How I failed to land a remote position(kostasbariotis.com)
kostasbariotis.com
How I failed to land a remote position
https://kostasbariotis.com/how-i-failed-landing-a-remote-position/
20 comments
In the 24 years I've been working for Silicon Valley / SF companies
(7 companies, the latest two as remote positions) I've never gone
through HR or gone through the regular job-posting-or-board search ...
I've gotten all jobs through connections and references, including
the very first. Many job transitions involved a significant pay raise,
and several involved liquidity events ... none were huge, but I managed
to filter the occasional opportunities down to those that "made sense"
and had a plausible exit strategy ... I regret not having gone to Splunk.
I usually joined companies with between 3 and 25 employees.
But I look back and think that maybe I've missed something, and I've just floated down the stream meandering, jumping from one raft to the next. I maybe haven't found the "best" match for my interests and skills since I've never thought too deeply about what exactly I wanted to do. I've just always "had skills and friends doing interesting things", and it's not been bad.
The transition to remote happened four years ago. I joined one smaller startup (with a single parent company funding its growth) ... a spinoff of sorts. I stayed for three years and it was the worst professional experience of my life, though I did appreciate California pay while living in the Southeast. There is and continues to be a lot of management churn, and a picture of the company should be in the Wikipedia entry for "Dunning Kruger".
A year ago I started working for an already-acquired startup that was part of a larger company (think 5K-15K employees). It's been the best experience in a long time ... I belong to a smaller team within that "startup", work on pretty interesting things. There's no equity, but my effective annual compensation has increased approx 40% (generous bonus plan, and they like my work).
I'd say for compensation and (mostly) positive development experiences, working through my network has paid well.
But I look back and think that maybe I've missed something, and I've just floated down the stream meandering, jumping from one raft to the next. I maybe haven't found the "best" match for my interests and skills since I've never thought too deeply about what exactly I wanted to do. I've just always "had skills and friends doing interesting things", and it's not been bad.
The transition to remote happened four years ago. I joined one smaller startup (with a single parent company funding its growth) ... a spinoff of sorts. I stayed for three years and it was the worst professional experience of my life, though I did appreciate California pay while living in the Southeast. There is and continues to be a lot of management churn, and a picture of the company should be in the Wikipedia entry for "Dunning Kruger".
A year ago I started working for an already-acquired startup that was part of a larger company (think 5K-15K employees). It's been the best experience in a long time ... I belong to a smaller team within that "startup", work on pretty interesting things. There's no equity, but my effective annual compensation has increased approx 40% (generous bonus plan, and they like my work).
I'd say for compensation and (mostly) positive development experiences, working through my network has paid well.
How did you start that network?
One of the ways I started and continually improve that network is by interviewing for programmer jobs. I am almost constantly interviewing. It keeps my skills up to spec, helps me do well with typical programmer interviews, I always have my ear to the rail for a new opportunity, and best of all, I'm continually meeting new and interesting people working on cool projects. I've been interviewed by people that later I befriended and then helped get positions at companies that I knew were hiring. It is an excellent way to form and maintain this network of like-minded people. I'll warn you though that this is a time-consuming and sometimes very draining hobby. I've never gone into an interview saying to myself that I would not take the job, but there have been times when I regretted going. It sometimes helps you know which companies to avoid. I'd start local and then if this is something you can handle, only then start interviewing in other cities.
I have no affiliation with them but the Meetup app is also a great way to meet people in tech in your area.
> Competition for each position is fierce. Especially for the SF-type jobs where the salaries are so astronomical compared to your remote area (like Greece, India, Thailand, etc.). You may have some (or even a lot) of experience in some tech, but so would the other 50-500 applications for that position. This puts the ball in the court of the employer, because they use stupid filters like "the right fit" - which most of the time equates to finding the person they can extract the most value from per-dollar (or the 1 who kills their wannabe-Google interview process the best)
As I mentioned in another comment in this thread, I disagree with this. I've worked remotely for almost all of my career, across three companies and long term consulting. I've also interviewed many candidates for positions that were remote-friendly.
For self-awareness, I'm going to acknowledge that there is an element of survivorship bias in play here. That said I do not believe remote positions are intrinsically more competitive than the modal onsite position sought by a typical HN reader.
What I believe actually happens is a cultural obstacle: two types of companies offer remote work. The first type has a cultural foundation set up to treat remote employees equally both in the work environment and in the interview process. The second type is well-intentioned, but does not design their work environment or interview process to enable remote employees to succeed as well as onsite candidates and employees.
If you are seeking positions at companies that merely offer remote work in a sort of half-hearted, "this is the future and we want to be trendy and 'get the best talent'" way, then yes, it will be competitive - you'll find that even if you do well in interviews onsite candidates will be chosen more often than not. But if you optimize your job search for positions which treat remote employees as first class citizens (especially with regards to on the job communication and the interview pipeline), you'll probably notice that the competitiveness of the process quickly returns to what you'd expect of typical engineering interviews in coastal areas.
As I mentioned in another comment in this thread, I disagree with this. I've worked remotely for almost all of my career, across three companies and long term consulting. I've also interviewed many candidates for positions that were remote-friendly.
For self-awareness, I'm going to acknowledge that there is an element of survivorship bias in play here. That said I do not believe remote positions are intrinsically more competitive than the modal onsite position sought by a typical HN reader.
What I believe actually happens is a cultural obstacle: two types of companies offer remote work. The first type has a cultural foundation set up to treat remote employees equally both in the work environment and in the interview process. The second type is well-intentioned, but does not design their work environment or interview process to enable remote employees to succeed as well as onsite candidates and employees.
If you are seeking positions at companies that merely offer remote work in a sort of half-hearted, "this is the future and we want to be trendy and 'get the best talent'" way, then yes, it will be competitive - you'll find that even if you do well in interviews onsite candidates will be chosen more often than not. But if you optimize your job search for positions which treat remote employees as first class citizens (especially with regards to on the job communication and the interview pipeline), you'll probably notice that the competitiveness of the process quickly returns to what you'd expect of typical engineering interviews in coastal areas.
Every remote job I've ever posted has received 300-500 applications. For the same role on-site (NYC), I've had to turn to recruiters.
> That said I do not believe remote positions are intrinsically more competitive than the modal onsite position sought by a typical HN reader.
Actually, how is this even a possible point to argue? The pool of candidates for an on-site job is limited to the population of that city + applicants willing to relocate. The pool of candidates for a remote job is literally everyone in the entire world.
> That said I do not believe remote positions are intrinsically more competitive than the modal onsite position sought by a typical HN reader.
Actually, how is this even a possible point to argue? The pool of candidates for an on-site job is limited to the population of that city + applicants willing to relocate. The pool of candidates for a remote job is literally everyone in the entire world.
Eh...I see your point, but it seems a tad hyperbolic. When I was interviewing for remote positions I saw similar numbers, so I agree with that.
What I don't agree with is mapping those numbers to competitiveness. How many of those 300-500 applications were actually competitive? You can do a first order qualification check on 300 - 500 resumes in a day if you're sorting into two piles: "I can immediately say no to this" and "I can't immediately say no to this."
You'll probably still have a lot to deal with at that point (though honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you've reduced 50% in my experience - people submit truly awful applications). Of those candidates, most are still going to be unqualified.
I distinctly recall phone interviewing 20 candidates back to back, each of whom couldn't answer very simple interview questions (and I mean simple, not "HN interview humblebrag simple"). I know, I know, this means we didn't have a high quality candidate pipeline. But that's harder to do with remote positions.
So to that last point, I suppose I have to concede if you're defining competition as higher numbers of raw applications. That's not the definition I'd use for competitiveness (though it's definitely a valid one), but probably better we get that sorted instead of talking past each other :). I would consider a position more competitive based on the quality of candidates applying to it, not based on the sheer number of people applying. As someone who has interviewed and worked in remote positions I've never really been concerned when applying for them, because I've always been reasonably confident I can hit the top n percentile of candidates, where n is inversely proportional to the total number.
What I don't agree with is mapping those numbers to competitiveness. How many of those 300-500 applications were actually competitive? You can do a first order qualification check on 300 - 500 resumes in a day if you're sorting into two piles: "I can immediately say no to this" and "I can't immediately say no to this."
You'll probably still have a lot to deal with at that point (though honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you've reduced 50% in my experience - people submit truly awful applications). Of those candidates, most are still going to be unqualified.
I distinctly recall phone interviewing 20 candidates back to back, each of whom couldn't answer very simple interview questions (and I mean simple, not "HN interview humblebrag simple"). I know, I know, this means we didn't have a high quality candidate pipeline. But that's harder to do with remote positions.
So to that last point, I suppose I have to concede if you're defining competition as higher numbers of raw applications. That's not the definition I'd use for competitiveness (though it's definitely a valid one), but probably better we get that sorted instead of talking past each other :). I would consider a position more competitive based on the quality of candidates applying to it, not based on the sheer number of people applying. As someone who has interviewed and worked in remote positions I've never really been concerned when applying for them, because I've always been reasonably confident I can hit the top n percentile of candidates, where n is inversely proportional to the total number.
Kudos for the clarification. Your argument makes a lot more sense given the context of your experience.
Yeah, I think it comes down to whether you define competition by quantity or quality of applicants. There are definitely valid reasons to approach the topic from both perspectives!
I dont see how its hyperbolic. This is the long tail at work. Remote work allows workers to fill a niche, but it will be very competitive for broad skillsets.
>The pool of candidates for a remote job is literally everyone in the entire world.
It is not true. I for one do not even consider remote work. I don't imagine I am the only person in the entire world like this. The reason is that I had been working remotely sometime in the past and found it less attractive than working in the office. Combined with the fact that employers consider "remote" an additional perk justifying the lower compensation I now just turn down any remote offers without further negotiation.
It is not true. I for one do not even consider remote work. I don't imagine I am the only person in the entire world like this. The reason is that I had been working remotely sometime in the past and found it less attractive than working in the office. Combined with the fact that employers consider "remote" an additional perk justifying the lower compensation I now just turn down any remote offers without further negotiation.
The job pool for a remote candidate is also the entire world.
It's the entire world that; lives in a timezone the employer is comfortable with, speaks English with near native proficiency, comes from or can adapt to a culture that is close enough to the employer's culture to fit in, has access to a reliable electrical grid, and has reliably fast internet access.
Basically If you're already in America, you have several huge advantages over the rest of the world when applying for remote work (permanent or contract).
Basically If you're already in America, you have several huge advantages over the rest of the world when applying for remote work (permanent or contract).
While I see your point, the job pool for a remote candidate, realistically, is the couple dozen jobs a month that they find on HN/Linkedin/StackOverflow Jobs/etc. Also, the on-site candidate pool, realistically, is a subset of the remote candidate pool* (edited). I don't know anyone who wouldn't prefer to work from home (or wherever).
I know plenty of people who wouldn't prefer to work from home. I have the option to do so regularly, but I only take it when it suits me for other reasons (someone coming to visit normally) I prefer to keep my work and home life separate if possible.
I for one prefer to work in office rather than from home.
Sure, and also everyone tends to go for the SF positions, as they pay better. I was just mentioning one theoretical way that remote working might be less competitive than on-site.
It takes a certain type to WFH and there are plenty of downsides. I'm currently remote but I wouldn't say I prefer it to on site. It's almost certainly exaggeration to say everybody prefers it. There are ups and downs.
[deleted]
> You said you have friends working for remote-first companies like Github and Automattic - that should have been your first method of entry to go direct to the team itself
Agreed. People who apply to us by reaching out directly to someone they know essentially skip our first level of triage (https://handbook.hmn.md/getting-started/hiring-process/), so if you have contacts, use them. I know Automattic is similar (we're a partner of theirs).
Agreed. People who apply to us by reaching out directly to someone they know essentially skip our first level of triage (https://handbook.hmn.md/getting-started/hiring-process/), so if you have contacts, use them. I know Automattic is similar (we're a partner of theirs).
I would add:
1. Don't try to arbitrage by expecting Silicon Valley wages in remote areas. Companies pay the market wage (or a bit above) in each area, and you will make a lot less money if you work even in Western Europe rather than San Francisco, and of course much less if you are in Greece. There is no reason for them to pay you San Francisco wages if you are living in Colorado or Austin, let alone Greece.
2. There is a coordination failure here. 70 resumes? It's crazy. I've never applied to more than 2 jobs at once and never had more than 3 resumes out there.
There is a rough balance between tech workers and tech jobs. So what do you think the steady state job acceptance rate will be if each job seeker sends out 70 resumes? It will be 1 in 70. If each job seeker sends out 3 resumes, it will be 1 in 3. Do you prefer 1 in 3 or 1 in 70? I know what the firms prefer. Having been on both sides of the hiring process, I can tell you that everyone applying to 70 positions has a lot of consequences that make job search suck for everyone:
First, it means you are not a good fit for the average position you apply to. And employers know that. People complain about crazy filters and hoops, but what happens when you as a company get 4200 applications for 60 positions because everyone is applying to 70 jobs when they are really a good fit for say, 10 of them. I am not blaming the individual job seeker, as this is a coordination problem. Without penalties for sending out too many resumes, it's in everyone's interest to spam employers, creating a lot of noise in the job search process and causing employers to be even more strict in their screening.
Perhaps one solution would be something like a $1000 application fee for each job you apply to after the 5th application, to be paid into a fund for unemployed tech workers. It would also be nice if there was a central clearinghouse of resumes so that you don't have people sending different resumes to different firms, but just different cover letters.
That solution also has problems, but this blog is kind of a good example of what is wrong with job search -- you have a job seeker who thinks they will be able to work remotely from Greece and earn SV wages yet who is themselves extremely picky about the kind of job they want, say ruling out all big companies, and then proceeding to spam lots of small companies with an offer of remote Greek employment. Now think about your situation -- you are a small company so you probably don't have a lot of VISA/immigration infrastructure. You probably don't have lawyers on staff who can tell you what Greek labor laws are, nor is this something a small company would want to get into. Small companies are also much less likely to be willing to work with even a domestic remote employee because team communication/cohesion is more important to firms that don't have a lot of engineering processes. Finally, small companies generally don't have a lot of resources to spend on search and so (since every employer is getting spammed) most of the hires come from referrals.
Basically this user is going for the exact opposite profile of the employer who would be willing to hire him. This information is available, sending in a job application costs nothing.
1. Don't try to arbitrage by expecting Silicon Valley wages in remote areas. Companies pay the market wage (or a bit above) in each area, and you will make a lot less money if you work even in Western Europe rather than San Francisco, and of course much less if you are in Greece. There is no reason for them to pay you San Francisco wages if you are living in Colorado or Austin, let alone Greece.
2. There is a coordination failure here. 70 resumes? It's crazy. I've never applied to more than 2 jobs at once and never had more than 3 resumes out there.
There is a rough balance between tech workers and tech jobs. So what do you think the steady state job acceptance rate will be if each job seeker sends out 70 resumes? It will be 1 in 70. If each job seeker sends out 3 resumes, it will be 1 in 3. Do you prefer 1 in 3 or 1 in 70? I know what the firms prefer. Having been on both sides of the hiring process, I can tell you that everyone applying to 70 positions has a lot of consequences that make job search suck for everyone:
First, it means you are not a good fit for the average position you apply to. And employers know that. People complain about crazy filters and hoops, but what happens when you as a company get 4200 applications for 60 positions because everyone is applying to 70 jobs when they are really a good fit for say, 10 of them. I am not blaming the individual job seeker, as this is a coordination problem. Without penalties for sending out too many resumes, it's in everyone's interest to spam employers, creating a lot of noise in the job search process and causing employers to be even more strict in their screening.
Perhaps one solution would be something like a $1000 application fee for each job you apply to after the 5th application, to be paid into a fund for unemployed tech workers. It would also be nice if there was a central clearinghouse of resumes so that you don't have people sending different resumes to different firms, but just different cover letters.
That solution also has problems, but this blog is kind of a good example of what is wrong with job search -- you have a job seeker who thinks they will be able to work remotely from Greece and earn SV wages yet who is themselves extremely picky about the kind of job they want, say ruling out all big companies, and then proceeding to spam lots of small companies with an offer of remote Greek employment. Now think about your situation -- you are a small company so you probably don't have a lot of VISA/immigration infrastructure. You probably don't have lawyers on staff who can tell you what Greek labor laws are, nor is this something a small company would want to get into. Small companies are also much less likely to be willing to work with even a domestic remote employee because team communication/cohesion is more important to firms that don't have a lot of engineering processes. Finally, small companies generally don't have a lot of resources to spend on search and so (since every employer is getting spammed) most of the hires come from referrals.
Basically this user is going for the exact opposite profile of the employer who would be willing to hire him. This information is available, sending in a job application costs nothing.
if
> if tech is a meritocacy then why are most jobs made through social connections?
Two reasons:
1) There is no such thing as a true meritocracy (we can generalize this to the claim that there is no such thing as absolute efficiency, which is what a true meritocracy would ostensibly be a manifestation of in employment).
2) Human beings have limited attention and productivity bandwidth which typically (though not always) becomes less than the sum of its parts in groups.
The second point is what's really important here (and it has a causal relationship with the first observation). If you have 100 candidates applying for a position, you literally do not have time to adequately review each and every candidate in a reasonable amount of time while maintaining productivity in your professional capacity.
Theoretically we shouldn't use referrals. But in practice it's a good heuristic because it models a web of trust: if person A trusts person B's abilities, they might also trust person B's ability to judge person C's abilities. Obviously this can't be formalized well enough to be extremely rigorous, which is why it doesn't always work.
It's probably not even the most optimal solution! You could develop sophisticated organizational processes to scale up the candidate review process without leveraging trust in other parties as much. But people default to it because it works often enough and because it's intuitively an attractive idea. That combination tends to be viral for human interaction, even if it's technically suboptimal.
Two reasons:
1) There is no such thing as a true meritocracy (we can generalize this to the claim that there is no such thing as absolute efficiency, which is what a true meritocracy would ostensibly be a manifestation of in employment).
2) Human beings have limited attention and productivity bandwidth which typically (though not always) becomes less than the sum of its parts in groups.
The second point is what's really important here (and it has a causal relationship with the first observation). If you have 100 candidates applying for a position, you literally do not have time to adequately review each and every candidate in a reasonable amount of time while maintaining productivity in your professional capacity.
Theoretically we shouldn't use referrals. But in practice it's a good heuristic because it models a web of trust: if person A trusts person B's abilities, they might also trust person B's ability to judge person C's abilities. Obviously this can't be formalized well enough to be extremely rigorous, which is why it doesn't always work.
It's probably not even the most optimal solution! You could develop sophisticated organizational processes to scale up the candidate review process without leveraging trust in other parties as much. But people default to it because it works often enough and because it's intuitively an attractive idea. That combination tends to be viral for human interaction, even if it's technically suboptimal.
>if tech is a meritocacy then why are most jobs made through social connections?
How do you judge someone in a meritocracy?
Interviews? Not reflective of actual work. Also trivial to bias in favor of one group due to culture fit elements. Short term projects? Exclude people who have limited free time (generally the more senior/older ones). Resume? Trivial to lie on. References? How do you know the reference is competent?
Social connections are merely another, imperfect, attempt to judge someone's merit. Specifically you trust the judgement of someone whose merit you have already proven in an actual job environment.
How do you judge someone in a meritocracy?
Interviews? Not reflective of actual work. Also trivial to bias in favor of one group due to culture fit elements. Short term projects? Exclude people who have limited free time (generally the more senior/older ones). Resume? Trivial to lie on. References? How do you know the reference is competent?
Social connections are merely another, imperfect, attempt to judge someone's merit. Specifically you trust the judgement of someone whose merit you have already proven in an actual job environment.
Because the best way to know if someone has ability in engineering is if you've worked directly with them before. Don't confuse friends and relatives with someone you've worked with before in a professional setting.
Not really really. It happens in other industries as well. It's not corruption. Corruption would be hiring someone without due diligence interviewing just because you know them.
I can't think of one company which refuses referrals. Rather, even the largest of public companies have referral programs.
I can't think of one company which refuses referrals. Rather, even the largest of public companies have referral programs.
Thanks for sharing, remote job hunting is challenging. Some constructive feedback:
TL;DR. Too much personal fluff and no meat. Nobody cares about your hobbies unless they're directly relevant to the position.
Overly general. You haven't differentiated yourself enough from others applying to the same position.
These kind of cover letters/emails should be highly specific to the company you're applying to. It should answer the HR manager's primary question: Is this applicant the best person to help the company achieve its goals?
Find out from the job description what you're being hired to do, and provide examples of things you've done in the past that are similar. Help the manager imagine how you could apply your experience and talent to that position. And do it quickly, since they're reviewing hundreds of these a day and will spend less than 30 seconds on yours.
Customizing your cover letters in this way is definitely more effort and more time consuming, which means that 99% of applicants won't do it. Be the 1% that stands out.
Finally, the HR filter sucks. Find the actual team managers/members and reach out to them instead. Referrals, even if cold, are better than nothing.
TL;DR. Too much personal fluff and no meat. Nobody cares about your hobbies unless they're directly relevant to the position.
Overly general. You haven't differentiated yourself enough from others applying to the same position.
These kind of cover letters/emails should be highly specific to the company you're applying to. It should answer the HR manager's primary question: Is this applicant the best person to help the company achieve its goals?
Find out from the job description what you're being hired to do, and provide examples of things you've done in the past that are similar. Help the manager imagine how you could apply your experience and talent to that position. And do it quickly, since they're reviewing hundreds of these a day and will spend less than 30 seconds on yours.
Customizing your cover letters in this way is definitely more effort and more time consuming, which means that 99% of applicants won't do it. Be the 1% that stands out.
Finally, the HR filter sucks. Find the actual team managers/members and reach out to them instead. Referrals, even if cold, are better than nothing.
Agree entirely. The opening email is a lot of waffle - I'm sure the beaches are nice but the person hiring almost certainly doesn't care. I know the idea was to come across like a friendly person but I feel the tone makes you seem naive tbh.
I think a couple of a paragraphs about why you want to work for the company and a CV would suffice.
Best of luck with stuff though, an interesting post.
I think a couple of a paragraphs about why you want to work for the company and a CV would suffice.
Best of luck with stuff though, an interesting post.
> It should answer the HR manager's primary question: Is this applicant the best person to help the company achieve its goals?
Yes that's actually something I didn't pay much attention. Thanks, will definitely keep in mind.
Yes that's actually something I didn't pay much attention. Thanks, will definitely keep in mind.
You should, I did exactly that sometime ago for only the 5 companies at that time who were super interesting to me.
For each of their cover letters I told a personal story that was spot on relevant to the position and their mission/values. It demonstrated all the soft skills....each of them called me within a day or two.
For each of their cover letters I told a personal story that was spot on relevant to the position and their mission/values. It demonstrated all the soft skills....each of them called me within a day or two.
Not to sound impolite at all, but your cover letter sounds more like a dating site profile than a cover letter for a job. Overly personal, a lot of irrelevant details. Too friendly.
Let your resume, portfolio, etc. do the talking.
Let your resume, portfolio, etc. do the talking.
I'd agree with this, I read the the cover letter and found it unconvincing. Specific things I'd do to improve it are:
- Make it less personal, the whole first paragraph is unnecessary, as is the 5th. Much of the blog paragraph could be removed.
- Focus on the projects.
- Add _far_ more about relevance to the company applying. I'm not sure how much was being added in the placeholder for company relevant information, but I'd expect roughly 50-70% of a cover letter to be company specific, explaining how your skills and experience will make you a good hire for the company.
- I'd probably add a cultural question about the company - this invites a response, will be something a recruiter can answer easily, and will show that culture matters to you.
- I'd probably play down the Node.js experience unless that's what the company specifically does - otherwise it reads like Node is the only major recent experience you have, which is unlikely to be useful at most companies.
- Make it less personal, the whole first paragraph is unnecessary, as is the 5th. Much of the blog paragraph could be removed.
- Focus on the projects.
- Add _far_ more about relevance to the company applying. I'm not sure how much was being added in the placeholder for company relevant information, but I'd expect roughly 50-70% of a cover letter to be company specific, explaining how your skills and experience will make you a good hire for the company.
- I'd probably add a cultural question about the company - this invites a response, will be something a recruiter can answer easily, and will show that culture matters to you.
- I'd probably play down the Node.js experience unless that's what the company specifically does - otherwise it reads like Node is the only major recent experience you have, which is unlikely to be useful at most companies.
> - I'd probably add a cultural question about the company - this invites a response, will be something a recruiter can answer easily, and will show that culture matters to you.
Hmmm, that's actually a great idea. A conversation starter. Thanks.
Hmmm, that's actually a great idea. A conversation starter. Thanks.
I totally disagree. The resume/portfolio will talk either way, but they usually don't say enough. If a cover letter can give me an idea of what it's like to talk to someone in real life, it helps tremendously. Resumes just blend together, and it becomes impossible to tell anyone apart.
Doing anything -- literally anything -- that differentiates a resume from the rest of the stack is going to get me to pay more attention. Giving me a personal/emotional connection to the person and an idea of their personality is also going to help, because that's just how most human minds work. We tend to like people who put themselves out there.
Doing anything -- literally anything -- that differentiates a resume from the rest of the stack is going to get me to pay more attention. Giving me a personal/emotional connection to the person and an idea of their personality is also going to help, because that's just how most human minds work. We tend to like people who put themselves out there.
You stand out in a cover letter by finding a concise and convincing to summarize why they should interview you and the value you bring. Not by telling people your hobbies or how nice the beach near you is. That kind of stuff should come up naturally in a call or in person.
The same applies to dating - putting so much info up front is rarely successful.
The same applies to dating - putting so much info up front is rarely successful.
> You stand out in a cover letter by finding a concise and convincing to summarize why they should interview you and the value you bring
You don't stand out that way because everyone else is writing the same thing. After the first five, it's monotonous and loses any feeling of meaning or sincerity.
I usually know what "value" someone will bring by their resume. I need a data engineer -- you're a data engineer! Great. Business value is established.
Beyond that, I'm trying to figure out what it's like to work with you, whether you're an ethical person, whether you can work independently, etc. Those things are conveyed by personal details (and, eventually, the interview).
You don't stand out that way because everyone else is writing the same thing. After the first five, it's monotonous and loses any feeling of meaning or sincerity.
I usually know what "value" someone will bring by their resume. I need a data engineer -- you're a data engineer! Great. Business value is established.
Beyond that, I'm trying to figure out what it's like to work with you, whether you're an ethical person, whether you can work independently, etc. Those things are conveyed by personal details (and, eventually, the interview).
> Beyond that, I'm trying to figure out what it's like to work with you, whether you're an ethical person, whether you can work independently, etc.
Good point, you are right. I still believe what OP had in his cover letter was unnecessary but it would not be a deal breaker for me. Honestly, if he got rid of the paragraph about his hobbies and the sentence about where he lives, it's pretty good aside from some generic phrases ("I like clean code" - who doesn't?).
Good point, you are right. I still believe what OP had in his cover letter was unnecessary but it would not be a deal breaker for me. Honestly, if he got rid of the paragraph about his hobbies and the sentence about where he lives, it's pretty good aside from some generic phrases ("I like clean code" - who doesn't?).
> Doing anything -- literally anything -- that differentiates a resume from the rest of the stack is going to get me to pay more attention. Giving me a personal/emotional connection to the person and an idea of their personality is also going to help, because that's just how most human minds work. We tend to like people who put themselves out there.
Exactly. I know that there are a lot of better developers out there than me. I had to differentiate myself by introducing him in a more fun way just like I would do if I was meeting them in person.
Exactly. I know that there are a lot of better developers out there than me. I had to differentiate myself by introducing him in a more fun way just like I would do if I was meeting them in person.
I agree that differentiation is a good goal, but the issue here is that the letter comes across as trying to use a personal tone to compensate for technical acuity. The author even says so in a sibling comment: "I know that there are a lot of better developers out there than me.". Putting a personal twist on a letter focusing on the value you would bring to the company is a good thing, but the opposite does not work as well.
I still don't think that's a problem. Technical acuity, as you put it, isn't always the best measure of productivity, especially for those of us working on CRUD web apps.
Once someone has demonstrated some level of ability, I care much more about how well they work with a team, how excited they are to learn, etc.
Once someone has demonstrated some level of ability, I care much more about how well they work with a team, how excited they are to learn, etc.
Here's an actual reply:
Good morning Kostas!
I saw something this morning that showed Chalkidiki, I wish I could remember where I saw it - the water was so clear and blue it looks blissful!
Thank you for taking the time to write to us, we are currently not hiring. But as a start up this could change in an instance. I will put your email into our database and should a match with your skill set arise we will reach out to you. I do want to let you know however, I am sorry to say, at the moment COMPANY_NAME lacks the legal resources to sponsor visas other than TN-1visas for Canadian and Mexican citizens.
Warmly,
Emily99/100 people won't have been there or seen something about it recently, and so they won't connect over it. That section came off as cringey to me -- it screamed "poor culture fit with overly chummy foreigner who doesn't understand what job-hunting communications in the US look like" (no offense). You don't start off a job hunt by bragging up the beauty of your native land. It's just weird and irrelevant.
What works to get my attention in the first paragraph of a cover letter would be any of the following:
1. Past employment at a well-known high quality employer (e.g. the Big 4).
2. Substantial contributions to important open source projects, ideally ones that I've heard about.
3. A history of high performance at previous employers, e.g. you've been promoted to tech lead and/or brought on at senior level.
I don't care about your beaches.
What works to get my attention in the first paragraph of a cover letter would be any of the following:
1. Past employment at a well-known high quality employer (e.g. the Big 4).
2. Substantial contributions to important open source projects, ideally ones that I've heard about.
3. A history of high performance at previous employers, e.g. you've been promoted to tech lead and/or brought on at senior level.
I don't care about your beaches.
No worries, I totally get your point. I've also got some good feedback, though, from some HR and that made me keep sending the same email.
I run a mainly remote team with over 30 people that also has a small office in LA. I am blown away with the level of competition for remote roles we hire for vs a role in our LA office. On average job boards will drive 5x more candidates for the remote role and the overall level of candidates is way higher. My last remote dev job post had 300+ candidates and a customer success role has 700+ and this all from one post on Stackoverflow or WeWorkRemotely. That said we might be outlier for we pay really well and have a remote first culture. The overall lesson I got though is their a lot more qualified people are looking to work remotely than their is awesome remote jobs.
Can you recall a time where you hired a less qualified person in a remote position for some reason?
Personal referrals that this person was amazing. One huge challenge of remote team members is training is a lot harder. You end up hiring very experienced people due to this and not junior talent. Helpscout another remote team has a bunch of articles on how they have this issue also
I have never had any success with applications to larger companies, although I dropped a lead with one of the larger companies in the ICO market after I got a very good offer at a promising early-stage startup, where I could engineer something I always wanted to do.
The easiest way to get a remote position is to be start a relationship as a contractor. Help early stage startups build a product, try to be as valuable as possible and they should try to keep you as an employee when the time comes. Everyone is remote and you create what you want, but you earn slightly less (but that's still a shit ton of money compared to your local area, for example if I offset living costs I have more money left every month than I would in US). Yes, it's a lot riskier, but when the company explodes, if you can sell yourself well, it should be fairly easy to find another job in less than 2 weeks.
Now obviously you need to sell yourself somehow. It was especially difficult for me in the early stages of my career, but right now in my CV I have a list of companies, some defunct, some still existing, in which I was a Lead SWE on major projects. I was forced to make vital decisions, learned a lot from it, now I can sell this knowledge. There is no replacement for that.
Ironically I find most of my contracts on "cheaper" websites such as Upwork. "Premium" marketplaces such as Toptal are useless, due to their markups almost doubling programmers' hourly rate.
The easiest way to get a remote position is to be start a relationship as a contractor. Help early stage startups build a product, try to be as valuable as possible and they should try to keep you as an employee when the time comes. Everyone is remote and you create what you want, but you earn slightly less (but that's still a shit ton of money compared to your local area, for example if I offset living costs I have more money left every month than I would in US). Yes, it's a lot riskier, but when the company explodes, if you can sell yourself well, it should be fairly easy to find another job in less than 2 weeks.
Now obviously you need to sell yourself somehow. It was especially difficult for me in the early stages of my career, but right now in my CV I have a list of companies, some defunct, some still existing, in which I was a Lead SWE on major projects. I was forced to make vital decisions, learned a lot from it, now I can sell this knowledge. There is no replacement for that.
Ironically I find most of my contracts on "cheaper" websites such as Upwork. "Premium" marketplaces such as Toptal are useless, due to their markups almost doubling programmers' hourly rate.
I've been searching for a remote position for 6 months, and I can relate to OP on a lot of this post. Methods slightly different.
I feel like I'm one of a huge crowd and being ignored completely is very common, even when I surpass all of their requirement check-boxes boxes, then some.
I spend a good amount of time on each cover letter, research the company, and email the CEO or a lead developer on the team. I very rarely get a response, but twice I got to the first stage and then it's as if I was forgotten.
I'm currently employed in a non-remote position, and I would be able to get a new local job with ease simply because I can walk in and talk to someone. I have gotten offers already, but I have a good list of reasons for wanting a remote position.
I'm persisting, but it's getting a bit tiring going this long at it.
I feel like I'm one of a huge crowd and being ignored completely is very common, even when I surpass all of their requirement check-boxes boxes, then some.
I spend a good amount of time on each cover letter, research the company, and email the CEO or a lead developer on the team. I very rarely get a response, but twice I got to the first stage and then it's as if I was forgotten.
I'm currently employed in a non-remote position, and I would be able to get a new local job with ease simply because I can walk in and talk to someone. I have gotten offers already, but I have a good list of reasons for wanting a remote position.
I'm persisting, but it's getting a bit tiring going this long at it.
Contracting can be a backdoor to remote work. If you're specialized it's not too difficult to find companies that need help. There's more risk (no benefits, no steady income).
I prefer remote contracting. It’s great. More money, a lot of exposure to different tech and ways of doing things (and ways to not do things.)
As far as benefits, there are few benefits that are worth having a lower salary. Pension, retirement, all that nonsense – a waste of money – create your own retirement investments with the increased money you make. I’d rather money go into my pocket directly than to some benefit system that necessarily results in some amount of dead-weight loss.
65 per hour gross as a full timer versus 100 per hour gross as a contractor. 35 per hour is like an additional salary.
But, it does take discipline and being extremely organized so it’s not for everyone.
As far as benefits, there are few benefits that are worth having a lower salary. Pension, retirement, all that nonsense – a waste of money – create your own retirement investments with the increased money you make. I’d rather money go into my pocket directly than to some benefit system that necessarily results in some amount of dead-weight loss.
65 per hour gross as a full timer versus 100 per hour gross as a contractor. 35 per hour is like an additional salary.
But, it does take discipline and being extremely organized so it’s not for everyone.
Would you say contracting on the side is taking on too much? I think I could handle it.
I like having the stability, so easing into contracting might be a viable option for me.
I like having the stability, so easing into contracting might be a viable option for me.
To get remote work, you need to find a company that really wants you specifically and you need to give them a reason to trust you - That means that you have previously done remote work or maybe you've made a lot of open source contributions on GitHub (which shows that you're basically a coding machine and not a human ;p).
It's not that easy to find because most big companies treat employees like a commodity; they don't tend to get attached to any specific individual (even if you have excellent credentials and thousands of GitHub stars).
It's difficult to find remote work for a big company; most of them have policies against it.
Also a lot of startups don't trust employees enough to allow them to do remote work; they have to be more conservative with money so it's high-risk for them.
It's not that easy to find because most big companies treat employees like a commodity; they don't tend to get attached to any specific individual (even if you have excellent credentials and thousands of GitHub stars).
It's difficult to find remote work for a big company; most of them have policies against it.
Also a lot of startups don't trust employees enough to allow them to do remote work; they have to be more conservative with money so it's high-risk for them.
Trust? If the features are being shipped there really isn’t much trust required. You know after a week of that employee is delivering. Being in the office does not guarantee a single minute of additional productivity. In fact, I get more done in 2 hours working remote than I do at a typical day on-site.
Making people work on site for roles that don’t actually need to be – that’s just nonsense. The only thing I care about is shipping. I don’t care about eating lunch with the team, I don’t care about the idle chit chat. I certainly don’t need to be sitting in a conference room looking a a computer projector during sprint planning when I could just as easily be seeing that same screen and listening to the same conversation sitting in my office at home. When I work with the team, RARELY does it require interpretive dance to get a point across. Even white boarding can be just as easy remotely.
If you don’t trust employees enough to be remote, then you shouldn’t hire them to work in the office either.
Hardware engineering or other physical product-based businesses, I get it, remote usually doesn’t work. But for writing code, sales, marketing? Not a single reason not to be remote except if are working on something that requires a triple-lockdown environment and is highly secret. Very few companies have that level of absolute secrecy as a requirement – but even then, there have been known to be remote people even on those types of teams.
Making people work on site for roles that don’t actually need to be – that’s just nonsense. The only thing I care about is shipping. I don’t care about eating lunch with the team, I don’t care about the idle chit chat. I certainly don’t need to be sitting in a conference room looking a a computer projector during sprint planning when I could just as easily be seeing that same screen and listening to the same conversation sitting in my office at home. When I work with the team, RARELY does it require interpretive dance to get a point across. Even white boarding can be just as easy remotely.
If you don’t trust employees enough to be remote, then you shouldn’t hire them to work in the office either.
Hardware engineering or other physical product-based businesses, I get it, remote usually doesn’t work. But for writing code, sales, marketing? Not a single reason not to be remote except if are working on something that requires a triple-lockdown environment and is highly secret. Very few companies have that level of absolute secrecy as a requirement – but even then, there have been known to be remote people even on those types of teams.
It's easy to ship poorly designed features quickly. Shipping well designed features is a different matter.
As a developer, if you want to take extra time to implement something because you want to put more thought into it, your employer has to trust that the extra time that you're using will translate into a superior, better designed product.
If the employer is trying to squeeze efficiency out of employees by giving them ridiculous deadlines based on optimistic assumptions about how long x should take to build, the result will be poor quality software and it will cost more in the long run.
As a developer, if you want to take extra time to implement something because you want to put more thought into it, your employer has to trust that the extra time that you're using will translate into a superior, better designed product.
If the employer is trying to squeeze efficiency out of employees by giving them ridiculous deadlines based on optimistic assumptions about how long x should take to build, the result will be poor quality software and it will cost more in the long run.
> It's difficult to find remote work for a big company; most of them have policies against it.
Strange, but seems to be true.
Reminds me of one of this comment:
> That's unfortunate. I could rock your world with my knowledge of all of those things, regrettably my physical presence is tied to a 50-square-mile chunk of rock that isn't anywhere near your 50-square-mile chunk of rock. With all the things we have in common - language, currency, culture - it's a shame such an outdated concept as 'physical proximity' is a requirement for the position. If only we had a globe-spanning communication network that would obviate the need for such silly self-imposed limitations... :-)
https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadminjobs/comments/4638md/hiring...
Strange, but seems to be true.
Reminds me of one of this comment:
> That's unfortunate. I could rock your world with my knowledge of all of those things, regrettably my physical presence is tied to a 50-square-mile chunk of rock that isn't anywhere near your 50-square-mile chunk of rock. With all the things we have in common - language, currency, culture - it's a shame such an outdated concept as 'physical proximity' is a requirement for the position. If only we had a globe-spanning communication network that would obviate the need for such silly self-imposed limitations... :-)
https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadminjobs/comments/4638md/hiring...
Greece and California are ten timezones apart. I just don't see how you're ever going to get past that unless you're willing to be nocturnal (and you tell the companies you're applying to you're willing to work during their daytime). You're competing for the job with hundreds of people in the same or adjacent timezones.
Aw no I wasn't targeting California at all. I was mostly targeting timezones that I would be working the same hours with theirs. The spreadsheet has some outliers but those must be a few exceptions that I would be happy to stay late at night to work with.
Agreed. I would only hire remote workers who either are in a close timezone or will guarantee a few hours of overlap each day. 10 hours is too much.
>> I took back like 3 offers which lead me to the conclusion that the market of the remote positions is highly competitive and it's really hard to find the job that you would be happy enough.
That's interesting, I'd love to hear from others who agree/disagree with that.
That's interesting, I'd love to hear from others who agree/disagree with that.
I disagree with that. I've worked remotely for most of my career (three tech companies + long term consulting). I've worked remotely for so long that when I decide to join another company I'm specifically looking to work in an office :)
To preempt the comments regarding survivorship bias or humblebrag: I acknowledge that people absolutely experience higher bars when interviewing fully remote positions. That said, I personally believe (from my own experience and that of friends) that people who typically experience higher competition in seeking remote positions are probably not optimizing their search.
There are, broadly speaking, two classes of companies featuring remote positions. The first type is a company built on a foundation of remote-friendly culture - people communicate in Slack for almost everything, at least half the company is remote, positions are headlined with remote work, etc. The second type is a company that offers remote work and has a well-intentioned desire for remote employees, but which ultimately does not favor them.
I've worked in both sorts of roles. If you are competing against non-remote candidates for the second type of company, then all things being equal they likely will not proceed with you. This is not only because of the cultural differences in preference but also because the interview process is not optimized to treat remote employees as first class citizens.
To preempt the comments regarding survivorship bias or humblebrag: I acknowledge that people absolutely experience higher bars when interviewing fully remote positions. That said, I personally believe (from my own experience and that of friends) that people who typically experience higher competition in seeking remote positions are probably not optimizing their search.
There are, broadly speaking, two classes of companies featuring remote positions. The first type is a company built on a foundation of remote-friendly culture - people communicate in Slack for almost everything, at least half the company is remote, positions are headlined with remote work, etc. The second type is a company that offers remote work and has a well-intentioned desire for remote employees, but which ultimately does not favor them.
I've worked in both sorts of roles. If you are competing against non-remote candidates for the second type of company, then all things being equal they likely will not proceed with you. This is not only because of the cultural differences in preference but also because the interview process is not optimized to treat remote employees as first class citizens.
I've hired for a few remote positions. The calibur of candidates, and number of applicants is higher than for a position in only one city. Also, typically you get people applying from much lower cost of living areas, so they can be happier with a lower salary.
I have tried in the past as well and got the same impression. It seems that in order to be hired remotely you need to be a "rockstar" and sell yourself as more than that.
Remote workers seem to be held to higher standards, and my impressiom is that there's an emphasis in being comfortable with both the domain and the tech stack so that your only obstacle to be overcome to be productive is getting used to the quirks of being part of a remote team and the processes involved.
Remote workers seem to be held to higher standards, and my impressiom is that there's an emphasis in being comfortable with both the domain and the tech stack so that your only obstacle to be overcome to be productive is getting used to the quirks of being part of a remote team and the processes involved.
[deleted]
The cover letter should have more direct language and be mostly about your skill-set.
You can also reach out to recruiters at those companies you like rather than going through the official website application.
You can also reach out to recruiters at those companies you like rather than going through the official website application.
I’ve been working remotely for the last 3 years, including for one of the top rememoré-only companies. I’ve also did freelancing sourcing clients on my own and working through a recruiter.
One thing which is surprisingly not as oftenly discussed here are other criteria besides pay taken into account when making a choice between remote and non-remote.
I’d like to make an argument that remote work works only for a particular use case: when you need to execute on a particular vision with some strict framework of action. You’d need employees who are highly senior (therefore autonomious) and have great communication skills.
Probably the main reason why I’m considering to move away from working remotely is the lack of challenging projects. Even though I definitely improved my engineering skills by working on projects and reading up blogs/books, I’d learn much more if I had direct interaction with other engineers which is impossible due to constraints of communication medium in remote context.
One thing which is surprisingly not as oftenly discussed here are other criteria besides pay taken into account when making a choice between remote and non-remote.
I’d like to make an argument that remote work works only for a particular use case: when you need to execute on a particular vision with some strict framework of action. You’d need employees who are highly senior (therefore autonomious) and have great communication skills.
Probably the main reason why I’m considering to move away from working remotely is the lack of challenging projects. Even though I definitely improved my engineering skills by working on projects and reading up blogs/books, I’d learn much more if I had direct interaction with other engineers which is impossible due to constraints of communication medium in remote context.
I find this, and many of the comments here interesting. I've been working on a mixed remote/office department for a few years now and lead a team (remotely, with a 3 hour time difference) which is mixed as well.
I do notice that my standards are higher of my subordinates than the other leads. (I expect that they stick to their deadlines that they set for themselves, that they document their thought process, they talk to stakeholders when appropriate, they optimize for the project and company goals, they can produce quality code and debug quickly and effectively.) I also provide one-on-one coaching for them if they want it, or if they are not living up to expectations. I also have a significantly lower turnover rate than other teams in the company.
I always assumed the higher standards were due to personality or management differences, but perhaps not? I would be interested in knowing other people's experiences with remote managers/team leads.
I do notice that my standards are higher of my subordinates than the other leads. (I expect that they stick to their deadlines that they set for themselves, that they document their thought process, they talk to stakeholders when appropriate, they optimize for the project and company goals, they can produce quality code and debug quickly and effectively.) I also provide one-on-one coaching for them if they want it, or if they are not living up to expectations. I also have a significantly lower turnover rate than other teams in the company.
I always assumed the higher standards were due to personality or management differences, but perhaps not? I would be interested in knowing other people's experiences with remote managers/team leads.
When we hired for a remote position we received probably 100x the applications as when we hired in San Francisco. The pool of labor is much bigger and much cheaper.
Now we're hiring a full-time machine learning instructor, and I can't even imagine trying to find someone in SF. Even remote is difficult, but at least there are applicants.
Now we're hiring a full-time machine learning instructor, and I can't even imagine trying to find someone in SF. Even remote is difficult, but at least there are applicants.
To me, there is one extremely insightful comment on the original post. The commenter asked what the timezone of the remote positions were and if that had an effect on the applications and hiring team.
As I'm sure anyone who has had to get up at weird, uncomfortable hours in the past to work with remote teams in India can attest, there is definitely a big difference between someone working remote in your country (3-4 hours difference, if not Russia) and someone working remote on the other side of the world (8-12 hours difference).
Greece is GMT+2 or GMT+3, depending on the time of the year. SF is GMT-8 or GMT-7, depending.
I know in a perfect world that remote workers would take jobs from a queue and work asynchronously and then submit their work to another queue. But the world doesn't work that way. People are still people, teams are still teams, we are not (all) coding robots yet.
As I'm sure anyone who has had to get up at weird, uncomfortable hours in the past to work with remote teams in India can attest, there is definitely a big difference between someone working remote in your country (3-4 hours difference, if not Russia) and someone working remote on the other side of the world (8-12 hours difference).
Greece is GMT+2 or GMT+3, depending on the time of the year. SF is GMT-8 or GMT-7, depending.
I know in a perfect world that remote workers would take jobs from a queue and work asynchronously and then submit their work to another queue. But the world doesn't work that way. People are still people, teams are still teams, we are not (all) coding robots yet.
Absolutely. FYI, I was targeting specifically timezones that I could be comfortable working with. There are a few outliers in the spreadsheet but were mostly close to my timezone so we would work the same hours.
Unfortunately, I forgot to reply to the commenter.
Unfortunately, I forgot to reply to the commenter.
Thanks for the reply with the information about timezones.
Best of luck with finding your remote job!
Perhaps one will come out of the attention your blog post has joined. Since people at your current employer may well know about this, perhaps put a small text 'ad' at the top of your blog advertising that you are always interested in the appropriate remote opportunities in Node.js?
Best of luck with finding your remote job!
Perhaps one will come out of the attention your blog post has joined. Since people at your current employer may well know about this, perhaps put a small text 'ad' at the top of your blog advertising that you are always interested in the appropriate remote opportunities in Node.js?
The phrase "I am obsessed with clean and efficient code" should be rewritten. Most developers will not want to work on the same project as you; they will not want their code picked over for imperfections.
Wow, that's interesting. I do keep doing comments on PRs on small things but not at the point where I would reject a PR but rather discuss it. Maybe it's a strong phrase though.
Frankly, I agree with the OP. I dislike people who nitpick during the code review, esp. if it's in a remote setting where communication is less efficient.
The pitch is way too long and fluffy. The first paragraph is basically about how nice the beaches are. That immediately puts me off (I am not currently at the beach, and neither are my colleagues). It is always better to open with facts instead of phrases that sound like marketing talk ("amazing beaches," "passionate doer," "great fit," "really love," "personal playground.") None of these are meaningful to your job performance.
I'm not a developer, but I've worked remotely for a long time as a freelancer and full-time, remote employee.
Here's my two cents (I edited your email):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15sEbo_WKI1q1z3aZ-lELZ0lA...
Here's my two cents (I edited your email):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15sEbo_WKI1q1z3aZ-lELZ0lA...
hey @kostarelo! Recognize you from the Node.js slack group as you were one of the first one's to join (i'm justin :wave:)
Anyway, IMO alot of other commenters here have given some really good feedback, so I won't elaborate on any constructive criticism. But if you'd like to chat sometime about potential opportunities, send me a message sometime (email is in my profile, or as you know I'm always on that Slack group). I have a few decent people in my network I can probably send your way.
I appreciate the post, was a good read :)
Anyway, IMO alot of other commenters here have given some really good feedback, so I won't elaborate on any constructive criticism. But if you'd like to chat sometime about potential opportunities, send me a message sometime (email is in my profile, or as you know I'm always on that Slack group). I have a few decent people in my network I can probably send your way.
I appreciate the post, was a good read :)
I'm on the other side of that coin! Do you know how hard it's been to find someone that is good at SRE/DevOps & wants to manage ESXi/VMWare Boxes and SANs/Storage?
Is that one job or four? I see four distinct engineering disciplines in your post - Site Reliability - DevOps - Compute - Storage. The only two I would reasonably consider combining (in a day-to-day combined way) are the last two and even that's a risk for any largish operation. The first two do not benefit being combined and neither will garner the attention required to succeed. I would not apply unless you were small, generous and good to your community. Buy hey, if you threw in networking and security I'd know you have two boxes and need help and I'd bite out of sheer curiosity, like a shark, testing, tasting.
Your point of view is interesting but surprising. We are a small company and a small group, but I don't view (my definitions) of devops/sre as terribly dissimilar.
I think it's very reasonable to have one person responsible for compute storage and virtualization infrastructure.
I can see how a big company would specialize though.
Mail me if you're the least bit interested in a growing team with little shiny-chasing and lots of pragmatic engineering.
I think it's very reasonable to have one person responsible for compute storage and virtualization infrastructure.
I can see how a big company would specialize though.
Mail me if you're the least bit interested in a growing team with little shiny-chasing and lots of pragmatic engineering.
Yes, you're not wrong. I tend to think of the slightly larger, more complex scopes having multiple programs with many teams when looking at these things lately. This is just a small example of an impetuous reply not adding value and it didn't even reflect any real opinion that I may or may not hold.
I'm about a decade removed from any real "two-box shops" (small and/or startup focus etc.) and so sometimes think they can't possibly exist anymore. I see a few of the "we want the world" job postings and experience burnout just reading some of them.
"Pragmatic engineering" I like the sound of that but I'd secretly hope it's not meant to rhyme with "best practices" - I like good practices and all but I like and appreciate the actual games much more. :O) That's just a small parting snark - mostly harmless. Best of luck on your search! I'm trying to maintain some focus on data operations at the moment but with any luck my next jump attempt will be into something counter to current trends.
I'm about a decade removed from any real "two-box shops" (small and/or startup focus etc.) and so sometimes think they can't possibly exist anymore. I see a few of the "we want the world" job postings and experience burnout just reading some of them.
"Pragmatic engineering" I like the sound of that but I'd secretly hope it's not meant to rhyme with "best practices" - I like good practices and all but I like and appreciate the actual games much more. :O) That's just a small parting snark - mostly harmless. Best of luck on your search! I'm trying to maintain some focus on data operations at the moment but with any luck my next jump attempt will be into something counter to current trends.
[deleted]
The spreadsheet was totally useless. The most interesting information was missing :(
- Competition for each position is fierce. Especially for the SF-type jobs where the salaries are so astronomical compared to your remote area (like Greece, India, Thailand, etc.). You may have some (or even a lot) of experience in some tech, but so would the other 50-500 applications for that position. This puts the ball in the court of the employer, because they use stupid filters like "the right fit" - which most of the time equates to finding the person they can extract the most value from per-dollar (or the 1 who kills their wannabe-Google interview process the best)
- As someone reading your blog post, even I did not make it past your full email text. It's just too long for HR to even bother. A shorter, concise, "get in your face" email sometimes works better
- HR filters are the worst way to get remote positions. You said you have friends working for remote-first companies like Github and Automattic - that should have been your first method of entry to go direct to the team itself and not need to get through HR first - if you're a great programmer and your friends know it, they will gladly recommend you