The Cellar - View Single Post

Riddil · 12-03-2003, 01:32 PM

Ah Beestie, I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree.

See, in every job that you apply for you will never always be the #1 cantidate. There's a certain percent chance that there will be someone there with more experience. Or maybe they've worked directly with the product. Or they have a reference with someone in the company. Or maybe they went to the same college as the recruiter. Or maybe in the personal interview they just get along better with the interviewer.

So there's a randomization to every application. Which means that a person who is, for example, in the top 25% of their field will actually have some fluxuation to their "rated valuation" by the company. They may be valued at around 15%... or maybe even as low as 35%. But in the 1:20 situation, after enough attempted applications they will eventually be one of the top applicants, and they will land a job in their field that they are qualified for, and will enjoy working in.

Now, someone who applies and is in the bottom 85% of the field... say a bilingual life guard who wants to work in support... even in 1:20 they'll never rise to the top, and they'll never get the job. Which means that at some point he'll have to change his focus to a job he *is* qualified for.

Back to the fellow who's in the top 25%... after enough hunting he'll eventually land the position. But online he'll never even have a chance at it, since he's competing against so many other people the granularity is so fine that he'll never be in the "top of the class".

With the idea of fluxation in valuation it explains why someone in the top 10% of their field could lose out to someone in the top 25%... but all they have to do is continue the hunt, and eventually it will balance out, and they'll land a comprable job.

So what you had in the past was that everyone would spend a few weeks applying around to find the right situation and they'd rise to the top of their 1:20 class. But with the massive job postings what happens is that it's become totally front loaded. Someone in the top 1% of thier field only spends 1-5 days looking for a job before the offers come flooding in, and he takes the job... but someone in the top 20% will spend the next 8 months searching for a job... and before it ever gets to the point where they may land the position, they'll start seeking a lower qualified job. Which means they may be in the top 10% in that field... and given enough time they'll back down their standards again, and when they finally land in that magical 1%, they land a position they're over-qualified for, won't enjoy, and won't learn any new skills in.

The system is good for business in that they can always land the TOP TOP qualified people in a position.

But it's very bad when you consider that if everyone is "settling" on their job, then all of your workers will have lower job satisfaction, lower moral, and more people fighting to get promotions and stay in their current job for shorter times. Also, a new job used to be part of the learning process! Sure a worker may only be in the top 25% of their field.. but only because someone else already has real-work experience. Given only a few months in a position, that 25% player may rise to be in the top 5-10%. It's how skilled workers improve their skills... taking positions that they grow into.

With the online market the hunt is for someone who fits as close to 100% as possible... when you were looking at the 1:20 field you took the best you could get, and the company would help bring that individual up to 100%, and the worker learns and grows with the company. But with the flood of applications online the company can hire someone who's already at 98%... they don't learn anything, they don't mature in the field.

Anyhow... I hope all that made sense...

12-03-2003, 01:32 PM	#9
Riddil Management Consultant Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 165	Ah Beestie, I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. See, in every job that you apply for you will never always be the #1 cantidate. There's a certain percent chance that there will be someone there with more experience. Or maybe they've worked directly with the product. Or they have a reference with someone in the company. Or maybe they went to the same college as the recruiter. Or maybe in the personal interview they just get along better with the interviewer. So there's a randomization to every application. Which means that a person who is, for example, in the top 25% of their field will actually have some fluxuation to their "rated valuation" by the company. They may be valued at around 15%... or maybe even as low as 35%. But in the 1:20 situation, after enough attempted applications they will eventually be one of the top applicants, and they will land a job in their field that they are qualified for, and will enjoy working in. Now, someone who applies and is in the bottom 85% of the field... say a bilingual life guard who wants to work in support... even in 1:20 they'll never rise to the top, and they'll never get the job. Which means that at some point he'll have to change his focus to a job he is qualified for. Back to the fellow who's in the top 25%... after enough hunting he'll eventually land the position. But online he'll never even have a chance at it, since he's competing against so many other people the granularity is so fine that he'll never be in the "top of the class". With the idea of fluxation in valuation it explains why someone in the top 10% of their field could lose out to someone in the top 25%... but all they have to do is continue the hunt, and eventually it will balance out, and they'll land a comprable job. So what you had in the past was that everyone would spend a few weeks applying around to find the right situation and they'd rise to the top of their 1:20 class. But with the massive job postings what happens is that it's become totally front loaded. Someone in the top 1% of thier field only spends 1-5 days looking for a job before the offers come flooding in, and he takes the job... but someone in the top 20% will spend the next 8 months searching for a job... and before it ever gets to the point where they may land the position, they'll start seeking a lower qualified job. Which means they may be in the top 10% in that field... and given enough time they'll back down their standards again, and when they finally land in that magical 1%, they land a position they're over-qualified for, won't enjoy, and won't learn any new skills in. The system is good for business in that they can always land the TOP TOP qualified people in a position. But it's very bad when you consider that if everyone is "settling" on their job, then all of your workers will have lower job satisfaction, lower moral, and more people fighting to get promotions and stay in their current job for shorter times. Also, a new job used to be part of the learning process! Sure a worker may only be in the top 25% of their field.. but only because someone else already has real-work experience. Given only a few months in a position, that 25% player may rise to be in the top 5-10%. It's how skilled workers improve their skills... taking positions that they grow into. With the online market the hunt is for someone who fits as close to 100% as possible... when you were looking at the 1:20 field you took the best you could get, and the company would help bring that individual up to 100%, and the worker learns and grows with the company. But with the flood of applications online the company can hire someone who's already at 98%... they don't learn anything, they don't mature in the field. Anyhow... I hope all that made sense...