Would you pay to have a temporary SME?
June 17, 2010 2:17 PM Subscribe
My pitch to a company with open positions: You have a job opening, I'm [overqualified] for that job, but I can start as a consultant immediately and since I'm already experienced in that role I can hit the ground running. More importantly my role is to be a placeholder for that position until you find the permanent candidate you want, and when they start I'll train them and get them up to speed and then be on my merry way (unless you have another open position).
Background:
in my current job I'm a subject matter expert, executive adviser, and system architect for web and telecom based communication technologies. I know the protocols, architectures, frameworks, plus I've built (and building) web things on my own. However, I don't like the direction my current company is going, and even though I'm a "key employee" (their words, not mine), it might be time to part ways.
I'm lucky in that everyday there's a constant supply of job openings that I have done or know pretty much what the hiring company needs done, however, I expect most hiring managers would blanch at my salary requirements. But what I'm wondering is if they wouldn't mind paying a bit of a premium to occupy the job while they find someone more suitable to the role long term. I know when I was a hiring manager that I would consider this, but I'm not sure whether it has mainstream appeal or not.
For me, I really enjoy fresh environments including figuring out the organizational interfaces and how things get done and how the role plays into that. Plus one on one teaching I enjoy as well (group teaching less so, but its ok too). What I'm less clear on is how likely it is that hiring managers (and organizations) would go for this arrangement.
tl;dr - I know personally and professionally I'd be a great fit for a temporary role, but is there any need for a temporary SME to fill a role until a permanent replacement is found?
Background:
in my current job I'm a subject matter expert, executive adviser, and system architect for web and telecom based communication technologies. I know the protocols, architectures, frameworks, plus I've built (and building) web things on my own. However, I don't like the direction my current company is going, and even though I'm a "key employee" (their words, not mine), it might be time to part ways.
I'm lucky in that everyday there's a constant supply of job openings that I have done or know pretty much what the hiring company needs done, however, I expect most hiring managers would blanch at my salary requirements. But what I'm wondering is if they wouldn't mind paying a bit of a premium to occupy the job while they find someone more suitable to the role long term. I know when I was a hiring manager that I would consider this, but I'm not sure whether it has mainstream appeal or not.
For me, I really enjoy fresh environments including figuring out the organizational interfaces and how things get done and how the role plays into that. Plus one on one teaching I enjoy as well (group teaching less so, but its ok too). What I'm less clear on is how likely it is that hiring managers (and organizations) would go for this arrangement.
tl;dr - I know personally and professionally I'd be a great fit for a temporary role, but is there any need for a temporary SME to fill a role until a permanent replacement is found?
I'm sure every job situation is different, and I'm probably in a different field from you. But I wouldn't go for that, not due to money but because the hassles of getting you in place would likely be as much as the hassles of just doing the most essential pieces of the job myself while finding the permanent employee. I'd want to spend the time to get the right permanent employee in place and be done with it.
We'd have to interview you (including the email hassles of scheduling), negotiate a contract and get that approved by the higher-ups, have accounting file the contract and get you set up in the system to receive checks, introduce you to others and get you up to speed (helping you "figur[e] out the organizational interfaces and how things get done and how the role plays into that"), and support you in getting the next person up to speed. All that time really adds up.
posted by salvia at 2:40 PM on June 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
We'd have to interview you (including the email hassles of scheduling), negotiate a contract and get that approved by the higher-ups, have accounting file the contract and get you set up in the system to receive checks, introduce you to others and get you up to speed (helping you "figur[e] out the organizational interfaces and how things get done and how the role plays into that"), and support you in getting the next person up to speed. All that time really adds up.
posted by salvia at 2:40 PM on June 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
This makes me think of two things. Firstly, how do you know the job is currently empty? My boyfriend is a web developer working towards becoming a systems architect and when his company is hiring it's because of two reasons. Firstly someone is going to leave so they're working to replace them as close to the leaving date as possible (so the role doesn't stay open for long if at all) - although maybe they're unusually well organised there - and secondly they've got new work coming up and need to expand capacity in which case again they hire ahead of time so the new person is there as soon as the new work load (and new funding) hits. In the latter case there's usually a set budget attached as well as a required skill level so paying you more wouldn't be an option anyway. In both situations time and effort is put into getting the new person up to speed with company culture and how things are done there specifically, time and effort which would be wasted on someone temporary even if it is something you're good at. You definitely wouldn't be the person they choose to train the next person, they want that done by someone with much better understanding of their projects and processes than could be picked up in a space of a few weeks.
Secondly, why would there be a significant lag time until they can get a new person to start? If there are people applying for these jobs then surely they can hire someone and get them started in the time than it would take for you to get started and up to speed? I could be entirely wrong, it really depends on your job market and standard working conditions, but this is something you'll have to sell to any HR person you're pitching your idea to.
It seems to make more sense to just be a contractor and go for short term projects which are designed by nature to be short termed projects with all that entails than try to make a short term project out of someone trying to hire long term staff. Once you have experience popping in and out of companies, proving you can do it, there's no reason why some of those contracts can't be the kind you're looking at here. But it's not what I'd start with or make my entire business plan.
posted by shelleycat at 2:40 PM on June 17, 2010
Secondly, why would there be a significant lag time until they can get a new person to start? If there are people applying for these jobs then surely they can hire someone and get them started in the time than it would take for you to get started and up to speed? I could be entirely wrong, it really depends on your job market and standard working conditions, but this is something you'll have to sell to any HR person you're pitching your idea to.
It seems to make more sense to just be a contractor and go for short term projects which are designed by nature to be short termed projects with all that entails than try to make a short term project out of someone trying to hire long term staff. Once you have experience popping in and out of companies, proving you can do it, there's no reason why some of those contracts can't be the kind you're looking at here. But it's not what I'd start with or make my entire business plan.
posted by shelleycat at 2:40 PM on June 17, 2010
I'm a subject matter expert, executive adviser, and system architect
Did you put them in that order for a reason? Are you a systems architect or aren't you? With that other stuff in there it sounds like you're an office monkey who used FrontPage once.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 12:39 AM on June 18, 2010
Did you put them in that order for a reason? Are you a systems architect or aren't you? With that other stuff in there it sounds like you're an office monkey who used FrontPage once.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 12:39 AM on June 18, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
I pitched something semi similar except with the intenet of "hey I'll take the position but what I'm really looking for is management/growth positions. I have great experience in this job, way beyond the 5 years you're requiring. And oh by the way, you want print, I have mega web experience and yea that's right, you know I'm going to totally jump ship to your internet division as soon as I can."
They replied with the intent of "interesting...so...what's your experience (obviously not reading the resume), what's your pay, what's your goal."
Told them. They replied "thank you but no thanks we've moved on to more qualified candidates."
I was totally qualified. What they didn't want to deal with was a high salary, 16 years experience when all they needed was a 5 year or less flunkie.
posted by stormpooper at 2:22 PM on June 17, 2010