RE: Serious Q

Subject: RE: Serious Q
From: jgarison -at- ide -dot- com
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 09:16:48 -0500

If I read this correctly, you're asking why I would have been contracting
previously, and why I now would be interested in a permanent position.

My answer would be: At the time I took the contract, it was the most
interesting and challenging option available. It allowed me to work with
several tools and tool vendors, to build a new organization, to use skills
and abilities that have not been called on in a while, and to become more
aware of the breadth and depth of my profession. As for why I want to come
'inside' now, the answer is much the same: an opportunity to join a dynamic,
growing, and interesting organization, to build a group within that
organization, and a challenge to develop a world-class product.

In my experience at least, what drives me is what drives me, and sometimes
the best vehicle available is a contract, at other times it's a salaried
position.

Now, I also recognize that some people only want to be contractors, and
others only want to be permanent employees. That's fine - they tend not to
apply for the other type of position. However, if you clearly announce that
this is a full-time permanent position, those contractors who choose to
apply know what they're getting into and, IMHO, should be considered. (Not
to say I haven't had a contractor ever try to convince me to let them do a
perm gig on a contract, but they didn't go anywhere.)

Another, more interesting twist on this might be to ask hiring managers
"When would you consider hiring a contractor vs. a permanent employee?" You
might get some very interesting answers on that one!

John

And as for the swinging singles analogy, I think that if you want to have a
series of good times relationships, bars are fine. I think many of us went
to bars during a period of our lives. But eventually we change and want
something more substantial. Let us say that, by some miracle, your sister
met a nice guy (not in a bar) but when he found out that she had previously
frequented bars, he dumped her as she was obviously the wrong sort. Is THAT
fair?



-----Original Message-----
From: Kelley [mailto:kwalker2 -at- gte -dot- net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:50 PM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: Serious Q


At 02:02 PM 2/6/02 -0500, jgarison -at- ide -dot- com wrote:
>I would hope that no one would disregard a qualified candidate just
>because the person happened to be working in a different mode - for
>whatever reason. If a contractor wants to come inside, well and good. If a
>permanent person wants to work under a contract, also fine. As long as
>they are the best person for the job and understand the demands of the
>job, they would be my choice.

If you were my mother, you would have encouraged my sister to keep looking
for her life's partner in the swinging singles clubs because there just
might be a misguided gem there! :) </tongue-in-cheekily>

There is no demonstrable ROI gained by including the entire kit'n'kaboodle.
In this market, there are too many people who are equally good and capable.
Everyone keeps telling me that I'll miss a gem. All I will get is double
the pile of candidates, more work, and no gain. It is an arbitrary
distinction I readily admit. But the fact of its arbitrariness does not
mean that the pool candidates who desire FT jobs (and remember, they will
include, b/c of this market, contractors and FTers) is less capable on
average than the pool of candidates that encouraged all comers.

I'd like the opportunity to ask you and others for your answers to these
Qs: If you received a phone call asking you why you chose contracting,
would you tell them that you preferred it so you could do one or more of
the following:
take sabbaticals (Bruce Byfield);
because you got bored (John Posada);
because you don't fit into old economy workplaces;
because you prefer intensity which you can more readily obtain through
contracting?
because contracting keeps you on the bleeding edge whereas FT doesn't offer
those opps?

If you answered yes to the above, how would you make your pitch?

Next Qs from the interviewer: "Tell me, why did you feel that full-time
employment didn't afford you these opportunities? You clearly
risked financial security, so what prompted that move? What was unpleasant
about FT work that you'd take that risk?"


Kelley

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ and check it out.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.


Follow-Ups:

Previous by Author: RE: Hiring Publications Managers
Next by Author: RE: For Your Amusement: RAS Syndrome
Previous by Thread: Re: Terminology (definition of deprecated...)
Next by Thread: RE: Serious Q


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads