|
|
|
|
|
|
by vsareto
959 days ago
|
|
|
A bigger population just hasn't been trained properly. We have no controls for that, so people get lucky with disparate learning being just enough for their first job, then that turns into experience towards the next job. Then they find themselves among high performers and can't keep up, really through no fault of their own. Some high performers are just natural and born with it, which is unfair to let that affect how anyone judges others' performance, but it still happens too (esp. if the high performer is doing the judgment). What I generally see when people categorize their workers into high/low performance is from a bigger issue of poor stewardship over the industry and training its talent. This means I don't actually have to improve, I can instead just spam job applications and get lucky just because technology is such a large industry. |
|
|
I agree, but I am also hesitant to advocate for controls in the form of certification (degrees, licenses, etc) because it just adds a layer that provides a strong positive signal for a while until it’s just inundated by grifters yet again, so now we’re back to square one.
We see this take the form of degree mills and accelerated trade schools initially, which ends up creating more problems, more barriers, and ceases to benefit the companies looking to hire. Everything can and will be gamified, and I am also hesitant to tie people to former employers so heavily as that creates an unhealthy power imbalance.
Then how can we control for talent? I don’t know the answer to this question or if it’s even the right question to ask, but I’m fairly confident that we cannot solve this using 20th century nor modern hiring and screening processes.