I used to approach looking for jobs like a tournament problem. But now I’m thinking about it like a matching problem — it’s a mindset shift with important practical implications.
Before:
- I felt like I needed to pick target employers and convince them that they should pick me for limited spots.
- I didn’t have proven experience, just college degree stuff.
- I didn’t really know what I wanted to do.
Now:
- The returns to finding a great match are much bigger.
- I have experience and some people who will vouch for me.
- My work experience is increasingly niche.
- And I know more what I like.
Mindset shifts:
- You think of it as a matching problem, not a tournament problem.
- You want lots and lots of potential matches.
- You take no-go’s as “not good fits” instead of “rejections”.
- Instead of “can I convince them to take me” think “could this be a really great fit if we got to talking?”
Practical implications:
- Look for matches all the time. Instead of waiting til I’m ready to leave, then running the tournament amongst a bunch of similar options, you can just network and learn about roles regularly.
- Increase the surface area of potential matches — writing, posting, networking to find like-minded people & orgs — a big part of matching markets is the search cost, so reduce the search cost/friction! — just having lots of conversations over a wide range over time.
- Give lots of good, true information about me and what I can do, versus trying to bend the truth a little to make myself look good (what I think looks good).
Of course it was always a matching market, that’s how economists would model it — but if you’re in a matching market with high supply of labor, then it feels much more like a tournament problem.