3 ms·
> someone has to do the data integration and run algorithms to compute a simple number to express how suspicious someone's behaviour is. HR managers will no lon
by dejb 18y ago
> someone has to do the data integration and run algorithms to compute a simple number to express how suspicious someone's behaviour is. HR managers will no longer personally google for applicants.
I think this is unlikely. If this 'simple number' was not an accurate measure of likely job performance then companies who relied on it would be at a huge disadvantage. Companies (and by extension their HR departments) who ignored it or incorporated their own information would tend to prevail.
- fauigerzigerk 18y agoYou're implying that there is an inverse correlation between this number and job performance. That's not necessarily the case. And of course this number won't be the only factor in the decision making, but if there's a risky candidate and a less risky one in terms of that number, why would anyone choose the riskier candidate, everything else being equal? There's only one reason and that is salary. People with stained public profiles will earn less money and will be out of a job for longer.
- dejb 18y ago> You're implying that there is an inverse correlation between this number and job performance. No I'm not. I'm suggesting that if others actually believed this figure then it would tend to push down the wages of those who had a higher number and they would represent better value for money. Companies who essntially ignored the number and hired based on other factors would tend to get better employees and would flourish. This would tend to reduce the 'wage gap' down to whatever its true predictive power was. Of course as you have mentioned this whole notion of one all-powerfull number is unlikely.
- eru 18y agoLet's hope we'll have enough competition to enforce tolerance.