4 ms·

Not that this would justify it, but I'm curious if it even works. I mean I'm certain the people selling these things have some sleek presentations showing some

Not that this would justify it, but I'm curious if it even works. I mean I'm certain the people selling these things have some sleek presentations showing some datums with a million percent improvement, but I'm curious about for companies that have existed for some time. Does this dystopian mess even drive substantially better outcomes than they were getting using 'normal' hiring methods of the sort we've used for millennia? My intuition is screaming no. I also think the argument that big companies wouldn't do it if didn't work is false. This is the sort of thing you're going to be able to create some big awesome presentation for, demonstrating that not only does it work, but it will end up saving you large amounts of money. Even if it does nothing of the sort. There's just so much room for number jukery, buzzwordery, and general shenaniganry - even if you never overtly lie.

lisasays 3y ago
Not that this would justify it, but I'm curious if it even works. Like most other things companies do in the hiring process (e.g. endless redundant interviewing rounds, ridiculous culture fit questions) -- or the stuff they do in their day-to-day work ("Agile") -- it doesn't need to actually "work" for it to be widely adopted. It just needs to appear to work, and to give off a warm, buzzy feeling.
gtowey 3y ago
> Not that this would justify it, but I'm curious if it even works. I would think that's one of the primary concerns here, is that we can pretty much guarantee that it doesn't work. Then end result would turn hiring processes into a kafka-esque hellscape where reason has no bearing and candidates are essentially selected at random. Given how infuriating the current crop of simulated customer service agents are, I can't imagine bringing anything like this to job selection would be good for any of us, save for the leadership team who gets to tout their cost-saving plan and give themselves a bigger bonus. Edit: ugh after reading the article I'm so disappointed that the regulations amount to some pretty weak auditing and transparency requirements. I was hoping this was an outright ban. It seems the laws have been rewritten by the cooperations. It gives candidate "right" to ask questions about their use and possibly opt out, but all that means is anyone who speaks out will be unhireable. I mean what company is going to hire anyone who starts asserting their rights up front?
- gretch 3y ago
  > Then end result would turn hiring processes into a kafka-esque hellscape where reason has no bearing and candidates are essentially selected at random That’s pretty much what it is today isn’t it. You get into a room with a hiring manager and if you happen to have kids the same age or saw the same movie growing up, you’re gonna have a huge leg up. Can we blame someone for at least trying to make a system that’s more objective
JohnFen 3y ago
> I also think the argument that big companies wouldn't do it if didn't work is false I think the entire history of business backs you up on this.

lisasays 3y ago

Not that this would justify it, but I'm curious if it even works. Like most other things companies do in the hiring process (e.g. endless redundant interviewing rounds, ridiculous culture fit questions) -- or the stuff they do in their day-to-day work ("Agile") -- it doesn't need to actually "work" for it to be widely adopted. It just needs to appear to work, and to give off a warm, buzzy feeling.

gtowey 3y ago

> Not that this would justify it, but I'm curious if it even works. I would think that's one of the primary concerns here, is that we can pretty much guarantee that it doesn't work. Then end result would turn hiring processes into a kafka-esque hellscape where reason has no bearing and candidates are essentially selected at random. Given how infuriating the current crop of simulated customer service agents are, I can't imagine bringing anything like this to job selection would be good for any of us, save for the leadership team who gets to tout their cost-saving plan and give themselves a bigger bonus. Edit: ugh after reading the article I'm so disappointed that the regulations amount to some pretty weak auditing and transparency requirements. I was hoping this was an outright ban. It seems the laws have been rewritten by the cooperations. It gives candidate "right" to ask questions about their use and possibly opt out, but all that means is anyone who speaks out will be unhireable. I mean what company is going to hire anyone who starts asserting their rights up front?

gretch 3y ago
> Then end result would turn hiring processes into a kafka-esque hellscape where reason has no bearing and candidates are essentially selected at random That’s pretty much what it is today isn’t it. You get into a room with a hiring manager and if you happen to have kids the same age or saw the same movie growing up, you’re gonna have a huge leg up. Can we blame someone for at least trying to make a system that’s more objective

JohnFen 3y ago

> I also think the argument that big companies wouldn't do it if didn't work is false I think the entire history of business backs you up on this.