5 ms·

A lot of people don't understand what's going on here. Maybe you haven't worked for a large company but it operates quite differently to a small company. Two t

by cletus 4y ago

A lot of people don't understand what's going on here. Maybe you haven't worked for a large company but it operates quite differently to a small company. Two things can be true at once: a company can both need to hire and people at that company can have difficulty finding a role. These are not contradictory statements. Orgs and teams within large companies have budgets and/or head counts. They need to "spend" these to hire. They hire with external hires and internal transfers. Like any recruitment it can take time. A given position might have a bunch of external and internal candidates. Team may also want to keep head count open to use opportunistically. If you are employed at a large company, you may be competing with a bunch of internal and external candidates for a job. You can fail to find a position and these positions are being filled by other people. Think about it this way: we have an unemployment rate that is in large part transitional because of these time factors. We won't hit 0% unemployment. That's just not possible. Saying failure to find an internal job is evidence of over-hiring is like saying "there is no labor shortage because I could not get a job" (side note: for completeness, "labor shortage" isn't realy anyway; there are only "wage deficits" not "labor shortages").

throwbadubadu 4y ago
I call nonsense, have worked for large comoany. Processes are long, bureaucracy is huge, yes, but in no case there was never enough work to fill peoples desks, from software engineers to HR, wtf? The unemployment comparison from company to whole society stinks, too, and there are examples that even 0% unemployment can be true, but again not sure how this relates to a company.
- shagie 4y ago
  Every piece of your work is stuck somewhere in the system. There's a PR waiting for review, there's a product owner who hasn't made up their mind about something and is waiting to have a meeting with 5 other people who invariably always have one of them unavailable. The dependency for another piece of work is still buggy and needs to be fixed and updated before can do something there. The solution to this? Hire more people so that the bottlenecks can be cleaned... and Brooks's law starts taking its toll on every single late project. Sure, there are some teams that are rather focused and can push things through, but there are a lot that stuck somewhere and the hiring to try to. do things in those teams just makes it worse. There's work to do - just none of it can be done in this part of the org because there are too many people.

by cletus 4y ago

throwbadubadu 4y ago

I call nonsense, have worked for large comoany. Processes are long, bureaucracy is huge, yes, but in no case there was never enough work to fill peoples desks, from software engineers to HR, wtf? The unemployment comparison from company to whole society stinks, too, and there are examples that even 0% unemployment can be true, but again not sure how this relates to a company.

shagie 4y ago
Every piece of your work is stuck somewhere in the system. There's a PR waiting for review, there's a product owner who hasn't made up their mind about something and is waiting to have a meeting with 5 other people who invariably always have one of them unavailable. The dependency for another piece of work is still buggy and needs to be fixed and updated before can do something there. The solution to this? Hire more people so that the bottlenecks can be cleaned... and Brooks's law starts taking its toll on every single late project. Sure, there are some teams that are rather focused and can push things through, but there are a lot that stuck somewhere and the hiring to try to. do things in those teams just makes it worse. There's work to do - just none of it can be done in this part of the org because there are too many people.