4 ms·

That's tough. Interesting concept, but I think there are a few flaws: 1. A person that does not interview well may tend to provide a lower rating. This ties in

That's tough. Interesting concept, but I think there are a few flaws: 1. A person that does not interview well may tend to provide a lower rating. This ties into personality as well. 2. Basing your decision to work at a company off a single point of input such as a specific interviewer's score, is narrow minded. The company could be a great place to work and/or the interviewer could be a great person to work with; however, they are just a poor interviewer. 3. In cases where the interviewer/interviewee may already know each other well, the review could be skewed. With these two things in mind though, I think there is a market here, just not in the way you are approaching it here. I would sell it as a service to HR departments. After a company completes an interview, the interviewee gets an email asking them to rate their interviewer. The company can in turn use that feedback to adjust their interview process, and/or possibly remove an interviewer from a position if they continuously have poor feedback.

mikekchar 11y ago
Also, you are rating their ability to interview. So it's bad enough if it is a company that is getting rated -- suddenly you only get crap applicants because of bad reviews. It might be difficult to turn around your reputation even if you improve your interview process. Imagine what it would be like for an individual, though. Imagine every HR department in the world blackballing someone because they had several bad interviews in a row. They figure out that their interview skills are poor, but who is going to interview them now? HR already have stupid screening policies. This would just be terrible. So, definitely count me out. It's not just that I don't want to participate, I don't want this service to exist (speaking as someone who has both looked for jobs and looked for good people to interview).
- applygo 11y ago
  You make a good point. My goal is to have interviewes evaluate how they felt about the interviewer so others in the future could use that feedback to make a decision. HR will never know who provided what rating, it'll all be in the aggregate. What will be visible is individual ratings on people. In fact I think HR can then use it to train their people better and improve the whole experience, which will be good for the world. Think of it as the Uber rating - the driver won't ever know you rated her a 4 star but she gets the aggregate of all passenger ratings. This way if she is getting close to 4.6/5 (threshold) she can do something about it, which changes her passengers' experience. That's what this could do for job interviews - get people to behave better during interviews at least, because job seekers can now find out how others feel about the specific individuals they're meeting during the interview process.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    I don't think I interview enough people (3-4 a month) to have individual ratings lost in the mix.
    - applygo 11y ago
      Makes sense. Individually, the app won't be used often, but in aggregate I would think so. There are currently, 5.6m open jobs in the US. Assuming 3 interviews (1 phone, 2 onsite), there could be around ~17m interviews in one year. No one is capturing how those conversations are going, which directly determine if someone get's a job v. not.
      - applygo 11y ago
        Based on feedback here and on other forums, I've done a slight pivot on the concept. Let me ask you this - companies ask for references from potential candidates all the time. So why can't candidates run a reference check on future bosses and co-workers? It would run off the same rating model but would expand to include not just an interview rating, but a general rating about that particular individual (future boss, co-worker, candidate etc). Thoughts?
applygo 11y ago
Excellent points, thank you. I should clarify- the goal is to rate individuals, not companies. Often times, our perception of an entire org is based on our interaction with one person who works there. People quit bosses, not companies, so for your #2 point - this would be the rating to start with, which could ultimately expand to include confidential ratings on co-workers, bosses etc, thereby painting a more holistic view of the org. For your point #1 and #3, the service would tap into the wisdom of the crowd, so even a few biased ratings should get absorbed in the aggregate and shouldn't statistically alter the true rating on an individual interviewer. I'm in corporate HR and don't think there is a market of HR buyers, since existing HR systems can easily incorporate a survey instrument. My goal is to get individual ratings by people of each other so job seekers can make a more informed decision. For example, Amazon has been in the news. My take is that it's not the right place for everyone and even in the org there are different managers - good and bad. What would matter to me and you, I assume, is the individuals we are going to report to and work with. And today no service solves for this as far as I know.
- jeffmould 11y ago
  Actually I have never quit a boss, I have always quit a company. If the culture is good at a company and I generally enjoy the atmosphere and other co-workers, I will try to find an opportunity to change bosses or address the problem head-on. Now if the entire company culture sucks and I don't see myself happy in the company then I will quit. Amazon is a poor example, that has nothing to do with a specific individual who is horrible at interviewing. That is a rating on the entire company as a whole. No offense, but I think you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If I were looking for a job, and I would say that this probably applies to most people, I will research openings, research the company if I am not familiar with it, try to find people within my network who either work there or have friends/family that work there, and get a general overview. I will look at sites like Glassdoor that provide a candid look into most companies from the employees angle. Yes, the people I am going to work with are important, but I am going to judge that based on my interview and own personal interactions. Who I like and get along with is going to be completely different than who you like and get along with. And while there may be similarities between the two groups of people, in the end there is always some difference. I, personally, would never base my decision to work at a company off of a single interaction with a single person. It could be the interviewer is having a bad day or you as an interviewee are having a bad day. To me I think you are going to run into a critical issue of the people doing the majority of the rating will be the ones who had poor interviews in general or didn't get hired. They are looking to vent their frustration. I would bet that you would find companies like Google or Microsoft that would skew towards bad interviews, because the people that would do the majority of the rating would have found the interview process challenging.

mikekchar 11y ago

Also, you are rating their ability to interview. So it's bad enough if it is a company that is getting rated -- suddenly you only get crap applicants because of bad reviews. It might be difficult to turn around your reputation even if you improve your interview process. Imagine what it would be like for an individual, though. Imagine every HR department in the world blackballing someone because they had several bad interviews in a row. They figure out that their interview skills are poor, but who is going to interview them now? HR already have stupid screening policies. This would just be terrible. So, definitely count me out. It's not just that I don't want to participate, I don't want this service to exist (speaking as someone who has both looked for jobs and looked for good people to interview).

applygo 11y ago
You make a good point. My goal is to have interviewes evaluate how they felt about the interviewer so others in the future could use that feedback to make a decision. HR will never know who provided what rating, it'll all be in the aggregate. What will be visible is individual ratings on people. In fact I think HR can then use it to train their people better and improve the whole experience, which will be good for the world. Think of it as the Uber rating - the driver won't ever know you rated her a 4 star but she gets the aggregate of all passenger ratings. This way if she is getting close to 4.6/5 (threshold) she can do something about it, which changes her passengers' experience. That's what this could do for job interviews - get people to behave better during interviews at least, because job seekers can now find out how others feel about the specific individuals they're meeting during the interview process.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  I don't think I interview enough people (3-4 a month) to have individual ratings lost in the mix.
  - applygo 11y ago
    Makes sense. Individually, the app won't be used often, but in aggregate I would think so. There are currently, 5.6m open jobs in the US. Assuming 3 interviews (1 phone, 2 onsite), there could be around ~17m interviews in one year. No one is capturing how those conversations are going, which directly determine if someone get's a job v. not.
    - applygo 11y ago
      Based on feedback here and on other forums, I've done a slight pivot on the concept. Let me ask you this - companies ask for references from potential candidates all the time. So why can't candidates run a reference check on future bosses and co-workers? It would run off the same rating model but would expand to include not just an interview rating, but a general rating about that particular individual (future boss, co-worker, candidate etc). Thoughts?

applygo 11y ago

Excellent points, thank you. I should clarify- the goal is to rate individuals, not companies. Often times, our perception of an entire org is based on our interaction with one person who works there. People quit bosses, not companies, so for your #2 point - this would be the rating to start with, which could ultimately expand to include confidential ratings on co-workers, bosses etc, thereby painting a more holistic view of the org. For your point #1 and #3, the service would tap into the wisdom of the crowd, so even a few biased ratings should get absorbed in the aggregate and shouldn't statistically alter the true rating on an individual interviewer. I'm in corporate HR and don't think there is a market of HR buyers, since existing HR systems can easily incorporate a survey instrument. My goal is to get individual ratings by people of each other so job seekers can make a more informed decision. For example, Amazon has been in the news. My take is that it's not the right place for everyone and even in the org there are different managers - good and bad. What would matter to me and you, I assume, is the individuals we are going to report to and work with. And today no service solves for this as far as I know.

jeffmould 11y ago
Actually I have never quit a boss, I have always quit a company. If the culture is good at a company and I generally enjoy the atmosphere and other co-workers, I will try to find an opportunity to change bosses or address the problem head-on. Now if the entire company culture sucks and I don't see myself happy in the company then I will quit. Amazon is a poor example, that has nothing to do with a specific individual who is horrible at interviewing. That is a rating on the entire company as a whole. No offense, but I think you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If I were looking for a job, and I would say that this probably applies to most people, I will research openings, research the company if I am not familiar with it, try to find people within my network who either work there or have friends/family that work there, and get a general overview. I will look at sites like Glassdoor that provide a candid look into most companies from the employees angle. Yes, the people I am going to work with are important, but I am going to judge that based on my interview and own personal interactions. Who I like and get along with is going to be completely different than who you like and get along with. And while there may be similarities between the two groups of people, in the end there is always some difference. I, personally, would never base my decision to work at a company off of a single interaction with a single person. It could be the interviewer is having a bad day or you as an interviewee are having a bad day. To me I think you are going to run into a critical issue of the people doing the majority of the rating will be the ones who had poor interviews in general or didn't get hired. They are looking to vent their frustration. I would bet that you would find companies like Google or Microsoft that would skew towards bad interviews, because the people that would do the majority of the rating would have found the interview process challenging.