The Sad Reality

If you’re a talented software professional who understands and practices modern, effective approaches to collaborative knowledge work, you face an unpleasant reality – you likely have to lie through your teeth in job interviews to have any shot at getting hired. And if you have any integrity, you probably won’t (won’t lie, won’t get hired).

The root of the issue is that many hiring teams, managers, and organisations commit a profound “category error” – they mistakenly treat software development like a more familiar form of work that it fundamentally is not. So the cutting-edge practices that make sense for collaborative knowledge work sound like utter – and alien – nonsense to them.

Examples of Alien Approaches

This forces software development cognicsenti into an impossible choice: either pretend their field is just another flavour of manufacturing/construction/etc. that aligns with woefully outdated management dogma. Or stick to their guns, speak truth about their highly unique and dynamic domain, and get immediately rejected as fringe lunatics.

Let me illustrate with examples of legitimate yet “incredible” “wonko” approaches:

The “Constant State of Ship”

At high-performing software companies, code is shipped to production constantly, sometimes multiple times per day. Concepts like “releases” or “launch dates” are laughable antiquities from machine-age models of work.

Continuous Delivery

Elite software teams can automatically build, test and deploy code on every commit that passes automated checks – without manual gatekeepers. But to old-school minds, this sounds like reckless spontaneity instead of disciplined craftsmanship.

The Interview Reaction

Try pitching those kinds of modern practices in a job interview and watch eyes glaze over in bafflement. You’ll get pelted with scepticism about “stability,” “quality,” “risk,” etc. Poor performers always obsess over mitigating challenge instead of updating their working models.

Lying to Get Hired

So to pass interviews, superb software professionals have to dumb it down and play make-believe about pushing gigantic, monolithic releases every 6-12 months after “hardening” periods – Industrial Revolution edicts that no longer apply.

It’s maddening to have to deny the realities of cutting-edge knowledge work to be taken seriously. But that’s the tax we pay, trapped in an industry riddled with obsolete dogma.

Consequences

This dynamic creates a catch-22: organisations hire either liars lacking ethics, or candidates lacking current expertise in effective modern software practices. Neither is a viable choice for building an effective engineering team. Do they want impostors or ignoramuses on their teams?

By filtering out leaders who grasp the unique dynamics of collaborative knowledge work, firms doom themselves to inefficiency, delays, and poor quality software. The very candidates with competencies to uplift them get screened out as “unbelievable” or “reckless” based on obsolete manufacturing/construction/service analogies.

Organisations must decide whether they want to cling to personnel working under antiquated models of development, or embrace competent people optimised for the fundamentally different nature of software’s collaborative value creation. Their ability to deliver high-quality, continuous value through technology hinges on making the right choice here. Discarding modern software ideas in favor of outmoded perspectives will only perpetuate disappointing outcomes.

The implications for these organisations’ ability to deliver valuable technology solutions are profound.

What Do Recruiters Know About Psychology?

When it comes to recruitment, the spotlight generally falls on skills, qualifications, and years of experience. But what about understanding human behaviour? Recruiters often talk about culture fit, team cohesion, and emotional intelligence, but how deep does their grasp of psychology go? It’s a mixed bag. A few recruiters invest time in learning behavioural cues and techniques derived from psychological research. Most stick to traditional stuff like CV screening and keyword matching.

What About Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking allows us to understand how individual components within an organisation interact with each other. Does a typical recruiter understand these nuances? Generally, the answer leans towards no. Recruiters often focus on filling a role rather than understanding how that role interacts with other parts of the organisation. This can lead to problematic hires that may fit a job description but disrupt a system.

How Important Are Group Dynamics?

Group dynamics explore how people interact within a group and how the group itself functions as a unit. Understanding this is key to fostering a harmonious work environment. A recruiter who appreciates group dynamics goes beyond placing a candidate based on skill set alone. They’ll look at how a new hire might impact the existing team culture and dynamics. However, recruiters often don’t delve deeply into this topic, as it’s usually considered the purview of internal HR teams or hiring managers (who, BTW, also rarely appreciate this topic).

Can Recruiters Improve?

Recruiters can certainly benefit from a broader understanding of psychology, systems thinking, and group dynamics. While a very few are already there, many could make strides by investing in study that delves into these areas. After all, the aim is to place candidates who don’t just fill a role but also contribute positively to the organisation as a whole.

Conclusion: Room for Growth

While it varies, recruiters generally have room to grow when it comes to understanding psychology, systems thinking, and group dynamics. Adopting a more holistic approach to recruitment can yield benefits for organisations and candidates alike. It’s difficult though, as dwelling on these areas risks alienating their hiring clients.

What’s Wrong with Talent Hunting?

The corporate landscape reverberates with calls to hire “top talent.” Recruitment agencies, HR departments, and LinkedIn profiles are full of phrases that pay homage to this elusive concept. Yet, what if the notion of “talent” is a red herring – diverting attention from what really matters, especially in collaborative knowledge work?

What Does Talent Even Mean?

Talent – when I use the word, I mean it as the rate at which you get better with effort. The rate at which you get better at soccer is your soccer talent. The rate at which you get better at math is your math talent. You know, given that you are putting forth a certain amount of effort. And I absolutely believe – and not everyone does, but I think most people do – that there are differences in talent among us: that we are not all equally talented.

~ Angela Duckworth, 2016

The term “talent” implies that some people possess an innate ability to evolve to excellence in specific tasks or roles, while others are doomed to mediocrity. Businesses adopt this mindset and spend enormous resources searching for that magical person who will solve all their problems. However, this search often leads to disappointment or worse, a mismatch between employee and organisational needs.

Is Talent Overrated?

It’s not that talented individuals don’t exist or that they can’t contribute to an organisation. The issue is that focusing on talent obscures a crucial aspect of productivity: the system within which people work.

Why Focus on Systems?

It turns out, research and real-world case studies suggest that systems account for about 95% of an organisation’s productivity. A well-designed system provides clear guidelines, minimises bottlenecks, and promotes efficient workflows. It creates an environment where people can excel, with or without what society typically labels as ‘talent.’

How to Build Effective Systems?

If you’re looking to enhance productivity, start by scrutinising your existing systems and processes. Ask hard questions. Is your communication streamlined? Do your workflows allow for creativity and innovation? Are roles and responsibilities clearly defined? These aspects significantly influence the productivity of your entire team, not just your star players.

Does Hiring Change When Systems Are Prioritised?

Absolutely. Instead of seeking candidates who seem to sparkle in interviews, you’d focus on those who fit well into your system. Soft skills like collaboration and adaptability take precedence, as they help people excel within established systems.

What’s the Real Secret Then?

So, should you entirely ignore talent? No, not entirely. But, remember, it’s the system that will determine how well anyone can perform, especially in collaborative knowledge work. By shifting your focus to creating effective systems, you set the stage for everyone to excel. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll find that the people you already have are the top talent you’ve been seeking all along.

Further Reading

Scholtes, P.R. (1997). The Leader’s Handbook. McGraw Hill Professional.
Duckworth, A. (2016, July 25). Angela Duckworth on Grit. EconTalk [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.econtalk.org/angela-duckworth-on-grit/

Shadows on the Wall

In the realm of hiring, what you don’t see can hurt you. As with most people, hiring managers are susceptible to unconscious biases that can warp their decisions. What sets them apart is their influence on not just individual jobs but also the broader organisational culture. This influence can be a source of cultural dysfunction, leading to far-reaching negative implications.

Mind Games We Don’t Know We’re Playing

It’s human nature to have biases, no matter how impartial we try to be. Hiring managers are no exception. In fact, their role may amplify these unconscious biases, casting ripples that affect the entire organisation. Let’s delve into this further, examining the susceptibility of hiring managers to cognitive biases and the consequent impact on hiring decisions.

Cognitive Biases: A Brief Overview

Before we get to hiring managers, it’s useful to understand what cognitive biases are. They’re systematic errors in thinking that affect our judgements and decisions. These biases are not always bad; they’re mental shortcuts that evolved to help us make rapid decisions. However, in complex and nuanced situations like hiring, these shortcuts can lead to faulty decisions.

Why Hiring Managers Are Susceptible

Hiring managers often have a tough job—reviewing countless applications, conducting interviews, and choosing the “best fit” for the company. The pressure to make quick decisions and the overload of information can make them more susceptible to cognitive biases. Common biases in hiring include confirmation bias, affinity bias, and halo effect. For example, a hiring manager might favour a candidate who went to the same university as they did (affinity bias) or focus on one positive aspect of a candidate, overlooking other essential qualifications (halo effect), or give undue weight to initial impressions, thereby seeking out information in interviews that confirms their initial judgement rather than challenges it (confirmation bias).

Cultural Dysfunction

Unconscious biases don’t only affect the selection of new hires. They can also sow the seeds of cultural dysfunction within an organisation. When a hiring manager’s biases persistently favour certain types of hire—whether based on educational background, social skills, or even physical appearance—those biases effectively sculpt the organisational culture. Over time, this can lead to a culture that is not only unrepresentative but also fraught with the same biases that shaped it.

Does the Organisation Get It?

More often than not, organisations underestimate the repercussions of biased hiring decisions. They may focus on surface-level diversity metrics without considering the impact on their internal culture. In the worst cases, this can result in toxic work environments that are difficult to uproot once established. So while organisations may recognise the importance of culture in theory, many fail to connect the dots back to the hiring decisions that shape it.

The Amplification Effect: Turning Ripples into Waves

In a vacuum, one biased decision might seem inconsequential. But hiring managers typically influence the recruitment of multiple individuals, sometimes into the hundreds. This amplification effect multiplies the impact of each biased decision, creating not just ripples but waves of influence that alter the very makeup of the organisation.

Remedying the Bias Conundrum

Understanding the issue is half the battle. Organisations might choose to both make hiring managers aware of these biases and also offer opportunities for learning more about the psychological mechanisms behind them. This encourages the development of effective countermeasures.

Being aware of the issue of biases is a start, but it’s not enough. Implementing structured interviews, anonymising applications, and leveraging data analytics in the hiring process can offer more objective methods for candidate selection. Organisations can also invest in helping hiring managers learn about the psychological mechanisms behind their biases, enabling them to develop ways to counteract these subconscious influences.

Final Takeaway: The Crucial Intersection

The road to an organisation’s culture and long-term success intersects at its hiring decisions. Unconscious biases can not only deter optimal hiring but also contribute to cultural dysfunction, causing negative ripples that extend far beyond individual roles. To truly build a healthy, dynamic work environment, organisations must recognise and tackle the biases present in their hiring processes.

This isn’t just about recruiting competent individuals; it’s about fostering a culture that embodies the values and diversity an organisation aspires to hold.

Deciphering the corporate tea leaves isn’t your standard Sunday morning hobby. Yet, it’s an essential craft that the job-hunting elite have had to cultivate. In the labyrinth of public façades and curated narratives. How do you read a company well enough to know whether it’s a likely fit or just another cesspool of toxicity?

Enter Groucho Marx:

I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.

If you’re so good at dissecting a company’s culture and collective mindset through its public information that you find nearly no firm worth joining, you’ve reached a unique paradox. You’ve become the Groucho Marx of job searching.

Unpacking Job Ads

Most job adverts are like first dates—everyone’s on their best behaviour. But that killer smile often masks an assortment of quirks, don’t you think? Phrases like “fast-paced environment” might be code for “you’ll regularly be drowning in work,” while “must be a self-starter” is most often a shorthand for “you’re on your own, mate.”

Navigating the Corporate Web

When you sift through a company’s website, it’s like reading a novel where every page promises a utopia. But if you pay close attention, you can catch glimpses of reality. Vague statements about ‘culture’ and ‘values,’ especially those with zero real-life examples, send up red flags. Don’t let high-res images of laughing employees distract you; they might’ve been chuckling about the latest round of layoffs.

Stalking—Um, Researching—Company Social Media

Company social media channels often showcase a rose-coloured spectacle. But here’s the deal: If every post screams how great it is to work there, that’s suspiciously overcompensatory. It’s like that bloke who can’t stop talking about his fabulous life – it’s never as glamorous as they claim.

When Almost No Company Makes the Cut

So you’ve dissected, digested, and deliberated over various companies, and yet you find yourself in the unique dilemma of not wanting to belong anywhere. Is it cynicism or just a sign of skillful discernment? Maybe it’s a blend of both.

The truth is, you might never find a ‘perfect’ company; flaws are par for the course. The goal is to find a place where the quirks don’t make you want to pull your hair out. And if you can’t find that? Well, there’s always the option to create your own ‘club’—one that’s so discerning, even Groucho Marx would reconsider his stance on membership.

Reading between the lines is an art of survival in the modern workplace. So keep your wits about you. You never know when you’ll need to decode the corporate hieroglyphics to save yourself from landing in the next corporate quagmire.

Note: Also applies more widely – to start-ups, smaller companies, government departments, etc.

Introduction

In the world of product development, hiring for the right skills is paramount. Yet, hiring managers and HR people often fail to appreciate the necessary core skills, and thus certain crucial skills often go unsought, overshadowed by more flashy competencies or specific technical abilities. While technical expertise is a nice to have, ignoring these unappreciated skills can lead to teams and departments that lack cohesion, struggle with efficiency, and miss out on a broader understanding of the development landscape.

Top Ten Overlooked Skills and Their Consequences

Conclusion

To create a well-rounded and effective software development team, hiring managers migh choose to look beyond just technical proficiencies. By recognising and valuing these often-unappreciated skills, companies can increase the likelihood of building and maintaining cohesive, efficient, and innovative teams equipped to tackle the multi-faceted challenges of modern product development.

As the product development landscape continues to evolve, sadly, appreciation of the essential skills required to navigate it does not. Is it yet time to give these unappreciated competencies the recognition they deserve in the hiring process and beyond?

Offer

If your organisation suffers from any of the maladies listed under “consequences” in the table above, get in touch today for clear, independent advice on steps you can take to tackle the skills shortfall: bob.marshall@fallingblossoms.com

Do traditional hierarchical roles such as “Development Manager” or “Director of Software Engineering” genuinely cater to the progressive needs of contemporary businesses?

In light of the evolution of the field, where the principles of auftragstaktik have fostered self-organisation and collaboration, supplanting rigid command-and-control structures, do these roles maintain their relevance? Or do they potentially create barriers to effectiveness and innovation?

In a world that takes a leaf from Dan Pink’s “Drive”, promoting autonomy, mastery, and purpose as the pillars of intrinsic motivation, what does it mean to be a “Development Manager” or a “Director of Software Engineering”? Are these roles becoming mere vestiges of a past era, where top-down mandates were the norm, rather than fostering an environment that nurtures intrinsic motivation?

How can these positions be reformulated or reinterpreted to better fit the ethos of modern organisations, aligning more with the principles of auftragstaktik, which emphasizes initiative and adaptability? Are we clinging to an outdated nomenclature that no longer mirrors the reality of how work is executed? Is it time to reconsider how we define relationships and roles within the context of the workplace?

Are these positions truly adding value, or are they merely relics of an outdated mindset? Is it time we reassess the structures we’ve come to accept, and explore new paradigms that inspire innovation and growth?

Brace yourself for a front-row seat to the battlefield of hiring blunders, as we expose the costly mistakes non-software folks make when staffing software teams, and the devastating consequences they leave in their wake.

Here are ten ways non-software people bungle the hiring of software folks:

1. Cultural Misfits: Shoving square pegs into round holes, they hire developers who clash with the company culture (present and future, both), leaving a trail of discord and lost morale in their wake.

2. Lone Wolves: They bring in skilled coders who can’t play nice with others, sowing strife and creating a battleground instead of a harmonious workspace.

3. False Idols: Blinded by shiny CVs, they crown candidates as ideal team players without digging deeper, setting themselves up for a rude awakening.

4. Neglecting Soft Skills: Like generals leading their troops, they ignore the human touch, overlooking the importance of communication and emotional intelligence, and end up with a mutinous crew.

5. Tech Tunnel Vision: Fixated on technical prowess, they forget to evaluate problem-identification skills, critical thinking, and creativity, undermining the firepower of their software squadron.

6. Ignoring Red Flags: Turning a blind eye to warning signs during the hiring process, they march headlong into a minefield of underperformance and potential conflicts.

7. Failing to Verify: Taking claims at face value and not understanding the details and relevance of such claims, inviting charlatans and snake oil salesmen into their ranks.

8. Overvaluing Pedigree: Seduced by brand-name education and experience, they disregard the raw talent and potential of self-taught and lesser-known candidates, missing out on hidden gems.

9. Misjudging Passion: Mistaking enthusiasm for expertise, they hire driven but inexperienced developers, leading to rookie mistakes and costly setbacks.

10. Rushing the Process: They charge into the fray, hiring hastily to fill gaps, only to realise their recruits are ill-equipped for the challenges ahead, leaving them to pick up the pieces of their shattered expectations.

In the unforgiving trenches of the tech world, non-software commanders make grave errors in judgement when recruiting their software people. From cultural misfits and lone wolves to ill-considered hires and neglect of soft skills, these missteps wreak havoc on the battleground of business operations. Like abandoned minefields, the consequences of these blunders linger, leaving projects and teams in ruins.

Are you tired of losing your best employees to competitors? It’s time to rethink the traditional (and unevidenced) notion that “you have to pay market rates to attract good people”. Simply offering more money will likely attract mercenaries rather than loyal and committed employees. So, what can companies do to attract and retain people? Let’s explore the factors that truly matter in building a team of dedicated and passionate people who will help drive your company’s success.

The idea that “you have to pay market rates to attract good people” is widely accepted in the business world. The basic premise of this argument is that in order to attract the best talent, companies must offer competitive compensation packages that reflect the current market rates. This is because highly skilled and qualified individuals are in high demand, and will often receive multiple job offers from different companies. As a result, companies that offer below-market compensation packages are unlikely to attract the most talented candidates.

“If all you have is a hammer…”. Compensation is that hammer.

However the stone truth is that simply paying market rates is totally inadequate to engage and motivate. This is because individuals who are primarily motivated by money are mercenaries – individuals who are willing to work for the highest bidder, without any loyalty or commitment to the company or its values.

In this sense, paying at or above market rates will attract mercenaries rather than truly committed and loyal employees. Mercenaries may be skilled and talented, but will lack the long-term commitment and dedication that companies need to succeed in the longer run. By definition, mercenaries are primarily motivated by financial gain, and will quickly jump ship to another company if they receive a better offer.

Therefore, companies might choose to consider factors besides compensation, such as company culture, opportunities for growth and development, and a strong sense of purpose and mission. By offering a more holistic package that goes beyond mere financial compensation, companies can attract employees who are not just in it for the money, but are engaged with the company’s long-term success. A policy of hiring mercenaries also lowers the workforce’s esprit de corps.

Finally, there’s Deming’s 95:5. Deming’s 95:5 rule states that 95% of productivity in any organisation results from the system or process, while only 5% is down to individual talent. This principle has important implications for the idea of paying market rates. By focusing on the 95%, rather than the 5% represented by individual employees, “best talent” becomes next to irrelevant. Ultimately, the success of a company depends on the strength of the entire organisational system, rather than the individual skills and talents of its employees. Where’s the bigger payback?

Research suggests that many senior executives may not be fully aware of the recruitment experience from the candidate’s perspective.

For example, a 2018 survey by Talent Board found that while 82% of HR and recruiting leaders felt that their organisation provided a positive candidate experience, only 49% of candidates agreed with that assessment. Similarly, a 2019 survey by CareerArc found that while 60% of employers believed they were providing a positive candidate experience, only 29% of candidates agreed.

These findings suggest that there is a disconnect between the perceptions of senior executives and the actual experiences of candidates. Executives may not be aware of the specific pain points that candidates experience during the recruitment process, such as a lack of communication, lengthy application processes, or bias.

Ultimately, the attitude of senior executives towards the candidate experience can have a significant impact on the recruitment process and the organisation’s reputation as an employer.

Attending to folks’ needs has been found to benefit companies in multiple ways. A new report, “Performance through People: Transforming Human Capital into Competitive Advantage,” analyzed 1,800 large companies across 15 countries and found that a dual focus on attending to folks’ needs and developing people gives a select group of companies a long-term performance edge. These companies, referred to as “People + Performance Winners,” prioritise attending to the needs of their employees and through doing so achieve top-tier profitability at the same time.

The report found that companies that build human capabilities are more likely to propel their employees into higher earnings brackets over the course of their careers. Building human capabilities also pays off for firms in the form of more consistent company earnings and greater resilience during crises. People + Performance Winners have lower attrition rates, which is important when companies are facing hiring challenges.

People + Performance Winners have a distinctive organisational signature that challenges and empowers employees while fostering bottom-up innovation. This form of organisational capital contrasts with other top-performing firms, which tend to be more top-down and transactional, and creates a tangible competitive advantage.

In conclusion, attending to folks’ needs provides a real financial edge for companies. People + Performance Winners have demonstrated that by prioritising employee development, they can achieve consistent and resilient financial performance whilst surmounting staffing challenges.

Talent is a chimera, a figment of the imagination, a mirage of the mind. It is the result of the stories we tell ourselves, the beliefs we hold dear, and the myths we propagate. The notion of talent is a seductive one, a powerful idea that has captured the imagination of people for centuries. We want to believe that there are a select few who are blessed with gifts, that some people are just naturally better than others. But the reality is that talent is nothing more than a construct, a way of thinking that obscures the truth and distracts us from the real forces that shape our lives and determine our success.

The truth is that talent is a product of the system, a complex web of social, economic, and cultural forces that shape our lives and determine our destiny. The system accounts for 95% of each person’s productivity, influencing our choices, shaping our beliefs, and directing our paths. It determines who has access to resources and opportunities, who gets the support and guidance they need to develop their skills, and who is able to pursue their passions and realise their potential. The system is the hidden force behind the success of the so-called talented few, providing them with the resources and opportunities they need to hone their skills and cultivate their abilities.

The system is a powerful entity, one that shapes our lives in countless ways. It influences the way we think about ourselves, our abilities, and our potential. It sets the standards for what is considered talented, determining who is recognized and celebrated, and who is marginalized and overlooked. It also creates the conditions that enable or disable success, providing some people with the resources they need to succeed while leaving others struggling to get by.

But the system is not all-powerful. It is not an unyielding force that dictates our fate. It is a dynamic entity, one that can be influenced, shaped, and changed by those who are willing to challenge the status quo. The system can be transformed, but it requires a deep understanding of how it works, an unwavering commitment to change, and the courage to act. We must be willing to challenge the myths of talent, to reject the notion that some people are simply better than others, and to recognize that success is a product of the system, not of innate ability or talent.

In conclusion, talent is a chimera, a false idea that obscures the truth and distracts us from the real forces that shape our lives and determine our success. Talent may be a chimera, but the system is real, and it is up to us to shape it, to influence it, and to make it work for us.

Hiring someone in a day or less can appear a daunting task, but it can be done with the right approach and preparation. Here are some steps to follow to help you hire someone quickly and effectively:

1. Clearly define the position, in terms of your top needs and the needs of others involved: Before you start looking for candidates, you need to have a clear understanding of the position you are looking to fill.

2. Have a recruitment partner or partners ready: Pre-briefed recruiters who know your company and its needs will help you reach a wider pool of candidates quickly. Ideally, engage them in informally building a funnel of possible candidates long before you actually need anyone.

3. Forget about resumes and cover letters. They’re mostly fictions anyway. Pose a few simple questions about their assumptions and beliefs about how work should work – oftentimes the key stumbling block to compatibility.

4. Have one-to-one video chats: Video chats give you an idea of the personality of the candidates, a key aspect of hiring. It also enables a discussion of THEIR needs from the position – another key aspect of hiring. Beware making snap judgments, and of your unconscious biases and prejudices.

5. Make a quick decision: Nobody likes hanging around. Make it reversible.

6. Have the paperwork already pre-prepared: This includes the offer letter, and any other legal requirements. Things like background checks can follow along behind the candidate actually starting (geography-specific caveats may apply).

7. Have their workplace, equipment, access, colleagues, etc. already pre-prepared.

8. Get them started (for a trial period)! You’ll only really know if they’re a good hire once they have a few days or weeks in the job.

By following these steps, you’ll be able to find and hire someone in a day or less. Keep in mind that finding the right candidate quickly is not always easy, but with the right approach and preparation, it’s definitely possible.

See also: Make Bad Hires!

Why Job Interviews Suck

And here’s something you might like to consider as a more effective alternative:

Make Bad Hires!

What do we need to see in applications from potential Quintessential fellows? Well, we definitely don’t want to see a CV or resume. We don’t grok how what you’ve done in the past speaks to your potential in the future. We choose to see our fellows as capable of anything, given the necessary support and environment.

We would like to be surprised by the things you feel represent your best. Maybe a list of the things you’ve read and found insightful, such as blog posts, articles, books and so on. Or the times you’ve most enjoyed getting together with others to deliver great software and great experiences. Or maybe the topics in which you have the most interest, and some contributions you’ve made or intend to make in those areas. Maybe you’d be willing to share your take on Quintessence, on Organisational Psychotherapy, or some intriguing questions or practical experience you may have regarding excellence in software delivery. Opinions are way less interesting to us, compared to evidence.

It might be interesting to hear about the terms and conditions you guess you might be needing, including things like pay, hours, locations, equipment, team mates, etc..

Take a look at the list of skills we consider most useful, and tell us about your own skills and aspirations in those areas, or even in other areas you feel may be relevant. Although some “hard” tech skills such as coding and UX might be interesting, we’d love to enroll fellows with outstanding soft skills – these rank higher in our priorities. For example, the Antimatter Principle is as the heart of everything we do – so we’d love to hear about your experiences with attending to folks’ needs.

We’d also love to hear about times when you’ve taken care of something or someone. And how that felt – bot for you and for them.

Above all, we invite you to share with us why you see yourself as a good fit for our community of fellows, and the ways in which you will contribute to moving our whole community forward – improving the principles and practices of software delivery. And your take on excellence, too.

Go wild! Express yourself. If words and text ain’t your thang, maybe video, or audio, or music, or art, or Zen koans, or haikus, or however you best express yourself.

Our declared purpose is to make a dent in the universe, to make the world a better place through outstanding excellence in software delivery. To bring Alien Tech to the service of human beings. We’d love to hear what these things means to you. And how you see yourself contributing.

We appreciate we’re asking you to dedicate some non-trivial amount of time to representing yourself. And we’ll reciprocate by dedicating our time to paying attention to your application. And we will happily help you evolve your application from e.g. small beginnings, incrementally. No need for a one-shot big- bang application. Doing things together is, of course, a hallmark of The Quintessential Group.

We’re looking forward to hearing from you – whatever the medium, whatever the format. As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message.

– Bob

At The Quintessential Group we’re NOT hiring. We have little interest in paying people for their labour or their personal services (fnarr).

We ARE inviting inquiries and applications to join our community of fellows, and participate in our software delivery teams.

Sure, we pay. And we pay top dollar (well British Pounds, mostly). But we pay our people so they can live (and fellows get to choose their own salaries and rates, amongst other things). We subscribe to Phil Crosby’s statement about the purpose of organisations:

The purpose of organizations is to help people have lives.

~ Phil Crosby

Fellowship

We’re breaking the transactional nature of the individual <-> organisation relationship in favour of something much more like fellowship.

So, we’re NOT hiring. But we ARE inviting applications to join our community of fellows. First off for our Quintessential Teams service. And then for our other services, which will be coming on stream soon.

Invitation

We cordially invite you to apply to join our community of fellows. In the first instance, we’re looking for folks with software delivery skills, who will be forming delivery teams rented by our clients (a variety of medium to large UK organisations) to deliver software at their behest. Early on, you’ll be playing and learning directly with myself and / or Ian.

Just drop Ian or myself a message expressing your curiosity or interest, and we’ll get back to you.

You may already have some questions, so please include them if you’re after some clarification or further information. There’s much already available on my Think Different blog. And a brief but growing collection of more focussed introductory and informational posts on the Quintessential Blog, too.

Benefits

What you may not have yet read is some of the other benefits of becoming a fellow of The Quintessential Group:

Having Your Needs Met

Central to our business and community is the idea of attending to folks’ needs. Each of our fellows will have his or her own needs, and The Quintessential Group will do its utmost to see those needs met. 

These may include career development, learning, autonomy to capitalise on your abilities, mastery of skills, sharing in a common purpose, playing with technology, work-life balance, choosing your own package, and so on. We’d love to hear just what your needs are. And we as a business have needs too. This mutuality offers a crucible for productive dialogue.

The Opportunity To Do Great Things

We focus on excellence, and carefully select clients with and for whom our fellows can achieve truly great things. Humdrum things bore us, and we’d not ask any of our fellows to suffer that either.

The Opportunity To Participate in Self-Managing Teams

Our Teams manage themselves, with the active support of the rest of the company. Learn and experience what participating in truly self-managing teams feels like. The true meaning of esprit de corps. The experience of excellence and real fellowship.

Other Key Benefits

Unlimited World-class Personal Mentoring

Bob and Ian each have more than twenty years’ experience in coaching and mentoring developers and delivery teams. We happily share this experience with all Quintessential Fellows, on a one to one basis (mentoring, individual coaching) and one-to-many basis (i.e. teams).

Unlimited Expert Coaching

We define mentoring as providing sage advice when asked. Coaching to us implies a more structure relationship. See e.g. “Coaching for Performance” by Sir Jon Whitmore and his G.R.O.W. model. Mentoring also implies, to us, a shared agenda. Coaching, an agenda entirely driven by the coachees.

Unlimited Awesome Career Development, Including Job Search Help & Career Advice

We try to attend to the needs of all our fellows, on a continual basis. If being a part of the Quintessential community is not meeting your needs, we’re delighted when we can help folks get their needs met, even when that means leaving us for pastures new. We’re delighted to actively support folks in this.

Free Books And Subscriptions

Continuous learning is at the core of the Quintessential Group and its community of fellows. We support these needs in any and all ways possible, including paying for all books and subscriptions of our fellows. If you have other learning needs, we’re happy to support those, too.

Paid Time Off For Conferencing (Plus Entry Fees, Expenses Paid)

We don’t believe our fellows should suffer a financial disincentive to pursue their learning and socialising needs, so we pay for time taken to attend conferences, as well as for the entry fees and associated expenses (travel, hotels, etc.).

Paid Time Off For Learning, Studying

Many folks learn for the joy of it, but we don’t see why learning has to be on the learner’s dime So we invite our fellows to invoice us or otherwise claim financial recompense for time spent learning. Effective learning benefits everyone, not least the company.

Development Hardware, Tools

Many new fellows will already have their own equipment, software tools, etc. But when they need other stuff to be quintessentially effective, we have no issue with providing such things, as the fellow(s) see fit.

Note: A Quintessential fellow is anyone (irrespective of gender) who has complete the one-week orientation and chosen to join the Quintessential community.

Note: When we say “paid for” we mean The Quintessential Group will reimburse fellows in the course of invoicing in respect of client gigs. In other words, and using the one week’s paid-for orientation as an example, we will pay fellows for attending the orientation week, over the course of several weeks’ payments for participating in services to a client.

Accepting Inquiries and Applications

We are now accepting inquiries and applications for the first “orientation” cohort of Quintessential Teams

Orientation

Simply put, we pay our candidate fellows to join together for a week (five days) of orientation. This week prepares fellows for Quintessential Team client engagements, in particular is afford the opportunity to get to know each other, build relationships, and thrash out a shared way of playing together.

Would you like to know more?

– Bob

Is that the foundation of productive relationships, engagement and positive contribution?