4 ms·

What happens if only a few people respond including somebody like the guy being criticised in the article? That way you'll potentially end up having to defend y

What happens if only a few people respond including somebody like the guy being criticised in the article? That way you'll potentially end up having to defend yourself against unwarranted criticism to the hiring company, or simply find they mysteriously don't hire you through no fault of your own. "A friend" had a guy bully him from day 1 and who kept at him the whole time he was there, until the bully eventually left the company under mysterious circumstances following him making a physical threat of violence against my friend in the workplace. What's to stop a guy like that marking my friend down and making him look shit? Additionally my friend works in a highly politicised environment where, by trying to do the right thing has pissed people off, not because he sucks, but because he cares - what if they vote too? The problem is with these systems is that you can never be sure who's right and whether other things are at play there. We'd all like everybody to love us, for the nasty pieces of work to be found out and the good people to be rewarded, but that very often isn't the case, and we shouldn't base a powerful assessment of somebody on an ideal.

callmeed 16y ago
I think some of the problems you describe are inherent to HR process in general. People still go have to go to interviews, explain their qualifications and (often) explain why they left past jobs. This would just be another data point. My original thought is that this would be for executive/managerial jobs. Big dollar, recruiter kind of positions. Plus, it would probably be best only applying a "bottom-up" approach ... get feedback from former co-workers or subordinates–not from former bosses. Finally, don't charge and don't submit a report if there aren't enough responses to be statistically significant (or at least warn them). If 1 out of 2 people say this guys a tool, who knows. But if 78 out of 85 say it, it's probably trustworthy, no?
- singular 16y ago
  true, I think you'd definitely have to have a lot of controls in place; I mean I in principle agree with it - there are plenty of incredibly sucky, actually nasty, people out there and it turns your stomach to think they'll con their way into another job. Plus the opposite - the great people you'd like to see do really well. It's just trying to avoid abuse/errors, a big responsibility given the potential consequences.

callmeed 16y ago

I think some of the problems you describe are inherent to HR process in general. People still go have to go to interviews, explain their qualifications and (often) explain why they left past jobs. This would just be another data point. My original thought is that this would be for executive/managerial jobs. Big dollar, recruiter kind of positions. Plus, it would probably be best only applying a "bottom-up" approach ... get feedback from former co-workers or subordinates–not from former bosses. Finally, don't charge and don't submit a report if there aren't enough responses to be statistically significant (or at least warn them). If 1 out of 2 people say this guys a tool, who knows. But if 78 out of 85 say it, it's probably trustworthy, no?

singular 16y ago
true, I think you'd definitely have to have a lot of controls in place; I mean I in principle agree with it - there are plenty of incredibly sucky, actually nasty, people out there and it turns your stomach to think they'll con their way into another job. Plus the opposite - the great people you'd like to see do really well. It's just trying to avoid abuse/errors, a big responsibility given the potential consequences.