Should we be looking at recently filled roles instead of all currently filled ones, for roles needed “on the margin”? E.g., of all recently open roles, how many remain open? It seems like both the ratio and number could be important, though, and all else equal, a greater number means more needed, and a greater ratio means more needed. Of course, some roles might also be more important than others, on top of this.
Compare the following:
X: We need 6 people in total in roles of type X, and 2 roles have been filled for a while, 2 were filled recently, and the last 2 are open. The ratio of open out of all roles of type X is 2/6=1/3, but the ratio of open to recently open is 2/4=1/2.
Y: We need 7 people in total in roles of type Y, and 5 roles have been filled for a while, none were filled recently, and the last 2 are open. The ratio of open out of all roles of type Y is 2⁄7, but the ratio of open to recently open is 2/2=1.
Z: We need 12 people in total in roles of type Z, and 6 roles have been filled for a while, 3 were filled recently, and the last 3 are open. The ratio of open out of all roles of type Z is 3/12=1/4, but the ratio of open to recently open is 3/6=1/2.
It seems like we should push people to fill Y or Z more than X, because they’re harder to fill on the margin, either proportionally (2/2 of recent roles open for Y > 2⁄4 for recent roles open for X, but both 2 open roles) or absolutely (3 openings for Z > 2 for X, but both 1⁄2 of recently open still open), even though the proportion of roles of type X open out of all roles of type X needed is highest.
It’s harder to judge between Y and Z; Y has a proportionally harder time being filled (2/2=1>1/2=3/6), but Z has more openings (3>2).
<<E.g., of all recently open roles, how many remain open>>
I agree that this is probably more informative, but this would require ongoing monitoring to measure and evaluate so it’s not appropriate for this “spot-check” methodology? I think that that suggestion comes under the general category of further research that could be be possible in combination with a a jobs board, which I referred to briefly to in the first bullet point in the further research section.
You could just ask orgs which roles were filled within the last X days/months, since they should know, so it wouldn’t require ongoing monitoring, but this might still be substantial work for you and them (cumulatively) to get this info, depending on how many orgs you need to contact.
Yeah part of the appeal of this project was that I could do it independently without relying on connections or asking orgs to fill out a survey (we’re going to use a lot of them going forwards I imagine). There are definitely things we can play around with going forwards to get better information about these things.
But we also might not want to count someone moving between orgs in the same kind of role, which makes things more complicated. There can also be people shifting around into different roles within the movement, and even possibly cycles because of it, e.g. A goes from X to Y, B goes from Y to Z and C goes from Z to X. Maybe you’d want to deal with openings caused by people leaving a position differently.
Should we be looking at recently filled roles instead of all currently filled ones, for roles needed “on the margin”? E.g., of all recently open roles, how many remain open? It seems like both the ratio and number could be important, though, and all else equal, a greater number means more needed, and a greater ratio means more needed. Of course, some roles might also be more important than others, on top of this.
Compare the following:
X: We need 6 people in total in roles of type X, and 2 roles have been filled for a while, 2 were filled recently, and the last 2 are open. The ratio of open out of all roles of type X is 2/6=1/3, but the ratio of open to recently open is 2/4=1/2.
Y: We need 7 people in total in roles of type Y, and 5 roles have been filled for a while, none were filled recently, and the last 2 are open. The ratio of open out of all roles of type Y is 2⁄7, but the ratio of open to recently open is 2/2=1.
Z: We need 12 people in total in roles of type Z, and 6 roles have been filled for a while, 3 were filled recently, and the last 3 are open. The ratio of open out of all roles of type Z is 3/12=1/4, but the ratio of open to recently open is 3/6=1/2.
It seems like we should push people to fill Y or Z more than X, because they’re harder to fill on the margin, either proportionally (2/2 of recent roles open for Y > 2⁄4 for recent roles open for X, but both 2 open roles) or absolutely (3 openings for Z > 2 for X, but both 1⁄2 of recently open still open), even though the proportion of roles of type X open out of all roles of type X needed is highest.
It’s harder to judge between Y and Z; Y has a proportionally harder time being filled (2/2=1>1/2=3/6), but Z has more openings (3>2).
<<E.g., of all recently open roles, how many remain open>> I agree that this is probably more informative, but this would require ongoing monitoring to measure and evaluate so it’s not appropriate for this “spot-check” methodology? I think that that suggestion comes under the general category of further research that could be be possible in combination with a a jobs board, which I referred to briefly to in the first bullet point in the further research section.
You could just ask orgs which roles were filled within the last X days/months, since they should know, so it wouldn’t require ongoing monitoring, but this might still be substantial work for you and them (cumulatively) to get this info, depending on how many orgs you need to contact.
Yeah part of the appeal of this project was that I could do it independently without relying on connections or asking orgs to fill out a survey (we’re going to use a lot of them going forwards I imagine). There are definitely things we can play around with going forwards to get better information about these things.
But we also might not want to count someone moving between orgs in the same kind of role, which makes things more complicated. There can also be people shifting around into different roles within the movement, and even possibly cycles because of it, e.g. A goes from X to Y, B goes from Y to Z and C goes from Z to X. Maybe you’d want to deal with openings caused by people leaving a position differently.