LinkedIn Now Lets You Look For New Job Without Your Existing Boss Finding Out (venturebeat.com) 106
A new feature on LinkedIn can come in handy to thousands. An anonymous reader writes: LinkedIn has removed an obstacle preventing some members from using the professional social network from finding their next job: The possibility of their current boss finding out. On Thursday, the company released its Open Candidates feature which now lets members privately notify recruiters that they're open for opportunities without exposing themselves to their current company. Additionally, businesses are also receiving updated career pages that can be used to better market themselves to potential hires. In research conducted in the past year, LinkedIn claimed that 77 percent of professional workers are open to their next opportunity. However, with social media, the fear has been that any signal made on a profile could get back to an employer, which is why the Open Candidates feature lets anyone operate stealthily. It's perfect for those who are open to change, but aren't precisely set on making a move... yet. "This is a signal to recruiters that you want to hear from them," explained Eric Owski, LinkedIn's head of talent brand products.
WHY ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why wouldn't I want my boss to know that there are other people chomping at the bit to hire me and that if he wants to keep me around he'd better make sure the money's worth it?
Re: (Score:3)
Which planet do you work on where throwing away skilled employees is commonplace?
Writing a job spec, getting internal agreement to replace lost headcount, working with HR, engaging the recruiter, assessing CVs, interviewing, paying agency fees, compliance/legal checks, dealing with the onboarding logistics, training, waiting for new starter to get up to full productivity.. you just doubled your costs for that person for the year compared with retaining your existing employee.
Respecting your workforce, givin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... and stop thinking you're just a cog (unless you actually are one and in that case there's nothing anybody can do for you)
I've always thought of myself as an escapement...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escapement [wikipedia.org]
That's not to say some coworkers have not thought of me as an impediment...
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you're likely to "defect" lowers your value.
Maybe you were worth the extra money, but no longer if you're looking for alternatives already.
Not even talking about irrational and emotional behaviour: you might be viewed as someone who doesn't persevere or just isn't reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
find out that there are NOT other people chomping at the bit to hire you.
Or at least not at higher wages, or this is just a temp thing, or contract to never-hire, or etc..
I've found that no matter how many recruiters are in my inbox, the number of good opportunities are low and rare. It's not a bad thing to look, at the very least you can keep your current boss honest. But until you find something I'm not sure why you would want to advertise what you're doing.
Re:WHY ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wouldn't I want my boss to know that there are other people chomping at the bit to hire me?
As a manager, I don't expect blind loyalty, and I assume that all my subordinates are open to better offers. But if they are actively looking, and devoting time to sending out resumes and talking to recruiters, then I will be reluctant to give them important assignments that they may not be around to complete. If I need to make a headcount reduction or free up a desk for a new hire, then they will be at the top of the list.
When an employee starts looking for a new job, it is usually not just about the money.
Re:WHY ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been motivated to move by lack of interesting projects and work to do, so not assigning stuff you people you think are looking for a new job might be self-fulfilling. It's even worse if every time someone takes a few sick days you assume they are interviewing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, your tell for a jumpy employee should probably be 'lacks motivation', 'seems distant / distracted', 'quick to anger'. Of course they could also be suffering from personal issues as well, so mileage may vary.
Re: (Score:3)
An employee leaving means a sort of failure for the manager too.
I don't agree. A certain amount of employee churn is healthy. After 5 years or so at the same job, the employee may not be growing their skills, or creating much value. Sometimes, it is just time for an employee to move on. New employees need a few months to get up to speed, but they also contribute fresh ideas and perspectives.
In my experience, the best employees are "boomerangs", that resign, work somewhere else for a few years, and then return. Since they already know our culture, procedures, and pe
Re: (Score:3)
"In my experience, the best employees are "boomerangs", that resign, work somewhere else for a few years, and then return."
Exactly - My current company is full of employees like this, and I'm one. The only danger is having "resume loops" but that matters less if you've built up a network and aren't just cold-calling people begging for a job.
It's a good lesson for all the young job-hopping folks out there -- don't burn bridges with previous employers! A counter-example to this would be someone we tried to re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
General wisdom among people who have never heard of auction theory is that you DON'T go for any counteroffer ...
People who have heard of auction theory know that general wisdom in this area is overrated. It's a very thorny sub-discipline of game theory. Just for example, the stable marriage problem is widely studied because the best form of loyalty is when no defection transaction has a mutually positive incentive.
Ideologically, the invisible hand su
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't I want my boss to know that there are other people chomping at the bit to hire me?
As a manager, I don't expect blind loyalty, and I assume that all my subordinates are open to better offers. But if they are actively looking, and devoting time to sending out resumes and talking to recruiters, then I will be reluctant to give them important assignments that they may not be around to complete. If I need to make a headcount reduction or free up a desk for a new hire, then they will be at the top of the list.
When an employee starts looking for a new job, it is usually not just about the money.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you end up firing all your good staff and only having crap left.
I dont even need to look for other jobs, I regularly get emails and calls from recruiters and even employers themselves (from an old resume online). Its my managers job to ensure that I dont get fed up enough to leave.
Your good staff are always going to be headhunted because they're valuable. If they start actively looking for another job you're in serious trouble because they dont actually need to l
Re: (Score:3)
Because I want to see what's out there, and who is interested without risking my job.
Sometimes I interview with companies just to check it out, see what's available, see what my value on the market is, etc.
I really like my job and don't really want to leave, but if I found something I couldn't refuse I would take it. It also might give me leverage when I ask for a raise.
If my boss found out I was doing that, he'd probably freak out a bit or get nervous. I don't really want that.
Re: (Score:2)
If my boss found out I was doing that, he'd probably freak out a bit or get nervous. I don't really want that.
Is it true that in certain US states ("right to work?") you could be fired without recourse simply for being 'caught' looking at another job?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how it works to be honest, and I live in a right to work state. I don't think it's quite that simple, but I could be wrong.
I've only had a couple bosses in my life that would make me worry about losing my job if they found out I was looking, and that's exactly why I was looking in the first place (because they were shitty bosses).
I don't think most bosses here would actually fire you for looking even if they could.
Re:WHY ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:WHY ? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not entirely what "right to work" means, but yes, you can be fired for any reason at all. "right to work" is normally about union suppression, but it has a number of other benefits and drawbacks.
In practice very few people do that, firing can be a messy and expensive process. You can also sue your ex-employer for any kind of bullshit that you or your lawyer thinks they can get to stick. It doesn't work that much, but if you're an employer and you maintain statistics then you can put a dollar value on a firing and make your decision that way. Honestly I'm not sure I would fire an employee that was looking, I'd put good money on that employee being someone I'd have to drop sooner or later anyway. The ones that would worry me are the ones that don't have to look, that are well known and connected and will just disappear one day.
Re:WHY ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ones that would worry me are the ones that don't have to look, that are well known and connected and will just disappear one day.
Then make sure they do not want to leave. And this does not just mean throw money at them... Top tier people often do not leave for money.
Re:WHY ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it true that in certain US states ("right to work?") you could be fired without recourse simply for being 'caught' looking at another job?
By default, employment is "at will", which means you can be fired at anytime for any legal reason or for no reason. If you have an employment contract or written employee agreement, that may supersede "at will". Where I work, our employee agreement specifically states that employment is "at will".
When I have fired employees, I never give a reason. I just sit them down in a conference room, with an HR rep present (and if the employee is female I make sure the HR rep is as well), and I tell them their employment is terminated, and I wish them the best of luck. I never go beyond that. If I give a reason, I am opening the door to a lawsuit. Most people know damn well why they are being fired, so there is no reason to list the reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: In Canada, you'd be required to give severance for any firing 'without cause'.
We have compulsory Employment Insurance here, so if you're fired with cause (smoking dope on the premises, gross negligence, etc..), it means you can't get some portion of your previous salary while looking for new work. If you were fired without cause, or for lay-off type reasons, you're eligible for compensation. Canada really hates No-Reason firings, and will most likely harass the company in order to give a reason why, or
Re: (Score:2)
We have compulsory (Un)employment Insurance here (in the states), but companies pay into the kitty with each paycheck they give an employee. A high number of people drawing from insurance may cause rates to go up on an employer.
Note, the level of insurance benefits vary wildly from state to state. California used to have an issue with movie stars (who are unemployed like 50% of the time) drawing massively from the system (for example), so they have changed their rules. Some southern states only offer you
Re: (Score:1)
Additionally, companies can fight against former employees drawing from that insurance. Many do.
A few years ago, it was a big thing for companies to allow the former employee to draw from it initially, then contest the former employee's right to do so, saying they were ineligible due to XYZ reason (how they were let go, irregularities, etc.). There were entire companies whose only job was to stop former employees of large companies from drawing on unemployeement.
As I recall, they were also involved in so
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, companies can fight against former employees drawing from that insurance. Many do.
If a company gives you severance pay, then you are not entitled to unemployment pay for the period covered by the severance. So if you get two months of severance pay, then you should wait for two months before applying for unemployment pay. My company had several employees apply for benefits immediately after termination, and we have always been successful in fighting it, and having their application denied.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it true that in certain US states ("right to work?") you could be fired without recourse simply for being 'caught' looking at another job?
At-will employment [wikipedia.org] is generally the rule in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
In general in the US, you can be fired for any reason with notable exceptions. Those exceptions are things like whistleblower protections, anti-gender/racial discrimination protections, sexual or other harassment protections, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends. If you are looking for raise in your current job, making people nervous to leave can be effective. If you are looking for a promotion to a more important role, making people nervous you're going to leave can be counterproductive
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't I want my boss to know that there are other people chomping at the bit to hire me and that if he wants to keep me around he'd better make sure the money's worth it?
For starters, you don't want him/her to let you go before you've found those other people. Not to mention that recruiters are not the people making the hiring decisions, since they have a vested interest in you being hired.
Make Me Move (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be great if Linked In had a make me move feature like Zillow where a candidate could post a Salary which would make them leave their current job
Hey, wait! (Score:1)
I work for a recruiter, you insensitive clod!
So LinkedIn has caught up to the offline world (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So LinkedIn has caught up to the offline world (Score:4, Informative)
Then call in sick a week later to attend an interview.
I have done interviews in the past after business hours. Most places realize that valuable candidates have jobs. Most also respect your needs to take care of old employers during the transition. Recruiters doing pre-screening, however, care about nothing but commission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're probably finishing up the feature right now...it's nothing a few dummy accounts posing as staffing agencies can't fix.
Aw come on (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My company has internal people who seek out candidates, but we also have several contractors that we hire to full-time look for us. They don't get company credentials, but are looking. Those people would still find Stepan people looking. Actually had it happen that one of these people found one of our employees was out looking for a job and mentioned it to HR.
So this is 1 step, but it is very flimsy and you still have a good chance they may find out anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Want to bet that at least one of those profile views that you got that chose to check you out anonymously was actually someone in your current employers' HR department?
Back in the days when the Sunday paper was a decent (not great but far from the pretty much complete waste of time it is today) place to see job ads, you could apply to the blind ads -- who might very well be your current employer -- and request that your reply not be submitted should it be from a company that you didn't want to be sub
Re: (Score:1)
Anybody using this PoS? (Score:1)
I, for one... (Score:1)
Kill the stigma around job searches!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always hated the whole cat and mouse game that's involved with finding a new job. You have to sneak around, start calling contacts, hope one of them doesn't spill the beans to someone else both they and your boss knows, etc. It's just one of those things you wish you could be open about, but you know you can't.
The problem is that even managers who aren't insecure know that if someone's looking, and they're good, they're unhappy and will be gone as soon as they can find something that they like. Note that I said "that they like" instead of "that pays more." Lots of employee moves aren't due to compensation. I work at my current employer for less than I could be making elsewhere because at this point in my life I trade off a flexible, stable job for reduced earning potential. Not everyone is a nomadic childless consultant who doesn't even have a permanent address because they travel so much. By the same token, not everyone is a family guy working a stable job who wants to see their kids go through school in the same place rather than move 3 times in 10 years.
It's like mental illness...if some way could be found to remove the stigma around talking about it, things would improve. If employees felt they could go to their boss with concerns and not worry about being targeted for layoffs or being fired, things would work out much better. The problem is that in the current climate, you can't tell your boss "Hey, I'm not totally happy here because [tangible reasons]" or "Hey, I could use another 5% in salary because [tangible reasons]." Even if your boss were supportive and understanding, everyone's deathly afraid of unemployment...especially if you're over 40. Getting caught out in a layoff when you're over 40 makes it significantly harder to find new work. Employers just assume anyone over 40 is too old, and anyone unemployed can't possibly be any good.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly the same way that unemployment insurance and welfare has.
I want the opposite (Score:2)
How do I flag my profile for recruiters to say I am not interested in moving and please stop emailing/calling me? That would actually be useful :)
Re: (Score:2)
LinkedIn Updates (Score:1)
Outside of that, the two big things they need to deal with are the "Message Streams" which put everything from colleague achievements, work anniversaries, birthdays, and endorsements all on a splash screen. I do not wa
Not likely to help those w/o existing work. (Score:2)
It might help those that already have employment, but it doesn't really help those that are still looking.