Sunday, May 11, 2008
Is Microsoft a better employer than Oracle?
IBM and MICROSOFT is referral/relationship driven candidates, ORACLE is credential...
Traditionally, you can't just walk into IBM or Microsoft with resume and expect a call back based on that. Every one I know inside these places references the "internal" referral as the reason they got in, not a random submission of resume. This takes the traditional tape away; "you" dealt with the "magic" connection to the team members first, then HR.
Oracle is the traditional way where your filter into the ORACLE community is through HR first, not the immediate team needing your services. Unless you are a contractor, when you are in IBM or MICROSOFT, you’re in. With ORACLE, it’s measuring your performance on an on-going basis.
I've seen 2 generations of families, friends knowing friends and unusual relationships active in Microsoft and IBM, but there credentials are all over the place. Meanwhile, Oracle seems focused on what you know & how well you do it, so you have a lot of people with no direct connections other than their credentials working there.
Internal connections get people in and they are exposed to rich programs to wear a hat in multiple departments. You can go in for sales at MSN and be a systems analyst coming out. But at Oracle you go in as a programmer, your title carries programmer for the lifetime you are there even if you get to management level.
From experience, MICROSOFT and IBM makes you part of the family through connections, ORACLE qualifies you to be part of theirs. The corporate need vs desire directly affects your longevity.
So, what can your enterprise learn about its own hiring practices by observing IBM, Microsoft and Oracle...
| | View blog reactionsTraditionally, you can't just walk into IBM or Microsoft with resume and expect a call back based on that. Every one I know inside these places references the "internal" referral as the reason they got in, not a random submission of resume. This takes the traditional tape away; "you" dealt with the "magic" connection to the team members first, then HR.
Oracle is the traditional way where your filter into the ORACLE community is through HR first, not the immediate team needing your services. Unless you are a contractor, when you are in IBM or MICROSOFT, you’re in. With ORACLE, it’s measuring your performance on an on-going basis.
I've seen 2 generations of families, friends knowing friends and unusual relationships active in Microsoft and IBM, but there credentials are all over the place. Meanwhile, Oracle seems focused on what you know & how well you do it, so you have a lot of people with no direct connections other than their credentials working there.
Internal connections get people in and they are exposed to rich programs to wear a hat in multiple departments. You can go in for sales at MSN and be a systems analyst coming out. But at Oracle you go in as a programmer, your title carries programmer for the lifetime you are there even if you get to management level.
From experience, MICROSOFT and IBM makes you part of the family through connections, ORACLE qualifies you to be part of theirs. The corporate need vs desire directly affects your longevity.
So, what can your enterprise learn about its own hiring practices by observing IBM, Microsoft and Oracle...
