In many cases the people evaluating candidates and the person who will end up managing the new employee are not “qualified” for the job, or even their own job, under the way people usually model “qualification.”https://twitter.com/shl/status/1190368602639044608 …
-
Show this thread
-
There’s a deep, deep cultural myth here, that you work hard and please enough gatekeepers and *wham* you have now “earned” a job or a promotion or whatever. The only thing that matters is performance *subsequent to* convincing people to give you the shot.
6 replies 22 retweets 127 likesShow this thread -
See also: receiving investment, etc etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
I think of raising investment as a sales exercise in which you say “I have amassed sufficient proof points to materially risk your decision here but if it were not a risky one it would be irrational for me to talk to you”, perhaps less explicitly, and I think jobs are similar.
1 reply 3 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
*materially derisk
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Since that might be a little opaque: there is some percentage of Series A investments that fail and some much smaller percentage which become Google someday. If you are Google, *today*, it is irrational to speak to a Series A specializing firm for your capital needs.
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Similarly, if you and Hogwarts are mutually convinced you’d absolutely crush it at Associate Potions Master with 100% confidence, you almost definitionally should be interviewing for a better job than that.
1 reply 6 retweets 71 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @patio11
Curious on how this applies to your consultancy work. Did you only approach companies when you knew the new potion works or you kinda had a hunch that the potion you created last week would also be of use here? Did you seek your own growth when getting new gigs?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kritesh
You’re selling a probability distribution; if the potion always works it is probably as underpriced as all magic is in Harry Potter. (Tangent: The microeconomics of wand shops make *no sense at all!*)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @patio11
And one updates this probability distribution (and subsequently the pricing) through Bayesian inference once the gig is over? (Speaking of wands in this context. Hermione said it best "Wands are only as powerful as the wizards who use them..." )
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Substantially right on the updating process, yes. Some clients end up with substantial consumer surplus for having taken smart risks subjectively early; good on them.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.