3 ms·

> Employers really, really do not like their employees being paid on the side to dish about the company. And employees were (rightly, I think) hesitant to poten

> Employers really, really do not like their employees being paid on the side to dish about the company. And employees were (rightly, I think) hesitant to potentially put their jobs on the line to make a little side cash. In fact, the more exclusive and well-paying the job, the less likely it was worth the risk for insiders to participate. I would imagine The Lobby will face the same problem, especially since it's starting out with a narrow focus on "elite finance" roles, and promising anonymity only goes so far. I think you skipped this point, or I misunderstood. I work as a management consultant and get regular request to help people (eg is the job something for them, practice interviews, etc). It’s internally encouraged to help in this way, but I’d be extremely hesitant about taking money for it because I don’t think it passes the blush test (couldn’t tell this to a colleague without blushing), and creates wrong incentives (eg there are things about the recruiting process that should not be shared) Anonymity only strengthens the impression that it’s not ‘kosher’ for me What are your ither ideas to tackle this? (And perhaps you get sufficient people with just anonymity, that’s fine too :)

dchhugani 8y ago
Thanks for pointing that out - I missed it here. Answered a similar question elsewhere in the thread: "Definitely agree that this could be a problem. Practically speaking - we keep identities anonymous and so employees are protected. Ethically speaking - if you have a buddy inside the company, they'll tell you how to prep for these questions anyways. It all comes back to our main point - if you don't have an inside connection, you don't get the juicy insights someone with that advantage does. So your odds of landing the job, let alone knowing what it takes to land it, are always lower. We bridge that gap - everything else in our view is a solvable problem because this engages current/former employees in the recruiting process + helps companies discover more talent." The summary is that we're fine with keeping it anonymous now and here we have to take a bit more of a disruptive approach. Airbnb and Uber were both illegal (As in literally breaking laws) and still scaled and ultimately succeeded because they believed in the fundamental benefit of their service to the world. The Lobby is completely legal, just maybe against some company policies, but we feel the benefits far outweigh the cons of some random company policy, even for the company itself as described above.

dchhugani 8y ago

Thanks for pointing that out - I missed it here. Answered a similar question elsewhere in the thread: "Definitely agree that this could be a problem. Practically speaking - we keep identities anonymous and so employees are protected. Ethically speaking - if you have a buddy inside the company, they'll tell you how to prep for these questions anyways. It all comes back to our main point - if you don't have an inside connection, you don't get the juicy insights someone with that advantage does. So your odds of landing the job, let alone knowing what it takes to land it, are always lower. We bridge that gap - everything else in our view is a solvable problem because this engages current/former employees in the recruiting process + helps companies discover more talent." The summary is that we're fine with keeping it anonymous now and here we have to take a bit more of a disruptive approach. Airbnb and Uber were both illegal (As in literally breaking laws) and still scaled and ultimately succeeded because they believed in the fundamental benefit of their service to the world. The Lobby is completely legal, just maybe against some company policies, but we feel the benefits far outweigh the cons of some random company policy, even for the company itself as described above.