3 ms·

> The method you outlined is profoundly inefficient. It's based on a time proven Sales Prospecting formula. Used especially when determining Product/Market fit

> 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).
    - JSeymourATL 7y ago
      > It's a waste of time... Depends entirely your valuation formula. If six months of networking yielded a $300K/year job, lasting 3 years. Would that be worth your time? If your current income is zero, with mounting debt— the time invested is well worth your ROI. This formula works even at minimum wage levels.
      - keenmaster 7y ago
        I agree that that’s how to deal with the status quo, but my premise is that the status quo is inefficient and there is a lot of value to be created by changing it. Everyone should indeed network, but networking shouldn’t play as outsized of a role in the hiring process as it does today. I recently spoke with someone who networked and got a great job at a top MBB consulting firm, but she was days away from giving up and settling for a job in a non-target industry that pays half. She tried to network with less highly ranked consulting firms and it didn’t work out. How arbitrary. Her projected net worth jumped by millions in the span of days, with no underlying value creation. The whole process really is an unmitigated disaster.

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).
  - JSeymourATL 7y ago
    > It's a waste of time... Depends entirely your valuation formula. If six months of networking yielded a $300K/year job, lasting 3 years. Would that be worth your time? If your current income is zero, with mounting debt— the time invested is well worth your ROI. This formula works even at minimum wage levels.
    - keenmaster 7y ago
      I agree that that’s how to deal with the status quo, but my premise is that the status quo is inefficient and there is a lot of value to be created by changing it. Everyone should indeed network, but networking shouldn’t play as outsized of a role in the hiring process as it does today. I recently spoke with someone who networked and got a great job at a top MBB consulting firm, but she was days away from giving up and settling for a job in a non-target industry that pays half. She tried to network with less highly ranked consulting firms and it didn’t work out. How arbitrary. Her projected net worth jumped by millions in the span of days, with no underlying value creation. The whole process really is an unmitigated disaster.