Is the hiring focus on technologies studied and technologies used? Or are capabilities hiring more important? i.e. is experience with the x, y or z tech currently used in your business a non-negotiable prerequisite or is tech hiring more focused on a suite of personal and professional skills necessary to to learn and adapt to the current stack and to drive the future tech stack?
I understand this is a very broad question dependent on numerous business factors but let’s consider this in the context of innovation intensive companies and CTOs looking to establish world class tech teams that build the future an leave an impact.
When you are hiring, you usually have a specific problem you want addressed. Most places, these days, do not hire with the idea, Hey lets get a bright person and send them to training for 6 months. Risk is, and I have seen it happen, the person realizes they can then get a better (more money) job and leave.
That said, being capable of learning is a bonus and would provide distinction. So if I had one person who was a A+ in tech xyz, but was never going to expand, verses a B- who was capable of becoming an A (not necessarily A+), but is capable of other skills, I would go for the second, since both could probably do the job I needed now.
"I need a dev with 7 years of Spring Bott!"
The more the company sees developers as a crucial input to innovation and building a more valuable company, the more the emphasis is on capabilities.
"I need a senior developer that's great at solving problems. I don't care what tech stack"
But in the second case, a core capability needs to be passing a typical developer interview. So you'll need to practice writing code in a time limit with someone watching you. You'll also need to practice designing a system.
^ it is dumb that this capability matters, but it's the reality today. There are some companies that interview differently where you actually build real-world things without someone looking over your shoulder, but it's not the norm yet.
I haven't worded my question my very well so let me retry by making it more contextual.
Let's say you are responsible for tech strategy at a bank running off a traditional core banking infrastructure. Understandably hiring for the tech skills necessary to deliver the existing tech stack is mandatory to keep the trains running for the existing business. But your Board is feeling the pressure from Fintechs and the necessity to move to cloud technologies and open architectures which require different skill sets that you currently have.
When you are thinking about the tech strategy and the people you need, would you feel the marketplace of tech talent in traditional core banking tech have the "beyond the tech language" mindset and the personal and professional skills to drive your future tech state? Or would you be better placed hiring generalist tech superstars i.e. people who may or may not have banking and bank tech experience but come with a suite of entrepreneurial and problem solving skills skills such that they can work out a bank grade tech architecture that allows the bank to compete with the Fintechs in the future?
Or is it simply easier for me to view this as the distinction between the remit and capabilities of the CTO team vs the CIO team?
“Nell," the Constable continued, indicating through his tone of voice that the lesson was concluding, "the difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But that has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people—and this is true whether or not they are well-educated—is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations—in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.”
― Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer
Maybe you want both.
If you are absolutely sure you know what you need, then hire that skillset. Finding someone with the skillset is not hard. As someone mentioned earlier, this may also have some costs, as some developers may be confined in this box and unable to grow, or may want to move on elsewhere.
It sounds to me you are looking for an environment where ideas and innovation flourish and maybe potential to help define and shape the company vision. Capabilities and potential I find more important — finding someone with this skillset I think is hard to find.
I think if you are working on something cutting edge and innovative (yet to be seen by most of public), these good explorers will find you first.
how quick can this person learn? or does he refuse to learn and adapt?
is this person an independent / active thinker/problem solver? or is this person mentally lazy?
is this person truly interested in tech, or just for the money? any insights this person gained from past experiences ?