Dear hiring managers. Do the job titles a candidate has held influence your decision whether or not to hire that person? I've long been an advocate for hiring for potential and giving people a "step up" into a role. In my experience though, most hiring companies want to hire someone who has held that same job title previously. If that's your default stance, I'd ask that you ask yourself a simple question: "why?" Does someone's having held a specific job title influence their ability to do your job in any way? Does that candidate's holding that job title mean they've had specific responsibilities on an individual basis? (hint: not always - each company is different) When you consider folks that haven't held that job title before but that are capable of doing your job, you MASSIVELY expand your talent pool and you massively reduce your time-to-hire on average. I believe the talent gap is comprised of a myriad of these little preferences/biases. Am I missing something? #jobtitles #cybersecurity
Job titles in security are a complete mess. A great example is “product security” can be someone who is purely GRC or can be an engineer. When hiring junior roles, we look at progression of experience and the skills that likely lead to success in the role. For very senior roles, job titles do come in to play a bit more, but they shouldn’t be the only way to find talent. For the product security example, you may find some excellent talent with someone titled as application security or security software engineer.
More than the titles themselves, I look at the progression of titles within the same organization, which might indicate that the candidate must have done something to earn promotions and retention. On the other end of the spectrum, I've seen interns be the brightest performers, with no prior titles.
Pete, as a hiring manager within a small field, I always found certain job titles included similar responsibilities across the board. Holding certain positions whether at a large facility or small, held influence in my eyes.
IMHO Titles Stink! As you say every company is different. I was a VP at a 20 person company. NO ONE would hire me as a VP for a 5000 person company. Look at what they have DONE, ACCOMPLISHED!
Great post, Pete Strouse, MBA, PHR. I’m interested to see what responses you get.
I don't focus on title, but on area of responsibility (particularly in cyber, people often have inflated titles to match pay; then there is the bank titles vs. industry). I honestly don't typically hire for potential or step someone up if they are an unknown as there is already a lot of risk in external hires. That being said, I have a lot of avenues to hire for potential through known quantities (former colleagues, internal hires, interns, reskill initiatives) and would be willing to step someone up if I knew their work or had someone I trust vouch for them. I really hate to say it, but there is a lot of talk about giving people a chance and for me such expectations are unreasonable. Particularly when the same people are also complaining about lengthy interview processes or <gasp> having to come for an in person interview (for me interviews are virtual, which also increases risk). I can't be expected to take a chance on a rando that my team has only spent 2-3 hours with. External hires are risky enough as it is.