Is recruiting a core part of the SC role?
Closed this issue · 6 comments
In the SC role we have:
I am actively involved in the recruitment process. I get to help choose who I work with!
If someone doesn't get involved in recruiting, would you exclude them from the SC role?
Personal opinion? I wouldn't.
This is a tough one... I didn't consider the statement from the perspective you are (until you mentioned it) and now I'm struggling not to.
The key concept at play here is the if you are part of the recruitment process then you can help make sure you get to work with nice, smart, gets-things-done people.
I wouldn't want this to be a barrier-to-entry for SC, but at the same time having this kind of statement in MadSkillz makes people aware of the commitment and the benefits flowing from said commitment.
What if we change it to say that they are starting to get involved. That way all SCs will do the prerequisites to being a tech interviewer and we maintain a pool of people that can do them.
On the other hand, what about SCs means they are necessarily good at doing tech interviews? Some people might not be suited to it or like doing it? There may be some SDs that are good at it / interested too?
Either way I suspect it's important for LCs/PCs?
@rbanks54 and I had a talk over this point today after which I can see a solid argument to leave the recruiting process itself out of mad skillz.
We've historically had a few points in the Skills and Behaviours that would cause people to do something even if it's not their strength. Take for example points like participation on Tech List/Yammer where people would have a goal around posting. Or the public speaking/user group involvement.
I do like the idea of people learning how to be strong technical interviewers because I think it's a good skill to have, but I don't think it needs to be called out and attached to a specific role.
Sounds good
I'll close this issue for now, happy to reopen if there's fruitful discussion. :)