starts things off at a great spot.
Here's where I disagree. You haven't doubled your salary BECAUSE of your policy of not working with recruiters, but rather DESPITE this policy.
Deciding to disregard any recruiter opportunity is just shutting out quite a few things that you probably won't hear about otherwise, especially at the higher levels. Exec roles are often handled by retained recruiting firms and aren't as well publicized as entry level and junior roles. So just saying "I will never work with a third party recruiter" can certainly be your policy, and you may save yourself a fair amount of time by sticking with it, but that policy is doing nothing to advance your position (career, earnings, etc.)
The reasons that there are so many incompetent recruiters are many, but a few are:
- low cost: companies hire entry level recruiters and pay them next to nothing in guaranteed compensation (mostly commission-based). The good ones will make the company a lot of money, and the bad ones can't afford to stay in the industry because they aren't making enough in commission - so they 'go away'.
- low skill: the skills required to be a good recruiter aren't typically taught in school, so they aren't coming out of college with a strong foundation. They need to learn and be successful quickly (because it's commission-based)
Well you're in luck, young bibliophile. Teller has authored or co-authored five books, all published between your 12th and 28th birthdays.
I may be more familiar with his work than the average person because of his connection to my high school. But saying the title was "clickbait" (as if there is some large contingent of people that were hoping to hear the secrets of bank tellers) is a little much.
If you are genuinely "old", you'd be more likely to know who Teller is. Penn & Teller were pretty ubiquitous back in the 80s and 90s. Teller is 73. Fun fact - he taught Latin at the high school I went to (before my time) before making it as a magician.