I must ask, please do not take this the wrong way, how have you been able to switch consistently with such ease? And what country do you work, where you are being respected for having industry-naïvety?
Being a software engineer you can readily switch industries but still have deep knowledge in developing software. Practicing breaking down problems in different domains will train you up in a more dynamic and flexible style of thinking (perhaps at the expense of deep expertise in a given area?)
> how have you been able to switch consistently with such ease?
Originally, it was anything but easy. But at this point in my career, the pattern itself is what sells it:
- I've never left a company having the same title or role I started with. And have always left with substantially greater responsibilities than I started with. Which holds true even for companies I was at for a year or less.
- I've never progressed linearly within the same industry or function when switching companies
- Almost all of my roles from IC to people-manager have involved high levels of trust and autonomy with minimal direct oversight and limited if any pre-existing structure, process, support, infrastructure, or direction.
The above demonstrates over a decade of reliably and successfully adapting between roles and environments, and outlaying it as such when going through my background with a hiring company tends to preempt any reservations/concerns the hiring company has in that regard. I've also now amassed SVP, President, and C-Level recommendations in pretty much every functional area, from individuals that have either directly or indirectly managed me. And can pull in the appropriate reference to address any remaining hesitations around functional capabilities or ramp up expectations. All of which have made my last few transitions significantly easier than earlier in my career.
> And what country do you work, where you are being respected for having industry-naïvety?
I'm in the US. I wouldn't put it as being respected for industry-naïvety, which is one of the reasons you rarely see people grow their career the way I have. I just seek out opportunities where that's not a liability and am fully transparent when I'm in a situation where that may be an expectation. Standard needs get handled (or at least sanity checked) by those with a more standard background if available, abnormal/atypical/ill-defined/unknown needs filter through to me. The value and leverage I provide by bringing to bear my variety of skills, experience, and perspectives in those atypical or rapidly evolving situations more than makes up for the occasional crash course in the basics I need to fill in some industry/functional holes.
The caveat being that I'm pretty useless or even detrimental[1] in many environments - such as companies that are highly regimented and a cross-disciplinary mindset would be antithetical to the culture and cause undesired friction, or in highly stable and mature environments where deviating from standard practices by introducing foreign concepts would destabilize the steady-state of the existing situation. In those situations, I'm far more of a liability than an asset. And will directly probe during the interview process to understand the context of the role and whether it's a good fit for what I bring to the table.
[1] While usually considered detrimental, I've also been placed in those situations with the express intent of introducing such a destabilizing factor or internal friction, as a way to shake things up and allow for change.
ed312|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
cosmie|5 years ago
Originally, it was anything but easy. But at this point in my career, the pattern itself is what sells it:
- I've never left a company having the same title or role I started with. And have always left with substantially greater responsibilities than I started with. Which holds true even for companies I was at for a year or less.
- I've never progressed linearly within the same industry or function when switching companies
- Almost all of my roles from IC to people-manager have involved high levels of trust and autonomy with minimal direct oversight and limited if any pre-existing structure, process, support, infrastructure, or direction.
The above demonstrates over a decade of reliably and successfully adapting between roles and environments, and outlaying it as such when going through my background with a hiring company tends to preempt any reservations/concerns the hiring company has in that regard. I've also now amassed SVP, President, and C-Level recommendations in pretty much every functional area, from individuals that have either directly or indirectly managed me. And can pull in the appropriate reference to address any remaining hesitations around functional capabilities or ramp up expectations. All of which have made my last few transitions significantly easier than earlier in my career.
> And what country do you work, where you are being respected for having industry-naïvety?
I'm in the US. I wouldn't put it as being respected for industry-naïvety, which is one of the reasons you rarely see people grow their career the way I have. I just seek out opportunities where that's not a liability and am fully transparent when I'm in a situation where that may be an expectation. Standard needs get handled (or at least sanity checked) by those with a more standard background if available, abnormal/atypical/ill-defined/unknown needs filter through to me. The value and leverage I provide by bringing to bear my variety of skills, experience, and perspectives in those atypical or rapidly evolving situations more than makes up for the occasional crash course in the basics I need to fill in some industry/functional holes.
The caveat being that I'm pretty useless or even detrimental[1] in many environments - such as companies that are highly regimented and a cross-disciplinary mindset would be antithetical to the culture and cause undesired friction, or in highly stable and mature environments where deviating from standard practices by introducing foreign concepts would destabilize the steady-state of the existing situation. In those situations, I'm far more of a liability than an asset. And will directly probe during the interview process to understand the context of the role and whether it's a good fit for what I bring to the table.
[1] While usually considered detrimental, I've also been placed in those situations with the express intent of introducing such a destabilizing factor or internal friction, as a way to shake things up and allow for change.