Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Problem with Job Titles

blog.workshape.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 103 posts

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#11

Post by warcode »

dkyc wrote: post #2

I think the results have to do with your questioning. For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. So some people give testing a 0, because it's not something you actively want to do. And others give testing a 5, because they know that whatever job they'll take, they probably have to test their code. I don't really see much difference to the classic…

The "What would I like to do" vs "What would be agreeable to do in a job" scenario would probably explain the specialists vs generalists.

Unless everybody is forced to answer the same question the shapes are useless.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#12

Post by VLM »

1) Are people good at evaluating what they want? Its a liberal arts truism that they aren't. Enormous piles of literature about non-technical topics "love" "lifestyle" etc. I'd be shocked if humans are truly excellent at self evaluation uniquely for technical topics.

2) (Only kinda kidding) Where's emergency fire fighting? Escalated customer support?

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#13

Post by hunglee2 »

k__ wrote: post #9

I like their ideas, but the only thing that changed for me with the shapes is, that I have a profile that doesn't match any job offering. So no win for me, lol

Hey k_3, its Hung, CEO of Workshape.io here. Thanks for signing up and for your comment. We know that the 'no match' screen feels like failure, even when its anything but!

Its simply a case that no employer has seen the wisdom of designing a job opportunity that meets your interest! And its highly likely to be a question of scale i.e not enough companies on the platform.

In any case, we need to get better at that screen and are aiming to produce analytics to describe job distribution (geography, tech stack etc) so that users who see it will come away with better value.

Ping me if you have any more input!

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#14

Post by hunglee2 »

Ronsenshi wrote: post #4

Fascinating approach to the matching. "No CVs" sounds awesome, but I think companies would ask applicants for their CVs in the end anyway. Love d3 animations on the landing page.

We think so too, and that's ok. Workshape.io is an attempt to bring the 'sentiment match' to the beginning of the hiring process. We think if both parties know that there's compatibility in terms of interest, then they should be good to go further conversation. Its a de-risking tool, I think

[Source: I'm Hung Lee, founder]

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#15

Post by dagw »

dkyc wrote: post #2

I think the results have to do with your questioning. For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. So some people give testing a 0, because it's not something you actively want to do. And others give testing a 5, because they know that whatever job they'll take, they probably have to test their code. I don't really see much difference to the classic…

I would interpret a testing of 0 as willing to write the minimal number of tests needed to get their code working and 5 as willing to spend all their time developing the company wide testing framework and testing policy and making sure it's continually updated and being followed, as well as being the last person in the chain to sign off on the fact that any software leaving the shop as passed all the tests.

Basically being a 5 means you want to own that aspect, if necessary at the exclusion of everything else.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#16

Post by lordbusiness »

lordbusiness wrote: post #6

Interesting and thought provoking article. I wonder if this could take off as a concept and change the way we define ourselves? I like the concept. One thing that is lacking however is perhaps an understanding of what job titles are today. I haven't formally been handed a job title in many years, so long in fact that I honestly can't recall which previous employer was the last to grant me a specific pigeon hole at th…

P.P.S. I'd love to see the ability to add myself as a remote worker. I had to choose my closest major city, which doesn't accurately reflect how I work.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#17

Post by sparaker »

hunglee2 wrote: post #8
sparaker wrote: post #5

A pretty good way to find people that you want to hire. Perhaps if we can add some experience graphs along with these, we can get a good platform up that actually makes head hunting really easy for small companies who do not have the time or the money to do this properly.

thanks sparaker - its Hung, CEO of Workshape - thanks for your comment. Time / money is what we want companies to save, not only at point-of-hire but also in terms of hiring the right person for the opportunity. Its a blind match on both sides, so we think both parties are able to trust the match more than they would in traditional job discovery platforms. As for experience / bio - we're probably pull in social data…

I am surely looking forward to this.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#18

Post by qooleot »

solve wrote: post #3

So, let's plug these shapes into a regressor / ranker / classifier, along with some possible target variables (career path, survival rates, yearly office peer ratings, salary after 5 years,) for as many balanced samples as possible, and see what predictive power these might have! Or, I guess the graph itself could also be considered a resume differentiator / sales technique. Edit: Oh, I see. They're heavy on the high…

Yes, that would be interesting data. Most companies would output reports from their HRIS systems in wildly different formats, and you'd have to adjust for industry, geo/currency, year, gender/ethnicity/language, and all sorts of things. But just getting that data and the sensitivity that goes with it would be near-impossible unless you were a salary survey company. And then, they get job-level data and not per employee. They charge serious money for the services of analyzing this data and do not make their data available.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#19

Post by dkyc »

dagw wrote: post #15
dkyc wrote: post #2

I think the results have to do with your questioning. For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. So some people give testing a 0, because it's not something you actively want to do. And others give testing a 5, because they know that whatever job they'll take, they probably have to test their code. I don't really see much difference to the classic…

I would interpret a testing of 0 as willing to write the minimal number of tests needed to get their code working and 5 as willing to spend all their time developing the company wide testing framework and testing policy and making sure it's continually updated and being followed, as well as being the last person in the chain to sign off on the fact that any software leaving the shop as passed all the tests. Basically…

Your interpretation seems like a reasonable scale - however, it is a very vague definition of "0". I'm sure some people want a 0 to mean an actual 0, like a blind developer asked to do UI development.

Re: The Problem with Job Titles

#20

Post by mnsc »

It sucks that we are so three-dimensional in our thinking. This "Workshape" is really a 10-dimensional world where we "wander" in our careers by spending time/energy along some axis. Sometimes we actively pursue a direction, "developing my back-end-skills/archictecture" and sometimes we are more/less forced in a direction "this needs testing/documentation". The result is a traveled path which is "my experience", and a direction which is my "desired trajectory forward".

Matching would then be a spatial questions: Have you been [here]? Where are you heading?

Stupid physical world.

Post reply on HN