Sstrhsrtj

I have been working in software development for the last five years, and have had a number of jobs during this time- most of them have been fixed term contracts, but I've also had a permanent position, and have been self-employed for a few months (with a couple of clients).

I finished my most recent contract a few weeks ago, and have started interviewing for a number of other jobs.

Something I've noticed over the years when attending interviews, is that I often get asked whether I have any of my own projects that I can talk about- and the question is often asked with an expectancy that I'm going to launch into a detailed description of some application that I've developed in my own time.

Although I enjoy what I do- mainly because I enjoy logic/ problem solving, I don't tend to do any software development in my own time, mostly because I have other interests that take up most of my spare time outside of work (sport, youth work, other voluntary work, socialising, etc). I find that while I enjoy the logic/ problem solving that I do as a software developer, I have no interest at all in doing it outside of my office hours- I would rather take a break by doing one of the things I've listed above, or simply relaxing.

That said, I know that a lot of people who work in software development do enjoy doing it in their own time as well as while at work, but my question is why has it become almost expected that a software developer work on their own projects in their own time? I can't think of many other professions where it is 'expected' that someone do what they're paid to do for their own leisure too.

I understand that it might make a candidate stand out more if they have some impressive bit of work that they've done in their own time, but if I was in the position to be hiring a software developer, I think I would value someone who enjoys other hobbies/ interests as well, as it likely means that they will be a more rounded person.

When I've been asked this question at interview, I have answered it in the way I've given my reason for not doing it above. I would say that the responses I've had to this answer at interview, are generally 60/40, i.e. some interviewers seem to appreciate my point of view, but most don't seem too impressed- I get the impression that they are expecting me to have worked on my own projects outside of my employed work.

Recently, I even had an application rejected because I didn't have any of my own projects I could show to the company posted on GitHub- this wasn't listed as a requirement on the job advertisement, but after applying, I had a call from someone at the company asking for the link to my GitHub profile- which I provided, but mentioned that I didn't have any of my own projects on there, and that all of the work that I had contributed to on GitHub was proprietary, and owned by previous employers, so I wouldn't be able to show them the source code.

So why does it seem to be accepted that software developers are expected to be working on/ have worked on their own projects outside of their employment?

The negative view is that they want you to be so addicted to creating things, that you work 80 hours a week for them without regard to your health and well-being.

A positive view is that they want to see code samples and don’t know how to just ask for some

Employers want to see passion and drive. Some companies call those things leadership qualities.

Someone who is passionate, should be passionate about anything they set their mind to. So being well rounded is a plus.

Beware of companies that want to squeeze you for all you’re worth until you’re just a hollowed out lemon. There are lots of them out there.

As other answers have already touched upon this is a route towards being able to provide code samples that a free of any restrictions upon the candidate (no NDAs or anything to worry about).

By far the larger factor however is that companies expect it simply because it's very often the case. Those who go on to become professional software developers often start out as hobbyists and retain the hobby as they grow up. And since people don't generally do hobbies they hate doing (at least that's not exactly Plan A!) and people who enjoy doing what their job entails are less likely to be half-checked out and clock watching all day.

Personally in 15 years of working as a dev, with quite a few of them spent managing and hiring other devs I've never seen any strong indicator that those who have their "own" projects are "better" workers than those who don't.

For every developer who loves writing any code so much that they spend 12 hours a day in the office working on company stuff until the cleaning crew kicks them out there's another who can't wait to get home and work on what they want to be working on rather than whatever it is the company asked them to do that day, and that's not someone who's bringing their A-game in to the office!

Of course the way job hunting works has meant that now many devs do outside projects more for the CV then for the fun. Which of course only re-enforces the "need" to have external projects you can espouse at interview time. Which of course gives you the poor sap behind door #3 - who doesn't really want to be doing personal projects for hours every evening/weekend but fears not getting hired if they don't!

Speaking as a R&D SW engineer who also does SW recruiting and interviewing (and who asks exactly that question)...

1) SW often involves absurd levels of complexity and training. I want to hire someone who is going to be productive for years or decades. If SW is just a stepping stone to get inside the company and then leave for sales (a RL example) then all the time spent training you and all the SW-specific legacy information you have is lost and my time was wasted.

2) Similarly, life is too short to do something you hate (or even don't like), I've seen lots of people burn out after five or ten years.

3) Experience Matters. If you're a Junior in college then you have X amount of exposure from college. If you have been doing this since high school then you have X+Y. If you've been doing this from high school and also do it as a hobby then it's X+Y+Z.

4) The difference in productivity between a good SW person and a bad SW person is like 10x or more. Which you are is hard to tease out during an interview. Classwork is useless to me for this for multiple reasons. Hobbies are often months or years of work (classwork is often weeks) and give a better idea on accomplishments.

5) People like to talk about their hobbies, it's a way to relate and relax.

6) I tend to treat all interviews the same, I do a lot of students. Many/most students have horrible resumes. They'll have tons of useful experience in First Robotics and leave it off their resume because they didn't get paid, and instead talk about their minimum wage job mowing lawns or waiting on tables.

I don't care how much you got paid (my company has money, we can pay you), I care about your useful experience regardless of whether or not you got paid. Students don't get that so I need to ask.

7) It's a good way to give someone the opportunity to bullshit me... or dazzle me. I'm also in this field, I'll probably know the difference.

Advice: If you like to mental/logic games in your spare time and view SW as that sort of thing, then mention that.

My answer is the assumption that these managers and interviewers went to conferences.

I've been to various developer conferences and one of the themes there is community. They push this idea that a solid developer is someone who contributes to their overall product base. In my situation, I went to php conferences and they heavily push people to commit to open source projects. Pushing to commit to the actual php source code base wasn't a top agenda, but pushing into framework and so forth is really a huge agenda they strike up at various talks.

The reason behind this is obvious when you look at their credentials. They're into the framework community so keeping it alive and getting people to use it are big points for them.

On the attending guests side, I think a lot of people take it into heart without regard to the background of the speaker who is presenting this idea. At my last company, we went to several of these conferences and when we came back, it was a big deal that each of us started to contribute to open source projects. They even had their own internal conference pushing the very same idea that a good developer is someone who contributes to open source. It's even on job ads they post out that committing is a huge plus.

So I think that is why it's "expected." The people pushing these frameworks getting the idea out that you should be committing and contributing. It also falls into the old Unix idea of the past. That's how Unix got so popular thanks to open source and community contribution.

It simply happens that software development can be an extremely low cost but rewarding hobby. So it is very common to see developers with their personal projects on the side and that is sometimes seen as the norm.

Another part of the reason is employers want to see proof of skills and asking for code you have written is one way to go about it, a lazy one IMO. Also doing programming on the side means you can be easily convinced to work overtime since you already like it.

I would say you are not missing out by not getting offers just because you cannot show personal projects. Interviews are a two-sided process and you are naturally filtering out companies with cultures that would not fit you, since seems like you want work-life balance.

I agree with the basic points of RibaldEddie's answer, but its loaded with enough negative value judgements that I think it misses the mark.

Some passionate, talented engineers are driven to build and create even when they're not being paid for it. Asking about extracurricular projects is way to probe for that passion and talent by giving the candidate a stage to brag about a project they chose for themselves.

Is extracurricular work required to be a passionate, talented engineer? Of course not. However, those people who work on their own time may look for that same characteristic in others.