In software we call this a “micro-optimization”… Something that programmers waste a lot of time fussing with while ignoring the factors that dominate the overall performance. Fiddle with LinkedIn if you want, but understand that it probably won’t make a significant difference either way.
I was able to catch myself before doing this, but sort of a cautionary tale how bias has sneaked into my thinking the last few months...<p>Friend of mine has a good job - however the company conducted layoffs and cut most of her team, with her being one of the exceptions so she has since been burdened with the weight of the roles of the laid off.<p>Given her morale quickly ended up in the shitter, she asked me to put out feelers to see if I knew of anyone hiring. I went to post on LinkedIn saying (without naming her of course) that I had a very talented friend looking for a new role. The weird part is that <i>I almost made it a point to mention that she was still currently employed.</i><p>This is totally unfair thinking given current market trends. Lots of good people have been laid off because they were in the wrong barn at the wrong time. I know this, but I can't help but allow the question to float around in the back of my head, "well WHY was this person laid off, was it performance related at all or were they just unlucky?"<p>I'm sure I'll be laid off at some point in the future (again), and I probably wouldn't mark myself as OpenToWork. I'd be open about current employment status, but probably wouldn't broadcast it.
The article essentially claims that OpenToWork is generally considered to be a negative indicator among hiring managers: If you're looking for a job, it's better to not mark yourself as open to work, otherwise HMs will judge you negatively.<p>Is that actually a view that many/most hiring managers have?<p>That seems completely insane to me. My view was that OpenToWork == please feel free to contact me about new opportunities, I'm willing to switch jobs or take on contract work. But a number of HN commenters here appear to have the viewpoint that OpenToWork == you're an incompetent buffoon who has been utterly unable to get anyone to hire you, so I'm not even going to consider you for this position. Wtf? Yes, all the incompetent buffoons will be permanently OpenToWork, but I really don't think it's reasonable to make that assumption in the opposite direction.
This isn't a comparison of whether <i>adding #OpenToWork to your profile</i> changes the likelihood of being hired. It's a comparison of whether <i>people who chose to add OpenToWork to their profiles</i> were more likely to be hired.<p>It's totally possible that one of the populations is more/less hireable than the other, and OpenToWork is a correlated, but not causal factor.
I left it on for awhile as a signal to my employer that I was willing to jump ship. I will say that I was pretty straightforward with my employer about what I was looking for, and started bringing it up regularly.<p>I eventually got an offer and my employer counter-offered.<p>Turns out no one even noticed until I showed up with an offer in hand. I even asked out to my boss, "didn't you see that I'm '#OpenForWork' on LinkedIn?"<p>(Basically, I was hired as a contractor because my offer as W2 was below market rate. The contractor phase was supposed to be short, but after it dragged out too long I needed to either make market rate as a W2 or move on.)
Don't. It makes you look desperate. Use some kind of other mechanism to broadcast if you must, but if you put that on your Linkedin profile pic it is not a good look.
Maybe I'm a prude, but I think there should be a discussion of variance in an article that is basically just a bunch of words wrapping a comparison between two proportions.
It's so fucking dumb that a worker has to show fealty to a corporation when they want to work there, as if they are blessed for having the opportunity to labor on shitty code (or whatever) all day, and if they look for other work they're a <i>fucking traitor</i> and looked down upon. Meanwhile, if company profits are up but interest rates are rising 25 bps over the next year, they can just lay off 10,000 workers and it's just "doing business things".<p>I am "open to work" on LinkedIn and elsewhere, and if a company or hiring manager doesn't like it then they can go fuck themselves. Note: I have a great job currently.<p>Further, "open to work" doesn't mean I'm fucking begging for you to hire me, it means I'm open to opportunities that might come up when I'm specifically <i>not actively looking</i>! I've had several good interviews come from random people finding my posts about my industry on HN or seeing my "open to work" status on LinkedIn and emailing me.
The post and some comments seem to be assuming that whether you flip this bit or not can effect your chances of getting hired. Maybe, or maybe they just found a correlation, that people more or less hireable for other reasons are more or less likely to flip this bit, and nobody actually pays attention at allto whether the bit is flipped or not, the same person choosing to flip the bit or not would not effect their chances. Which seems plausible to me. Or some combination. The data analysis as given doesn't give us a way to pick from these explanations.
Broadcasting your need to any poor soul who stumbles across your post does not sound like the ideal way to get the job you want. It does sound desperate like you have no skills and will take whatever is offered.<p>I've never even had a recruiter that could find me the job I wanted. It's up to you to find that job and do what it takes to meet those qualifications.<p>You can find that job through the easily searchable job listings that cover the internet - or through your personal network - but you're your best advocate here.
Fascinating. I think the key analysis here might have a flawed methodology though. So those who used "#opentowork" on LinkedIn passed fewer interviews... But is that because the hiring managers/panels saw their LinkedIn profiles and saw it as a red flag, or is that because people who used "#opentowork" were more desperate already from failing interviews?
It's categorically unfair, but everyone says it when the "teacher isn't looking": Tech companies are just riding the wave to get rid of low performers and troublemakers while they can. Signalling that you're part of that group (and I know it's unfair, I already said that) is unlikely to work to your advantage, in my view. It's a signal to the counterparty that they have leverage over you. It's going to attract people who want/need that leverage disproportionately. It probably will increase the raw number of contacts you make, but for the reasons above, I would avoid doing it until I crossed some threshold of "desperation".
I wonder how "opentowork" affects salary negotiations? It certainly puts the candidate in a lower power position, it's not hard to imagine many companies offering less to people who signal they are unemployed.
Really, I don't believe that "Open to Work" label makes too much of a sizable difference in our field for the better or worse, it is probably a non-issue.<p>Recruiters never really cared if you are looking for work or not. I doubt recruiters filter their searches by this label.<p>No recruiter ever:
"Oh, this guy is not Open to Work, better not to contact him, let's move to the next"<p>Actually, we could have a "Please do not contact, not open to work" label, and I am pretty sure you'd still be contacted several times a week by recruiters with barely, if any, reduction in the number of messages.
Sounds to me like in a strong job market, the people who bother to set themselves as #OpenToWork are those either having more trouble getting a job, or are already in a decent job and just shopping around.<p>In a tough market following layoffs, more people in general are going to be #OpenToWork, even strong candidates who didn’t need to openly job shop before, and those looking for work are more likely to take an offer even if it isn’t perfect.<p>It’s still an interesting indicator of the state of the job market.
Anecdotally I've had more recruiters reach out to me for potential jobs when I have the Open to work badge. Why not have it on all the time even if you are currently employed, especially if you are well performing. Would that not be an incentive for your current employer to boost pay/bonus to retain?
Good post, though with the graphic, I do think this is one of those cases when the y-intercept should start at zero. The graphic does make a 7% difference look like a 3x difference. Same thing for the previous interviewing.io post on whether to list certs on LinkedIn.
Maybe it's the fact that I have a lot of recruiter contacts on LinkedIn, or maybe it's my engineering field, but I disagree with a lot of the comments here. In the past #opentowork has been a huge help even up until I started my latest role in November. I've never had to be worried about finding a job except when I left government work for private sector.<p>The amount of recruiters that would reach out once I set myself to open to work was beneficially and notably more significant and I wouldn't have had nearly the number of opportunities presented if it wasn't for that.<p>I've done this both while still employed and after quitting a position without any noticable difference.<p>This is a tangent, but dropping resumes to companies directly has proven to be ridiculously time consuming and ineffective for a lot of reasons. If I can get a phone screen, which happens at a pretty decent rate with a recruiter that reaches out first, I've rarely had an issue getting to the next round. There's some pretty good opportunities I've been given just taking cold calls from recruiters, and #opentowork has played a big role in that.<p>FWIW, my strategy has been to apply to a few companies I want to work at directly, turn on open to work, take recruiter calls while I wait on the companies I initially targeted to respond. I'll focus ~75% of my effort on my targets and use everything else as a backup or opportunity to discover some companies I wasn't aware of.<p>When I was a hiring manager, the hashtag meant nothing to me. I'd ask everyone why they're leaving their current position and what they expect to accomplish at my company just the same. I'm not getting your performance review from your last company, so all I can go off of is what you tell me anyways. Maybe some references, but those are marginally reliable at best. If you're denying candidates based on a hashtag or profile flair like this you probably shouldn't be in that position, you're not assessing the candidate objectively.<p>I don't get the "desperate" signal some people are claiming this to be either. If you're looking for a job, why not face the large end of the funnel towards your input? I don't mean any offense, but just my internal take, it comes off as a pride thing to me where you think too highly of yourself to allow external help. It seems like a self limiting outlook with little upside.<p>That all said, I don't think the numbers in the article have any easily actionable significance. It's a great conversation piece and something to mull over, but there isn't enough information to draw real conclusions on especially given the social and economic changes over just the past few years.
tldr: in 2021, 'open to work' was a negative impact, and in 2023, it's a positive impact.<p>I suspect it will revert to a negative or neutral impact by 2024.