4 ms·

> I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation. As someone who has written and hired techni

by mbesto 8y ago

> I think many people write their job description's requirements, as if it were the opening stage of a negotiation. As someone who has written and hired technical talent - this is absolutely true. > so many quite good candidates won't apply. I agree with your sentiment but generally disagree in practice. The reality is I get 100's of applications that are nowhere near qualified for positions I've listed. We're talking like recent grads applying for a VP of E-commerce (~10 years exp on the spec).

techstrategist 8y ago
Having many unqualified applicants is unrelated to how many good 50-75% candidates self-select against applying. It’s likely entirely different groups exhibiting the inverse effects of Dunning-Kruger.
- mbesto 8y ago
  > how many good 50-75% candidates self-select against applying Got some data to back that up?
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    Applying for a job costs time and effort. All other things being equal, I will prefer to apply to a job posting where I meet more of the requirements than one that is a looser match. Adding requirements that aren't actually requirements is a good way to get your posting sorted to the end of my applications queue indefinitely, or ignored entirely. I will apply to the closest matches first, and stop when I pass a time threshold. If your process costs me more than an hour, and I only tick off 50% of your listed requirements anyway, I'm probably never going to apply. There are all kinds of new postings, added daily, that will jump ahead of yours in my queue. So if I am searching while holding a job, I only apply to postings with the very highest estimated payoff, which are the very close matches. So, single point of anecdatum: I will self-select against applying. The threshold for matches depends on how motivated I am to change jobs. About now, I will even ignore 100% matches, if they don't have a salary range listed, and an easy application process.
    - mbesto 8y ago
      I don't blame you and I agree with you. My point is that this is not how the market works. You argument is like asking for women to stop being so demanding about all of the qualities they want in a man. Sure you can take a stand against that and say "I'm only going to meet women who match my exact profile and seek those who have realistic set of expectations". This is just simply not how it works and anyone who has individualistically "taken a stand" ends up losing out and just goes back to market norms. In other words - a noble effort, but discrediting human behavior in aggregate won't get you very far.
      - logfromblammo 8y ago
        What argument? This is what I actually do. I read job postings sometimes, and if a posting looks like it might involve too much bullshit to be worth the effort to apply, I forget about it forever. If the posting is crap, I don't apply. It's not my problem to contact the company and tell them why their advertisement failed to draw my interest. This strategy works perfectly fine when I already have a decent job and wouldn't be averse to trading up, if the opportunity is right. If nothing seems good right now, I can still go to work. There will probably be more opportunities in the future. But even when I need to find new work now, or run out of money to pay bills, I still shove the lowest estimated payout/effort prospects to the back of the queue. There is nothing any individual company could do to change my behavior. I will always pick the ripest fruit whenever I get hungry. I will always avoid wasting my own time with snipe hunts and wild goose chases. Your dating analogy crumbles in a lot of very reasonable cases. Job hunting is only superficially like dating. Getting hired is not very much like getting married, unless you are in a cult featuring polygamy/polyandry for the leader (and maybe their top disciples), with chastity and celibacy for everyone else. But in some sense, it is apt. If your profile says you're looking for someone who is: - rich - pretty - single (never married) - faithful - sane - attentive to my every need - definitely not an axe-murderer - also not a con artist - has a garish tramp-stamp tattoo featuring Yosemite Sam - minimum height 190cm; maximum weight 100kg You are still going to get pinged by chat-bots and the desperately thirsty, but anyone fitting your bill has probably already overfilled their queue with prospects that are only asking for: - able to cook dried pasta correctly - not a *complete* asshole And that's because those other people have requirements, too.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - techstrategist 8y ago
    I'm not making a specific claim about a number, I'm claiming that they are separate populations.

by mbesto 8y ago

techstrategist 8y ago

Having many unqualified applicants is unrelated to how many good 50-75% candidates self-select against applying. It’s likely entirely different groups exhibiting the inverse effects of Dunning-Kruger.

mbesto 8y ago
> how many good 50-75% candidates self-select against applying Got some data to back that up?
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Applying for a job costs time and effort. All other things being equal, I will prefer to apply to a job posting where I meet more of the requirements than one that is a looser match. Adding requirements that aren't actually requirements is a good way to get your posting sorted to the end of my applications queue indefinitely, or ignored entirely. I will apply to the closest matches first, and stop when I pass a time threshold. If your process costs me more than an hour, and I only tick off 50% of your listed requirements anyway, I'm probably never going to apply. There are all kinds of new postings, added daily, that will jump ahead of yours in my queue. So if I am searching while holding a job, I only apply to postings with the very highest estimated payoff, which are the very close matches. So, single point of anecdatum: I will self-select against applying. The threshold for matches depends on how motivated I am to change jobs. About now, I will even ignore 100% matches, if they don't have a salary range listed, and an easy application process.
  - mbesto 8y ago
    I don't blame you and I agree with you. My point is that this is not how the market works. You argument is like asking for women to stop being so demanding about all of the qualities they want in a man. Sure you can take a stand against that and say "I'm only going to meet women who match my exact profile and seek those who have realistic set of expectations". This is just simply not how it works and anyone who has individualistically "taken a stand" ends up losing out and just goes back to market norms. In other words - a noble effort, but discrediting human behavior in aggregate won't get you very far.
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      What argument? This is what I actually do. I read job postings sometimes, and if a posting looks like it might involve too much bullshit to be worth the effort to apply, I forget about it forever. If the posting is crap, I don't apply. It's not my problem to contact the company and tell them why their advertisement failed to draw my interest. This strategy works perfectly fine when I already have a decent job and wouldn't be averse to trading up, if the opportunity is right. If nothing seems good right now, I can still go to work. There will probably be more opportunities in the future. But even when I need to find new work now, or run out of money to pay bills, I still shove the lowest estimated payout/effort prospects to the back of the queue. There is nothing any individual company could do to change my behavior. I will always pick the ripest fruit whenever I get hungry. I will always avoid wasting my own time with snipe hunts and wild goose chases. Your dating analogy crumbles in a lot of very reasonable cases. Job hunting is only superficially like dating. Getting hired is not very much like getting married, unless you are in a cult featuring polygamy/polyandry for the leader (and maybe their top disciples), with chastity and celibacy for everyone else. But in some sense, it is apt. If your profile says you're looking for someone who is: - rich - pretty - single (never married) - faithful - sane - attentive to my every need - definitely not an axe-murderer - also not a con artist - has a garish tramp-stamp tattoo featuring Yosemite Sam - minimum height 190cm; maximum weight 100kg You are still going to get pinged by chat-bots and the desperately thirsty, but anyone fitting your bill has probably already overfilled their queue with prospects that are only asking for: - able to cook dried pasta correctly - not a *complete* asshole And that's because those other people have requirements, too.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- techstrategist 8y ago
  I'm not making a specific claim about a number, I'm claiming that they are separate populations.