Frustrations with interviewing in this wild job market

In reply to GameboyRMH :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

That makes sense. Making employees feel replaceable to spur them on to perform better has downsides though. If I was working at a company and saw an ad up for a position I'm in, I'd think I needed to stay at the top of my game to keep it. But I'd also think that I need to start looking for more secure employment elsewhere rather than aiming for a long-term future at that company, especially if I thought I was already doing well at that job. My last job was like that.

It could also disincentivize workers from helping each other out - both because workers who are doing well and could train others might not be secure enough about their own performance to do anything but grind away at their own work, and they might be more inclined to let somebody else get caught at the back of the pack so that they'll be safe a little while longer.
 

I get what you are saying, but to be honest- a worker that would be disincentivized with helping others because they want to stay on top or would rather work a more secure job elsewhere than worry about their performance- is likely one that I wouldn't want anyway. So I'd say if it's keeping those employees away, it's working as intended. While good employees have good performance, not all with good performance are good employees. Some are insufferable to work with and poison the whole team. Sometimes they just aren't a good fit, no matter how skilled or productive they are. Often there are warning signs of this at the interview. Every time I ignored my gut and hired a "good" employee despite those signs, I regretted it. 
 

Keep in mind, it's expensive to hire and train an employee. The employer would have to see the new person as a significant upgrade. A decent employee shouldn't have anything to worry about if they are doing their job and not causing other issues. I'll also say that in my experience, places with higher standards end up being much nicer places to work for everyone. 

Steve_Jones said:

GameboyRMH said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

If I was working at a company and saw an ad up for a position I'm in, I'd think I needed to stay at the top of my game to keep it. But I'd also think that I need to start looking for more secure employment elsewhere rather than aiming for a long-term future at that company, especially if I thought I was already doing well at that job. My last job was like that.

That's because you look for the negative reasons vs the positive ones. Maybe if you figured your job was posted because they wanted to move you up, you'd have more success. Instead you decided you needed a different job, how'd that work out?

I think it would take rather specific timing on top of a heaping helping of optimism for anyone to have any chance at thinking that the company's posting your job because they want you to move up. Typically you'd expect to get lots of hints from management about a potential promotion first, likely even just asking if you're interested in a higher-ranking position.

In the case of that company there was no timing, it was more or less a constant, at first it seemed to be because they wanted to grow the team to reduce the workload as they said, so it didn't seem like a negative at all. With time it became clear that they'd never really grow the team and were just stack-ranking people out and replacing them with fresh meat which was purely negative. There were lots of other bad things about that job that made me look for other work pretty much as soon as I thought I'd been at the company long enough that it wouldn't look bad on my resume, the job ad situation was hardly a factor.

Boost_Crazy said:

Keep in mind, it's expensive to hire and train an employee. The employer would have to see the new person as a significant upgrade. A decent employee shouldn't have anything to worry about if they are doing their job and not causing other issues. I'll also say that in my experience, places with higher standards end up being much nicer places to work for everyone. 

That's the problem with making employees feel replaceable though, you don't have much control over exactly how replaceable they end up feeling...they don't know that the job ad is an empty threat (it wouldn't have any effect on them if they did), so they'll always think they do have something to worry about. The constant threat of replacement makes them think that "doing a decent job" is a moving target and they don't know how much margin for error they have at any time, and that a couple of slip-ups at the wrong time could send them out the door. The cost of hiring isn't considered because the job ad looks like a clear sign that the company has already decided it wants to hire someone (the same impression it gives job seekers), the only question is who might get replaced.

That kind of environment might work for an investment firm or a pro sports team or a megacorp's sales team, but for a lot of ordinary workplaces where workers see their jobs as a livelihood rather than an elite sport, where you don't need a top team of world-beating superstars, that can make people look for something more stable when, unknown to them, they probably don't really need to. A worker would need to know they're consistently among the best at such a company to feel as safe from the threat of replacement as most any worker would at a company that only posts job ads when there is a real need to hire someone. Those are only going to be a fraction of the people and if there isn't a lot of chance involved, it will mostly be the same people.

It's that same worry born from the fear the job ads are intended to instill that can make people act more selfishly. If people with bills piling up at home and a family to support are made to think that they need to choose between generously helping a coworker and looking out for #1, could you blame them? At that last company I worked for where there was generally zero time to spare, I took some time to help a new guy who seemed to be struggling, but I felt I could afford to take that risk, having a decent bit of money saved up and low expenses from being single and thrifty...would a typical worker barely staving off a repo'd car and an eviction do that, especially if they thought that another worker's underperformance could keep them safe from the chopping block? When workers are made to feel replaceable, that perverse incentive will always be there, and lots of people are desperate enough to accept its benefits through inaction.

That guy came to me too late BTW, he got canned not too long after our unofficial training session. Maybe I wasn't the first person he tried to get help from...

All employees and all employers are replaceable, the degree of difficulty of replacement is variable, however.

Gameboy did you get a job yet?  Or is this another "woe is me" post?  Get that welding cert yet?

I always joked with my bosses: "I'm humble enough to know that I can be replaced but I'm cocky enough to know that it would be a downgrade."

In reply to GameboyRMH :

The last few people you are replying to are Employers that hire people, and we are giving you the reasons Employers do what WE do.

You keep telling us we are wrong. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

That's the problem with making employees feel replaceable though, you don't have much control over exactly how replaceable they end up feeling...they don't know that the job ad is an empty threat (it wouldn't have any effect on them if they did), so they'll always think they do have something to worry about. The constant threat of replacement makes them think that "doing a decent job" is a moving target and they don't know how much margin for error they have at any time, and that a couple of slip-ups at the wrong time could send them out the door. The cost of hiring isn't considered because the job ad looks like a clear sign that the company has already decided it wants to hire someone (the same impression it gives job seekers), the only question is who might get replaced.

That kind of environment might work for an investment firm or a pro sports team or a megacorp's sales team, but for a lot of ordinary workplaces where workers see their jobs as a livelihood rather than an elite sport, where you don't need a top team of world-beating superstars, that can make people look for something more stable when, unknown to them, they probably don't really need to. A worker would need to know they're consistently among the best at such a company to feel as safe from the threat of replacement as most any worker would at a company that only posts job ads when there is a real need to hire someone. Those are only going to be a fraction of the people and if there isn't a lot of chance involved, it will mostly be the same people.

It's that same worry born from the fear the job ads are intended to instill that can make people act more selfishly. If people with bills piling up at home and a family to support are made to think that they need to choose between generously helping a coworker and looking out for #1, could you blame them? At that last company I worked for where there was generally zero time to spare, I took some time to help a new guy who seemed to be struggling, but I felt I could afford to take that risk, having a decent bit of money saved up and low expenses from being single and thrifty...would a typical worker barely staving off a repo'd car and an eviction do that, especially if they thought that another worker's underperformance could keep them safe from the chopping block? When workers are made to feel replaceable, that perverse incentive will always be there, and lots of people are desperate enough to accept its benefits through inaction.

That guy came to me too late BTW, he got canned not too long after our unofficial training session. Maybe I wasn't the first person he tried to get help from...

I think you misunderstood or took it a bit too literally when I said always hiring. I didn't mean actively running job postings on everyone's exact position- that would be a bit weird. I meant that I would never turn away an application or stop conducting interviews just because all positions were filled. And while I don't think that is the same thing as constantly threatening employees with replacement, they need to understand that if they fail to meet the needs of the business, I am willing and able to replace them. Early in a previous career, I was a very successful manager. I ran circles around others, I definitely thought I was irreplaceable. One day one of my employees dropped the ball. It was not the first time. When my boss came to me, because I was the one responsible for their results- I responded much like you did above. They are a good person, it was a mistake, they need their job, have bills to pay, etc. etc.. He said that while he appreciates my compassion, he wondered if they would feel the same if their mistakes put my job on the line. Would they help me pay my bills of their continued failure cost me my job, because no one is irreplaceable, including me. I thought he was the biggest shiny happy person at the time, and there was no way they could replace me. But over the years I realized more and more that he was right. I don't think employees should be under constant threat, but they shouldn't be too comfortable either.