This is useful feedback. I might need to work on the wording.
Without that I think it is hard to say if 17% is high or not right?
I don’t think I agree with that—I think the important consideration is the number of identified advertised roles of a particular type relative to the number of identified currently filled roles of the same type. Not the number of advertised roles of type A relative to advertised roles of type B. But FWIW the full report is now published.
this seems like weak evidence for bottleneck claims
I agree its weak evidence; I think it’s the weakest of the 5 bullet points above. I find weak evidence useful.
Now I get what you were trying to say, I think. So you are saying you look at the ratio of “percentage of fundraising in latest job ads” vs “percentage of fundraising in current jobs”. That sounds like a smart proxy. Really interesting.
This is useful feedback. I might need to work on the wording.
I don’t think I agree with that—I think the important consideration is the number of identified advertised roles of a particular type relative to the number of identified currently filled roles of the same type. Not the number of advertised roles of type A relative to advertised roles of type B. But FWIW the full report is now published.
I agree its weak evidence; I think it’s the weakest of the 5 bullet points above. I find weak evidence useful.
Now I get what you were trying to say, I think. So you are saying you look at the ratio of “percentage of fundraising in latest job ads” vs “percentage of fundraising in current jobs”. That sounds like a smart proxy. Really interesting.
Thanks.