4 ms·

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 inte

by 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.
- applygo 11y ago
  Re: quitting a company v. boss, it sounds to me that you "quit" the boss by changing bosses or addressing the problem head-on. But I take your point. You're correct in the job search approach - research the openings, company and people in your network for a general overview - but the hypothesis is, users would like to know what people thought of the specific individual (boss, co-worker etc.), to help them an more informed decision. When you compile numerous ratings about one person, then you're tapping into the wisdom on the crowd. Your last two points about who will provide the ratings are valid - I don't have an answer for it yet. It is possible initial users will be disgruntled/poor/challenged interviewees and will be vocal. My broad goal (as a corporate HR guy) is to find bad interviewers, interviewees and interviews and fix them. One area where HR always underinvests, or invests poorly, is training people to be good managers. There is a long running poll by Gallup that shows immense dissatisfaction in the workforce, and the manager has the largest impact. So if we can find the right bosses/colleagues thru a more transparent interview process, then I think we will have a chance to change people's work lives.
  - jeffmould 11y ago
    Your statement goes back to my original point. This isn't a tool for jobseekers. It is a tool for HR departments to utilize in determining how effective their interview process is so they can more efficiently make adjustments so as to hire the best people. It should be sold as such, not as a "rate your interviewer" tool that jobseekers use to determine which companies/bosses they want to work for. I have a friend who does not like conducting interviews. He cringes every time he knows he has to do one for the company, and the company knows to avoid having him interview. Yet he still does them from time to time, when the company absolutely needs someone. He always tells me that the person must have thought he was the worse interviewer ever. On the flip side though, he is a great manager, fair and fun to work for, he will stand up for his team to management and knows how to play the politics that can be in an office, and I would say without a doubt that if you asked all his coworkers they would say the same about him. So a tool like this would penalize him for something out of his control.
    - 11y ago

by applygo 11y ago

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.

applygo 11y ago
Re: quitting a company v. boss, it sounds to me that you "quit" the boss by changing bosses or addressing the problem head-on. But I take your point. You're correct in the job search approach - research the openings, company and people in your network for a general overview - but the hypothesis is, users would like to know what people thought of the specific individual (boss, co-worker etc.), to help them an more informed decision. When you compile numerous ratings about one person, then you're tapping into the wisdom on the crowd. Your last two points about who will provide the ratings are valid - I don't have an answer for it yet. It is possible initial users will be disgruntled/poor/challenged interviewees and will be vocal. My broad goal (as a corporate HR guy) is to find bad interviewers, interviewees and interviews and fix them. One area where HR always underinvests, or invests poorly, is training people to be good managers. There is a long running poll by Gallup that shows immense dissatisfaction in the workforce, and the manager has the largest impact. So if we can find the right bosses/colleagues thru a more transparent interview process, then I think we will have a chance to change people's work lives.
- jeffmould 11y ago
  Your statement goes back to my original point. This isn't a tool for jobseekers. It is a tool for HR departments to utilize in determining how effective their interview process is so they can more efficiently make adjustments so as to hire the best people. It should be sold as such, not as a "rate your interviewer" tool that jobseekers use to determine which companies/bosses they want to work for. I have a friend who does not like conducting interviews. He cringes every time he knows he has to do one for the company, and the company knows to avoid having him interview. Yet he still does them from time to time, when the company absolutely needs someone. He always tells me that the person must have thought he was the worse interviewer ever. On the flip side though, he is a great manager, fair and fun to work for, he will stand up for his team to management and knows how to play the politics that can be in an office, and I would say without a doubt that if you asked all his coworkers they would say the same about him. So a tool like this would penalize him for something out of his control.
  - 11y ago