3 ms·

> When I apply, I don't have the faintest idea whether I'll get a response or whether my application will go into a black hole. STOP applying to positions imme

> When I apply, I don't have the faintest idea whether I'll get a response or whether my application will go into a black hole. STOP applying to positions immediately. Every Bozo jobseeker is applying to those posts. And worse still, the candidates are sorted and selected by Flunky HR types. Instead, consider your target audience. ASK: Who is the guy/gal you can most help? What are their title(s)? Think - CTO/CIO, VP or Director of Engineering Where do they sit? What companies? Now, hop on Linkedin. Sort for individual profiles of people you can help. Reach out to them directly. Engage in a live conversation. Do this 100 times. You will find competing opportunities.

keenmaster 7y ago
I agree, that's a great approach given the status quo. However, I'm talking about how things could be rather than how things are. The method you outlined is profoundly inefficient. I also highly doubt there is empirical evidence which shows that leveling an implicit "networking barrier to entry" is superior to alternate methods of hiring. It makes our labor market much less dynamic.
- JSeymourATL 7y ago
  > The method you outlined is profoundly inefficient. It's based on a time proven Sales Prospecting formula. Used especially when determining Product/Market fit. NOTHING will happen until someone reaches out and expresses an interest. Understand you have two very different dynamics at play. A) Companies That Need Talent B) Talent That Need/Want Work The expectation that employers will accurately articulate what they want-- when they want it; has a basic human flaw. Even seasoned executives have trouble expressing what they truly WANT. Similar problem for Job Seekers, who often have trouble positioning their own strengths and abilities on paper. Efficiency success models are hard to find in this space - Google famously built a top-tier employer brand. Yet people who have lived through their application/interview and hiring process describe it as dreadful. Humans still drive the hiring engine.
  - keenmaster 7y ago
    There is zero correlation between unstructured interview performance and on the job performance. You read that right, zero. Interviewers would like to think they can discriminate talent based on interview performance. On average, they don’t add one iota of value. Collectively, they are wasting millions of hours a year and destroying untold billions of dollars in economic value. You might have realized that I added the qualifying adjective “unstructured” to the claim about interviews (there is plenty of empirical literature). Structured interviews are more predictive. However, some of the function of a structured interview can be replicated at third party test centers which give you a score. Employers can select for the best and most predictive tests in the ecosystem. Furthermore, those employers who don’t know exactly what they want are the least likely to have structured interviews. They are probably taking the unstructured route, and kidding themselves into thinking that they’re selecting for talent during the interview process. In reality, the best they are doing is soliciting a pool of candidates from good schools and prestigious companies. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying get rid of interviews. However, most interviews should be structured, and companies should outsource most of the process so that: - they can interview more candidates - and more of those candidates would be a good fit going in
    - JSeymourATL 7y ago
      > Interviewers would like to think they can discriminate talent based on interview performance. Yet, that's exactly how Hiring Decisions at the highest levels are made. >https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/google-larry-page-and-sergey-brin-ask-an-unusual-interview-question.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/google-larry-page-and-sergey...
      - keenmaster 7y ago
        At the level of people like Tim Armstrong, interviews are just a formality. Their track record is so self-evident that the best candidate out of an already excellent set of candidates might be obvious. Even if the best candidate isn't obvious, any of the other pre-filtered candidates is almost as likely to excel. This is not all too different from unstructured interviews at lower levels. Pre-filtering based on high-value signals is what really matters at the end of the day. It's a waste of time to pretend that unstructured interviews or "playing the game" and networking creates more value than it destroys (on average).
muzani 7y ago
The gatekeepers are there for a reason. Unless you already know someone who sits high in a company, this won't work. Every Bozo jobseeker does this on LinkedIn too, and they're usually worse than the ones who follow the process.
- JSeymourATL 7y ago
  > The gatekeepers are there for a reason. Self-Limiting thinking. Unless you're a rules, systems, and process guy. This is a real life Kobayashi Maru test.
  - keenmaster 7y ago
    “This is a real life Kobayashi Maru test.” Do you know empirically that that’s the ideal way to screen candidates? Because that would be the only good reason for so many companies to hire in that manner. There are many great engineers who, precisely because of the traits that make them great, would “fail” that Kobayashi Maru test and settle for a suboptimal role. Not only do they lose out on experience befitting of their aptitude, but the company loses out on the best candidate, and the economy loses out on the surplus created by ideal labor matching.
    - JSeymourATL 7y ago
      > ideal labor matching. The system is NOT designed for ideal labor matching. Not unlike the Test. The job-seeker (applicant) and Employer are working at cross-purposes. Incidentally, many Hiring Executives understand this problem. And are often open to dialoguing with people trying to circumvent the HR black hole. Manage or Be Managed is the proposition. Either hunt for work (people you can help) or passively hope someone will notice you.
      - keenmaster 7y ago
        The job search process, as it stands, is another high entropy game in a life full of games. Many companies have reached the heights of success by reducing or eliminating one of those games. Ebay is one example - it takes out all the posturing and dumb games involved in selling an illiquid item. As a result of Ebay, many more of those items are sold, for higher prices, more quickly, and to the people that ascribe the highest value to them. Sure, the job search "game" cannot be completely eliminated. There will always be some fuzziness. However, the fuzziness can be greatly reduced on both sides, and that would be immensely valuable. You have way more faith in the value of the current job search game than I do.

keenmaster 7y ago

I agree, that's a great approach given the status quo. However, I'm talking about how things could be rather than how things are. The method you outlined is profoundly inefficient. I also highly doubt there is empirical evidence which shows that leveling an implicit "networking barrier to entry" is superior to alternate methods of hiring. It makes our labor market much less dynamic.

JSeymourATL 7y ago
> The method you outlined is profoundly inefficient. It's based on a time proven Sales Prospecting formula. Used especially when determining Product/Market fit. NOTHING will happen until someone reaches out and expresses an interest. Understand you have two very different dynamics at play. A) Companies That Need Talent B) Talent That Need/Want Work The expectation that employers will accurately articulate what they want-- when they want it; has a basic human flaw. Even seasoned executives have trouble expressing what they truly WANT. Similar problem for Job Seekers, who often have trouble positioning their own strengths and abilities on paper. Efficiency success models are hard to find in this space - Google famously built a top-tier employer brand. Yet people who have lived through their application/interview and hiring process describe it as dreadful. Humans still drive the hiring engine.
- keenmaster 7y ago
  There is zero correlation between unstructured interview performance and on the job performance. You read that right, zero. Interviewers would like to think they can discriminate talent based on interview performance. On average, they don’t add one iota of value. Collectively, they are wasting millions of hours a year and destroying untold billions of dollars in economic value. You might have realized that I added the qualifying adjective “unstructured” to the claim about interviews (there is plenty of empirical literature). Structured interviews are more predictive. However, some of the function of a structured interview can be replicated at third party test centers which give you a score. Employers can select for the best and most predictive tests in the ecosystem. Furthermore, those employers who don’t know exactly what they want are the least likely to have structured interviews. They are probably taking the unstructured route, and kidding themselves into thinking that they’re selecting for talent during the interview process. In reality, the best they are doing is soliciting a pool of candidates from good schools and prestigious companies. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying get rid of interviews. However, most interviews should be structured, and companies should outsource most of the process so that: - they can interview more candidates - and more of those candidates would be a good fit going in
  - JSeymourATL 7y ago
    > Interviewers would like to think they can discriminate talent based on interview performance. Yet, that's exactly how Hiring Decisions at the highest levels are made. >https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/google-larry-page-and-sergey-brin-ask-an-unusual-interview-question.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/google-larry-page-and-sergey...
    - keenmaster 7y ago
      At the level of people like Tim Armstrong, interviews are just a formality. Their track record is so self-evident that the best candidate out of an already excellent set of candidates might be obvious. Even if the best candidate isn't obvious, any of the other pre-filtered candidates is almost as likely to excel. This is not all too different from unstructured interviews at lower levels. Pre-filtering based on high-value signals is what really matters at the end of the day. It's a waste of time to pretend that unstructured interviews or "playing the game" and networking creates more value than it destroys (on average).

muzani 7y ago

The gatekeepers are there for a reason. Unless you already know someone who sits high in a company, this won't work. Every Bozo jobseeker does this on LinkedIn too, and they're usually worse than the ones who follow the process.

JSeymourATL 7y ago
> The gatekeepers are there for a reason. Self-Limiting thinking. Unless you're a rules, systems, and process guy. This is a real life Kobayashi Maru test.
- keenmaster 7y ago
  “This is a real life Kobayashi Maru test.” Do you know empirically that that’s the ideal way to screen candidates? Because that would be the only good reason for so many companies to hire in that manner. There are many great engineers who, precisely because of the traits that make them great, would “fail” that Kobayashi Maru test and settle for a suboptimal role. Not only do they lose out on experience befitting of their aptitude, but the company loses out on the best candidate, and the economy loses out on the surplus created by ideal labor matching.
  - JSeymourATL 7y ago
    > ideal labor matching. The system is NOT designed for ideal labor matching. Not unlike the Test. The job-seeker (applicant) and Employer are working at cross-purposes. Incidentally, many Hiring Executives understand this problem. And are often open to dialoguing with people trying to circumvent the HR black hole. Manage or Be Managed is the proposition. Either hunt for work (people you can help) or passively hope someone will notice you.
    - keenmaster 7y ago
      The job search process, as it stands, is another high entropy game in a life full of games. Many companies have reached the heights of success by reducing or eliminating one of those games. Ebay is one example - it takes out all the posturing and dumb games involved in selling an illiquid item. As a result of Ebay, many more of those items are sold, for higher prices, more quickly, and to the people that ascribe the highest value to them. Sure, the job search "game" cannot be completely eliminated. There will always be some fuzziness. However, the fuzziness can be greatly reduced on both sides, and that would be immensely valuable. You have way more faith in the value of the current job search game than I do.