A few years ago, after having been involved in the recruitment of several engineers, I posted a blog about hiring young engineers, hoping to convey to a larger audience what I was expecting in the process and that I considered was too often missing. I was particularly concerned about the résumés I had received, and I thought that younger engineers could benefit from sensible advice. Secretly, I also hoped that recruiters would read that blog, and see things differently, so that valuable candidates are not discarded on dubious criteria. As it turned out, that article was one of the most read and commented among the SPE blogs.
A few years later, after reading my blog, an HR professional asked me to reflect also upon hiring (more) senior engineers. It was time for me to put my thoughts together and write a balanced article on that even touchier topic. I am sure that many readers will not adhere to my views, that is fine; this article is no more than the humble opinion of an engineer who had so many difficulties to manage himself that he never longed to manage others.
Establishing the need
Many would think that the initial question: “why hiring a senior rather than a younger engineer?” is straightforward and does not need to be answered. I disagree. I think that the need for a senior engineer must be clearly established before embarking on the search. Younger engineers are cheaper, and they normally have the theoretical and mathematical backgrounds still fresh in mind. Has the management investigated the option of promoting somebody in-house and potentially reorganizing? I have worked for a company that was fast growing and hiring managers from outside, without considering the internally available resources. That was one of the most frustrating moments in my career. Not that I wanted to be picked for one position or another, but I was sorry for those good engineers who had been instrumental to that growth and would never be recognized. The company was like a bucket having the top flowing in and out, and the actual core people stuck at the bottom. Nobody likes to settle at the bottom of a bucket company.
Hiring a senior engineer means a recognized need for bringing experience from outside into the team. That needed experience may be broad or more focussed, but it must be somehow well understood. Do we need to bring experience to train younger people, to manage a team, to benefit from an address book, to improve the company’s reputation, to solve a specific issue, etc.? Or maybe simply to prevent catastrophic failures? If the position involves the development of new products or the management of field operations, the extent and depth of the knowledge required is certainly very different and may determine a specific profile; it might be miraculous to find everything enshrined into a single candidate.
Need to hire a manager?
Fortunately, nobody must be a manager, and I know what I am talking about. If you do not wish to become one, it is all right to pursue a technical career. Of course, if this is your case, you will not apply for a management position.
Along my career, I had a few excellent managers (not always old folks, btw), and too many poor ones. Based on that mixed experience, hiring someone boasting previous management positions to lead a new team does not guarantee good results.
However, if a management position is an option, I would make sure that the candidate has a clear view about what management is. Without dismissing the importance of the trendy “soft skills” aspects of management and the subtle variations around “leadership” (on which consultants enjoy writing extensively), these are only part of the required qualities. Managing is primarily allocating limited – by nature – resources to achieve the best possible results. You certainly need some emotional, social, communication skills to succeed in that allocation, but these are clearly not enough. The manager does not need to be the best scientist or technician in the team, but must understand what each technical member does, estimate the time, resources, interactions, etc., needed for the tasks, prioritize these, and be able to support all the team members. A broader technical culture is necessary to adequately perform that critical work.
Topping my list of poor managers are those unable to resist the pressure coming from their own management. Managing includes shielding the team from the surrounding chaos to ensure that it can deliver timely quality results. It takes guts and skills to confront the entropy that sometimes prevails in the higher strata of organisations; very few people can do it effectively.
If you apply for management, you must be confident enough to do so, possibly based on previous experience, but not necessarily. Personally, to a candidate who does not know the team, the reporting line, the intricate company’s specifics, even with previous management experience, I would be reluctant to offer directly a management position. I would rather hire an engineer for the team and observe whether that person can be promoted to a management position. It is a prudent approach.
Non-typical career – How much of a problem is it?
The number of us thinking that they had an atypical career is impressive. At this point, I am wondering what a typical career is. We all had a life that made us what we are, sometimes because we wanted, and sometimes because of necessities. Oil and gas careers are “unusual” by nature when compared to other industries; many of us have worked in several countries, experienced layoffs, complicated family lives, had a maternity project, tried to grow a business, and so on. Atypical careers might be the norm rather than the exception. For most of us, life has not been a straight line that we walked from cradle to - our future - grave. The meanders of your so-called non-typical career made you rich of - sometimes enjoyable and sometimes not-so-fun - experience. That is somehow normal, and the only requirement is that you must be able to explain that journey. This is also what makes you unique and hopefully so fun to listen; typical careers are boring, aren’t they? I have seen folks unhappy at work, but unable to leave a company because of a compensation level that they could not expect on the job market; is that a typical career?
But please, remember that you are not an example to follow. Many senior people like to lecture younger folks on what to do and not-to-do. Your experience is your own and will not apply to anyone else. The younger people are experiencing a different world; today’s social environment, opportunities, challenges, etc., are all new. Discussing your own experience is fun, hearing you explaining that everybody should have done what you did is boring, and somewhat obnoxious.
Staying current on your knowledge
Engineers work with science and technology. These have the unpleasant feature of being in constant evolution, however at a pace compatible with human life, provided we stay alert and make a bit of effort. eeping that knowledge current is important. To extend our professional expiration date, we must keep learning in our domain as well as in the closely related industries. When you are lucky, your employers were smart enough to provide you with the training THEY needed. You may have been proactive in selecting education that YOU needed. If you have reintegrated a curriculum after starting a work experience, if you have been involved in research projects, if you have dug into complicated technical topics, all that certainly enhances your engineering profile. If you are a member and have attended professional organisation’s events such as SPE, AAPG, EAGE, etc. that tells something on your willingness to stay current. Building and dispatching knowledge by publishing and teaching, also helps ensure you remain relevant. The beauty of knowledge is that (more surely than love 😉) the more you give, the more you have.
Tell me about your publications.
When studying a senior engineer’s application, I have the bad habit of researching the candidate’s publications over the internet. I may use these papers as a way of engaging technical discussions during the interview. When that person has never published any technical paper, I start being worried, and I need to understand the reason. I can think of several situations: this engineer did not have the material worth sharing, or she did not have the desire to publish, or his employers prevented him from publishing. For the last case, it can certainly be explained, but that will be hard to sell when the candidate has worked for several companies. An engineer who has been confronted to high-level projects, has been challenged to find innovative solutions. These innovations are worth sharing with the larger community. Authorship also contributes to self-esteem and recognition. A senior engineer who would be reluctant to share knowledge is problematic for teamwork and for the education of the younger team members. Additionally, writing articles forces the authors to dig deeper into the existing knowledge through extensive literature review, to detail their thought processes, to explain them clearly, to confront their ideas to peer reviews, hence, to grow in knowledge, method and wisdom. The absence of publication is a warning sign that the candidate has potentially not been involved in high-level projects or failed to raise projects to a higher level. In all cases, I consider it a negative point. In my experience, the senior engineers who have never published a technical paper, are not the best.
What would you have done different?
This is one of my favorite interview questions. Senior candidates are usually trained at presenting their past achievements under favorable light. It is human. Sometimes, I am knowledgeable of projects on which the candidate has worked. Often, besides the projects’ highlights, lowlights are dimmed or simply ignored. I have a penchant for people who reflect on what they have done and who can identify areas of improvement from their own experience. It tells me that the experience has translated into a form of learning for the candidate; what a senior has learned from failures may be her/his biggest added value to projects with uncertain outcomes. The discussions that arise from this simple question can be very profound and generate passionate debates. On the other hand, those folks who say they performed so perfectly that nothing can be improved, are suspicious. Indeed, most projects survive the employees’ departure, and not always for the worst. Before the interview, get prepared for that question: what should I have done differently?
Your weaknesses?
That is the question that I personally don’t ask, because I am more interested by the candidate’s strengths than weaknesses. But sometimes, my fellow panellists in the recruitment process like to ask something like: “hum, tell me about your weaknesses”. And then, we hear nonsensical answers such as: I may be too analytical, I am too demanding to myself and to my subordinates, etc… just showing that the candidate has prepared bullshit answers to this corny question. The strategy of introducing oneself by “I am too much of a superhero”, does not impress me. We all have weaknesses, and it is good to know them; and even though we do not like to expose ourselves, it is not disgraceful to recognize weaknesses. If you are telling me that you are very emotional and that you find heartbreaking to layoff an employee, even when that one is not excellent, I cannot blame you. You do not need to be an indestructible alien; Just be human.
What are you passionate about?
Sometimes the discussion drifts towards more personal topics. Chitchatting is also a way of understanding whether the candidate will fit in the team. Once, a candidate told me that he was passionate about creating value to the shareholders. Waouh! I could not help but picturing myself with him, around the coffee machine, devising on how much value we would bring to the shareholders during the day, and how much value had been lost because we both went sunbathing during the weekend. I was imagining that guy, returning home at night: “Honey, guess what? We just generated so many million dollars to the company’s bottom-line!”. Give me a break! We are engineers, aren’t we? As I once wrote in another blog, my definition of engineering is “finding and applying practical solutions to real problems, with the help of the currently available scientific knowledge”, and that is already a big task. There are so many causes worth caring about out there: social, political, educational, spiritual, outdoor wandering, cultural activity, sports and so-on, that are more fun than our shareholders. Maybe someday, when I hear a shareholder thanking the technical team for the value created, I might see things different. That has not happened yet.
Laid off for cause
That is a big deal. If that is your case, you are most likely embroiled into a legal battle that will drain some energy and emotional resources away from you. These fights are lasting ordeals. I have seen a number of these cases; I wish I had good advice to give.
Because I do not dwell with thugs and scammers, the cases I know had always their share of shenanigans and politics. In these battles, save rare exceptions, no party wins. Conflictive situations drift into fierce battles because of the inflated egos involved. The ego of the employer is often the bigger and reinforces aggressiveness from the weakest party in response. In the end, years later, the matter is settled through lawyers who have been the sure winners of that game. Should have the top management taken a coolheaded look at the case initially - i.e., with a management stand, meaning the best utilisation of the company resources - an early settlement of the matter would have been much more rational. In these cases, management seldom acts rationally.
For me, having been laid off for cause, is not an issue in itself. However, having to fight a legal battle with your former employer may create distractions that your prospective employer will not wish to bear. So, if you have a chance, get it resolved fast.
Lies on your CV.
Unfortunately, even senior candidates lie on their resumé. Resumés are always summaries of accommodated truths, but there are limits to these accommodations. I happened to meet candidates who had produced outstanding résumés. Based on their claims, we paid hefty amounts to fly them over for interviews. During the interview though, the candidate’s answers, attitude, reasoning, triggered serious doubts on past positions and current abilities.
Additional checks were undertaken, and my doubts turned into evidence of blunt lies. Interviewing an engineer for a job is not only an agreeable social event, but also about gauging her/his actual technical abilities as well as her/his potential for career development. Therefore, for the recruiting company, it is of utmost importance to include in the recruiting panel, people who can evaluate the reality of the candidates’ claims.
I hate losing my time and company resources for cheaters. When detected, a deceitful resumé translates into the candidate’s outright rejection. Lying on your resumé is also lying to yourself: why would one hire a mythomaniac?
The No Asshole Rule
A few years ago, I read the “No Asshole Rule”, an excellent book by Professor Robert Sutton. If I may summarize the book in very few words, it says that hiring an asshole, even a brilliant one (some are), will globally decrease the performance of the team, hence of the company. Dr Sutton is convincing, and after that read, I would not take the risk. The question is then: how can we rapidly, and beyond reasonable doubts, identify the so-called “asshole”? My take of the book is a simple rule that matches my own experience and works every time: the asshole is overly respectful of those he/she perceives of higher ranking, and contemptuous of those he/she perceives of lower ranking. While this rule does not target specifically the senior candidates, recruiting processes can be designed to ensure that this toxic behaviour is detected before the hiring decision is taken.
Wisdom vs. aggressiveness
Looking back at my career, I generally felt more comfortable working for older managers than younger ones. That is not a sweeping rule though: I had outstanding younger managers and unfit older ones. I should maybe say it differently: “I prefer reporting to the wise one than to the wolf”; that is not necessarily age dependent. But those who have gone through difficult times in their professional and personal lives are probably more likely to act more thoughtfully for themselves and for those they supervise. Those who are able to integrate their life experience into mindful decisions are those I like to be around.
Job description, CV and recruiting agencies
When your application was triggered by a job posting, it is tempting to adapt your CV to the job description and to include the keywords that you think the selection will be based on. Many companies outsource recruitments to specialized companies who have no other means than ticking boxes to match open positions and candidates' profiles.
A few years ago, I read the CV of a candidate that somehow annoyed me because of the many buzzwords and commercial style. The candidate was interviewed against my recommendation. When I met that person, I realized that the résumé and the man did not match, and in a rather favourable way. The candidate could bring much more than the tasteless prose that his résumé was conveying, and in areas closer to our needs.
If you can afford it, I would recommend writing your résumé in a style that would show who you are, what you like doing and be appealing to people you like to be around. Have them review it before sending over. And if possible, deliver it directly to those who might need somebody like you.
All this is purely theoretical, of course, and I know the gap between searching and securing a job, especially during downturns.
Not making a deal.
When receiving a letter that includes “[…] we have decided to move forward with another candidate […]. We wish you the best of luck […]”, is it so bad? From a self-esteem point of view, it is of course more satisfactory to reject than to be rejected. In hiring, there are generally more candidates than the number of open positions. The selection is not a straightforward process, based on clear criteria. Many of those are murky, and the selection panel often disagrees internally. You will most likely never know the actual reasons for your rejection and will have to live with the standard bullshit letter. After having been rejected by companies, I convinced myself that they did not deserve my services anyway and will ignore forever what they missed😊. Too bad for them if they selected another asshole!
It is not always easy either to tell recruiters who make you a good offer that following the interview, you prefer dropping that opportunity. It is not unusual to feel uneasy with the people, work environment, atmosphere of a company for which you have a good profile. Think twice before accepting a job offer, but do not think too long. The sooner you let them know that you are considering other opportunities, the better.
Sometimes, a few things do not align, like location, money, position, etc. If I have one single piece of advice to convey: never let money be the most important criterion in your decision. Pope Francis recently reported his grandmother’s words: “the Devil enters through the pockets”; this is also true from a career perspective.
The hidden value of senior staff
As I am slowly winding down my long career, I was mulling over a philosophical question: is experience helping for success?
In social media, corporate documentation and career development programs, success is everywhere. Most of my friends boast professional achievements and are somehow able to conveniently attribute the failures to others, or alternatively slip those under the carpet. The most senior professionals are the most experienced and they should have been part of more successes as well as more (untold) failures. Should not success and failure feed their thought process, thus making them more likely to succeed in the future? Unfortunately, that is not what we observe. Researchers say that innovation and invention do not correlate with age.
Are there any benefits to include more costly senior staff in a team? Of course, the importance of understanding complex issues, passing on the “experience” and so-on is the usual narrative that older folks like to promote. This always sounds a bit contemptuous; older employees are sometimes protective of their knowledge while I personally learned a lot also from younger staff...
Eventually, I came to the conclusion that more senior employees do not increase success rate. However, possibly because of their failures, seniors are usually more prudent in their approach to technical as well as operational planning and issues. They are also more suspicious of new (sometimes not-so-new) ideas. A senior engineer is more likely to prepare a plan B and C and find ways of mitigating the impact of plan A in case of failure. If hiring a senior staff to increase success may not be such a good idea, hiring a senior to prevent a large costly failure may be a good strategy. The flipside risk is to have the senior staff destroying plan A redhandedly… When this happens, management should be sorry to have picked the wrong candidate. Good engineers, included senior ones, strive to give the maximum chances for plan A to be successful, always.
Please do not take anything personally in this blog. I hope that those who requested my opinion on the topic enjoyed reading. Feel free to comment courteously for the benefit of others.
Again, good luck to all.