|
But one thing I never did was put up arbitrary barriers. Yet, "top companies" (sorry bro, your pre-seed startup might be a great idea, but it's not a top anything yet) want a show of meaningless effort as a proof of value. And job seekers will comply because we need employment to access capital, or more specifically, food, shelter, health care and social mobility. It's pretty bleak.
It's very simple. The author might want to work for a big company because of money, reputation, office politics, big scale of projects, nice office, good networking and stability. Those companies have a ton of people applying for them for the same reason. Of course they can afford and need to put up barriers. Author think they are arbitrary but would not be able to create better ones to replace them, everyone is in the same boat.And then the Author weirdly dismisses startups that are looking for talents. Startups that have no reputation, no stability, focused projects, small teams and less money. But they have much less "arbitrary" barriers. Here you go, you have your solution right there in front of you, in your text. Working at a startup or any small company will give you "food, shelter, health care and social mobility". But that's not what you really want. You don't really know why your interested in that big company instead of smaller ones. That question wasn't arbitrary after all. You can't have a cake and eat it too. |
I think you're making a lot of assumptions, maybe projecting a bit here? I didn't mention "money, reputation, office politics, big scale of projects, nice office, good networking and stability", or anything about what I was interested in. Not sure where all that's coming from.
I've actually been focused almost exclusively on startups, especially in the early stages. The last company I worked at was just me and the co-founders. This is actually where I thrive: we're growing, we're pivoting, we're accommodating a big customer, we're orienting toward an acquisition, and we need to get our stuff in order. I am the one who's going to make the hard calls, whip the processes into shape, generally get the product in order to facilitate the next steps, learn everything I can to make it all work on the fly. I live in the trenches, I wear all the hats, I do all the dirty work, and I love it. Watching a constantly failing application transform into a turnkey operation is so satisfying. And then it's on to the next challenge. I appreciate stability but I'm willing to sacrifice it for interesting problems and a big impact.
Anyway, I get the same gate checks from startups, even tiny ones, and sometimes they're even more invasive and seem to want even more excitement from an applicant. They're placing a form in front of me instead of seeking me out, and the ATS systems and platforms are making me disappear. I'm spending so much time trying to craft the right kind of response and so little time interviewing. It sucks. The broader point of my post was urging people hiring to be proactive about that task and reach out to applicants instead of pushing the responsibility off onto platforms.
You're also misinterpreting the passage you're directly quoting, which is not something I've seen, I think, ever.
I didn't say a company, any company, "will give you 'food shelter, health care and social mobility". I said "we need employment to access capital, or more specifically, food, shelter, health care and social mobility". And I said it was bleak, which you captured, but didn't see, I guess?
Yes. I do want my basic needs met. I don't know why you would think otherwise. And yes, it sucks that I have to exchange being awesome for those needs, and it sucks even more that I've got to jump through so many hoops just to even talk to someone.I also framed that whole section with "A cynic may posit...". It's a cynical view.
I then followed that with:
I meant that, and everything after that. What cake is being offered here, exactly? :DAnyway, none of this really matters, I have this thing about fixing incongruency when I see it.
I'm psyched you took the time to read what I wrote. I honestly do appreciate that. If the straw man you were replying to existed in the context of this conversation, I do think you're making some valid points. Thank you.