4 ms·

The article clearly identifies the source of this challenge: HR culture I’ve worked in HR in the US. To say it is unbearably broken doesn’t begin to cover it.

The article clearly identifies the source of this challenge: HR culture I’ve worked in HR in the US. To say it is unbearably broken doesn’t begin to cover it. Japan’s rigid hiring rituals are specific but I’ve encountered quite a bit of rigidity in HR culture in the US as well. As we see nearly daily here on HN, the “filter process” HR uses is highly resistant to change and based on traditions that are objectively useless and horribly biased. Somehow we seem to miss that economists are not the best experts to consult with here. Put another way - fix HR and suddenly economists wouldn’t need to “explain” so much when it comes to labor market dislocations. So why haven’t we fixed these issues? I know hundreds of people in HR trying to address these challenges. They invariably run into the fact that executives and hiring managers are the source of the misconceptions driving these systemic problems. That’s not a category of people who get overridden in companies. I encountered this even in my own startups. Board members and company leaders believed they had near clairvoyance on how to hire - despite rarely being correct in practice. tl;dr; The people (execs, hiring managers) who set the expectations around hiring have an unreasonable and inflexible dedication to their assumptions about how hiring should be done, leading those given the job of managing the hiring process (HR) to design woefully inefficient and biased hiring processes, leading to endemic dislocation in the job market that destroys the lives of people who didn’t pass the first check-point in their careers. Checkout “DIY University” for more history on this issue. This is a problem that can, and has, destroyed nations.

marrianeKK 6y ago
>The article clearly identifies the source of this challenge: HR culture I don't think so. I don't think the problem here is companies struggling to find the right people. It seems to me that companies have slashed hiring. There are too few regular job positions and too many people seeking them.
- sirspacey 6y ago
  I can see that point. Supply & demand are usually the go-to explanation. However, liquidity in the labor market is rarely well-understood. This article specifically addresses people who are never able to enter the workforce. In the US the data is stark - there are literally hundreds of thousands of positions that are never filled, despite millions of job seekers. To oversimplify with one major hiring filter - most jobs require X years of experience in Y narrowly-defined industry/region/tool/skill. Liquidity in the labor market is the only answer to this problem - to get experience you have to be able to get a position in the first place, often in a role unrelated to where you end up. Economists see jobs as “widgets.” Of course, we all know we spend most of our time doing none of the things listed on the job we originally applied for (or were tested for in interviews). Supply/demand explanations mask the fact that most work today is fluid. Getting people into the workforce creates economic growth. The barrier to that growth is a broken HR system. It doesn’t seem to be, at first, a root cause that is significant enough in size to hobble a whole economy. Until you consider that nearly every employer has the same issue.
csense 6y ago
If a lot of companies have rigid hiring processes where a lot of talented people through the cracks, why aren't those people snapped up by competitors who are more flexible?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  I have seen a few attempts/startups attempting alternative ways of identifying candidates. Mindsumo.com [0] is the one I know best (although they pivoted later on) By and large, it still seems to be the same people who come out on top. [0] https://www.cnet.com/news/mindsumo-the-x-prize-of-hiring/ https://www.cnet.com/news/mindsumo-the-x-prize-of-hiring/ It would not surprise me if a lot of decent candidates get turned down in the rush to hire star candidates, but I doubt many star candidates are actually being missed by the economy as a whole.
  - sirspacey 6y ago
    I’m a fan of TripleByte, they’ve continued to iterate and evolve in interesting ways. Still, its nearly a myth that companies hire based on merit. Hiring through social networks is much more significant. A simple example: Most companies see applying for a job as the first step in connecting with a career opportunity. Every career coach will tell you not to apply until you’ve networked into the company.
- sirspacey 6y ago
  Because this is truly a cultural issue - meaning every company is significantly plagued by it in nearly all of their hiring areas. Having consulted with hundreds of startups and businesses, and a fair number of Fortune 500s, I’ve personally seen how universal the challenge is. Here’s an experiment: name one employer that properly vets tech talent for the role and work they do once hired. Edit: appeasing the autocorrect gods.
pessimizer 6y ago
> This is a problem that can, and has, destroyed nations. I agree, and think it should be a national concern. I don't know how building highways is a legitimate use of government power where matchmaking between workers and employers is not. It's the type of big government intervention that virtually no one would complain about. The amount of excess effort wasted in matching people to employment is entirely wasted. Minimizing it would be like giving everybody a raise.

marrianeKK 6y ago

>The article clearly identifies the source of this challenge: HR culture I don't think so. I don't think the problem here is companies struggling to find the right people. It seems to me that companies have slashed hiring. There are too few regular job positions and too many people seeking them.

sirspacey 6y ago
I can see that point. Supply & demand are usually the go-to explanation. However, liquidity in the labor market is rarely well-understood. This article specifically addresses people who are never able to enter the workforce. In the US the data is stark - there are literally hundreds of thousands of positions that are never filled, despite millions of job seekers. To oversimplify with one major hiring filter - most jobs require X years of experience in Y narrowly-defined industry/region/tool/skill. Liquidity in the labor market is the only answer to this problem - to get experience you have to be able to get a position in the first place, often in a role unrelated to where you end up. Economists see jobs as “widgets.” Of course, we all know we spend most of our time doing none of the things listed on the job we originally applied for (or were tested for in interviews). Supply/demand explanations mask the fact that most work today is fluid. Getting people into the workforce creates economic growth. The barrier to that growth is a broken HR system. It doesn’t seem to be, at first, a root cause that is significant enough in size to hobble a whole economy. Until you consider that nearly every employer has the same issue.

csense 6y ago

If a lot of companies have rigid hiring processes where a lot of talented people through the cracks, why aren't those people snapped up by competitors who are more flexible?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
MattGaiser 6y ago
I have seen a few attempts/startups attempting alternative ways of identifying candidates. Mindsumo.com [0] is the one I know best (although they pivoted later on) By and large, it still seems to be the same people who come out on top. [0] https://www.cnet.com/news/mindsumo-the-x-prize-of-hiring/ https://www.cnet.com/news/mindsumo-the-x-prize-of-hiring/ It would not surprise me if a lot of decent candidates get turned down in the rush to hire star candidates, but I doubt many star candidates are actually being missed by the economy as a whole.
- sirspacey 6y ago
  I’m a fan of TripleByte, they’ve continued to iterate and evolve in interesting ways. Still, its nearly a myth that companies hire based on merit. Hiring through social networks is much more significant. A simple example: Most companies see applying for a job as the first step in connecting with a career opportunity. Every career coach will tell you not to apply until you’ve networked into the company.
sirspacey 6y ago
Because this is truly a cultural issue - meaning every company is significantly plagued by it in nearly all of their hiring areas. Having consulted with hundreds of startups and businesses, and a fair number of Fortune 500s, I’ve personally seen how universal the challenge is. Here’s an experiment: name one employer that properly vets tech talent for the role and work they do once hired. Edit: appeasing the autocorrect gods.

pessimizer 6y ago

> This is a problem that can, and has, destroyed nations. I agree, and think it should be a national concern. I don't know how building highways is a legitimate use of government power where matchmaking between workers and employers is not. It's the type of big government intervention that virtually no one would complain about. The amount of excess effort wasted in matching people to employment is entirely wasted. Minimizing it would be like giving everybody a raise.