- in spite of my previous point the total number of candidates suitable for positions out there are very few. Unlike standard bell curve formulas which you get with regards to physical and mental characteristics (which says that most people are fairly similar with some 'outliers') it's the inverse here. For a single position you may get several hundred to several thousand applicants (for an average job. This may skyrocket to thousands, tens of thousands, and more for a single position if the organisation in particular is popular) with only a handful being even remotely suitable and even then they will never be a 'perfect fit'. Applicants will need some form of training no matter what?
'How to Get a Job at the Big 4 - Amazon, Facebook, Google & Microsoft' by Sean Lee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJZCUhxNCv8
- once you've established if/when an individual or organisation may be providing 'alternative facts' you need to determine whether they're doing it for the 'right reasons' and proceed from there...
- you can use private investigators or recruiters to do background checks on candidates but just like other businesses if you look around they'll often have 'questionable backgrounds as well'. The worry is that they'll just try to charge you to do things for something they can do nothing about? Everyone has to make a money right? Try and find a way to fix your problem as quickly as possible without them (the key question problem is whether or not you can change something to elicit a change of situation or circumstances freely? The impression that I get after working with multiple sides of the equation is that the less people you involve the better (it doesn't matter whether this involves the public or private sector). It can often solve things a lot quicker and more adequately because you're in control of the situation. A good example if the following. If a client is is running out of performance issues a consultant may charge to install faster storage or to increase network bandwidth. The problem is that you can also attack the problem by imposing quotas. The latter is obviously cheaper while the former is more expensive but it is also the issue you'll more likely face if you bring in the consultant...) or else draw up a flat fee contract up front so that you can properly budget... The difficulty with the latter is whether or not you can come up with something realistic because often the person paying doesn't really know what's involved...
- don't get too hung up about 'ability tests' which often have little to nothing to do with how well you may be able to ultimately do your job. If you use experience, stock price, capitalisation etc... as a means of tracking the success of these mechanisms in choosing future employees you'll realise that there isn't as strong of a correlation as you'd be led to believe...
- two things to definitely be aware of are if the organisations in question are too keen or not keen enough... Either way, they are warning signs which could indicate low internal morale, high workload, you're very high or low down the order of candidates, that other staff members could be using you as a means of escaping their present circumstances, lack of resources, etc...
- this pertains to wage, salary, and benefits package as well. If they're too driven by money or benefits the they can easily lose sight of the work or life in general (it's also tells you something about the organisational mentality. Certain companies know outright that realistically what they offer isn't that much different from others in the marketplace and this is their only method of luring candidates. Moreover, over the long term this particular culture doesn't really stay that way. Good examples of this are Macquarie Bank which used have a reputation of being a 'Millionaire's Factory' and Google which used to have a reputation for their 20% project program and gourmet food but both have basically 'cut back' now...). The ideal situation is to find those who are motivated to roughly the same point that you are (work/life balance is really a misnomer because certain people see their job as a hobby, others hate their job, others prefer genuine balance, etc...), motivated by roughly the same things, working on something that you're interested in, where people are paid well (and in a way that makes sense), are competent, are respectful of one another, etc... People can try to 'assimilate' with one another but in reality it doesn't really make everyone happy?
- one other thing to note about any potential wage, salary, and benefits package are the offsets. For instance, if you look up about life in Silicon Valley, London, Sydney, Tokyo, Rome, Paris, Beijing, Shanghai, New York, etc... you'll realise that things balance out. A good example of this is the cost of living versus what you earn. In many cases you can often struggle to make ends meet (doesn't matter what the occupation and field or work is unless you are at the extreme upper end. To genuinely have savings you'll need to curb your lifestyle somewhat in a lot of cases. A good example of this was the Google engineer who decided to live in the company car park to help save up for a home)
- the next best thing is to find people who fulfill as many of the above criteria as possible but are flexible and accept one another as they are...
- which reminds me beware of some claims. Some numbers may sound impressive but for some individuals and organisations when you try to stack them up against one another they aren't?
- maintain a public profile or portfolio of some sort (try to make them money generating projects if possible so no one can claim that that is 'invalid experience'). It doesn't matter whether you part on good terms or bad terms with any organisation. Due to any number of reasons they may not be able or may not want to supply details of what you did. This is your fall back. No one can dispute what you've done if it's out in the open. That said, beware of some of the problems with some publicly accessible websites
- if you examine everything overall, one of the things that feels obvious is that our unemployment figures are 'off' possibly because employers and employees are too picky (everyone ways to do what they want and be paid for it but there are obviously a limited number of opportunities), people/organisations aren't being given a chance (I've seen a lot of people (at multiple levels) who were extremely well qualified but looked over for the strangest of reasons?), etc...
- it's difficult to judge candidates and organisations either way to be honest. One measure is to look through the work of your rough cohort and see whether or not you can do everything that they can do? The problem here is that things are somewhat stacked against you if you come from a poorer background (examine the way capitalism works in general and you'll realise that things stacked against them from the outset). Still, try to factor this out if possible. Figure out how much different you are based on whether you had the same resources from the outset... (as an aside would love to know how things would pan out if everyone had access to the same education, healthcare, resources, etc... from the moment they were born? My guess is that most of us wouldn't be much that different?)
- this is by far the most interesting aspect of capitalism. If you look over thousands of years technically the conspiracy theorists are correct. It's basically the same bloodlines/families running things with capital buildup going towards these people over time. What's interesting for me is that technically they could hire more people and it would have almost no impact on their overall power/status within society and things would technically be better? It's almost like the limiting factor is capitalism (or at least our particular form of it?) itself sometimes? Over time, you'll learn to respect those who have genuinely built something from the ground up rather then those who have been a bit luckier...
- this brings me to my next point, it's damn obvious that a lot of whistleblowers have no idea what they've done wrong? Basically, they've looked around and they've seen some wrongdoing. Technically, what's being done is against some sort of law so it's really a question of certain people wanting to do whatever they want without oversight. The obvious question is whether or not what they've done is justified?