10 ms·
We built this tool as part of HiringSolved. Other signals included time in current position relative to industry average and personal history.
by shon 3y ago
We built this tool as part of HiringSolved. Other signals included time in current position relative to industry average and personal history.
- sli 3y agoI will never understand how people can willingly build tools like this that almost exclusively serve to make employment miserable.
- 8b16380d 3y agoThe family needs to eat and as an American with no social or economic safety net, my morals play a very small role.
- mistrial9 3y agothe industry in Silicon Valley and elsewhere is filled, packed with people who have no children
- dyingkneepad 3y agoLet me give you a hint how: it involves a money transaction.
- joseda-hg 3y agoThere's a strong component of "If I don't someone else will", but also, usually this is the kind of thing that sucks at getting general open/free solutions, because no one does it willingly, yet it's easy for an employer to justify paying for (And economically incentivize it's development)
- mrguyorama 3y ago"If I don't then someone else will" is only an excuse for the already morally dubious. So what if someone else does it? Sure the bad thing still exists, but at least you didn't personally make the world a worse place explicitly for your own personal gain. The unspoken part of that phrase is the second half of "so since it will happen anyway, it's not wrong for me to reap the rewards of doing the bad thing" I hope you understand how inherently wrong that is.
- xyzelement 3y agoI think there's an explanation that is both more charitable and more pragmatic. Companies try to keep employees happy and committed, and part of that is making sure they see a potential future / growth for themselves. As a manager I try to both make sure this is based in reality and that employees are picking up the message. I like to think I am good at this but it's a difficult skill, and external signal to "hey, you might want to check in with Bob a bit more carefully next time to make sure he's feeling as good as we think he is" could always be valuable. So even from Bob's perspective it's positive - he may get the extra conversation that increases his options where he stays. On the flip side, what's the malicious use case? "You updated your linkedIn so I am going to fire you" doesn't sound like company policy that's going to be implemented anywhere because it makes no sense.
- vineyardmike 3y ago> "You updated your linkedIn so I am going to fire you" You might be close to quitting (via perceived signal) so I’m going to give the high visibility project to someone “loyal”. You may be perceived as a quitter so I’m going to give discretionary budget for the next raise to the employee who is more loyal. You might be perceived as quitting, and my company requires me to stack rank employees. The lowest gets fired. I put you there to keep the rest of my team. You become a “sacrifice” since you were going to quit anyways. And these are just the examples my friends at Amazon talk about. I’m sure there’s more. Now consider all of the above, but now you’re on a visa. Losing your job means you have a few weeks to replace it or get deported.
- shon 3y agoTypically these tools are bought and used by HR or Talent Acq departments, not managers so the type of detailed decision-making you’re describing wasn’t a use-case in my experience. It’s more like a roll-up metric that can be looked at globally, by role, department, location, etc. yes, it can also be used at the individual level but again, HR is the buyer and they are the most fearfully bureaucratic department in most companies . From a data and capability perspective, I agree it’s a little scary. But in practice I doubt it’s used this way and if so, there’s your retention problem.
- shon 3y agoOriginally it was built as the inverse. A signal that recruiters could use to tell them which “passive candidates” could be more willing to change jobs. A customer asked if it could be used internally (we already had their ATS/HRIS data) so a new feature was born. Yes money was a motive but this particular feature didn’t seem like an evil idea to be used to increase employee misery. That said, We did build some things that I do regret now.
- westhanover 3y ago[flagged]
- 23B1 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
- fHr 3y agoLate stage capitalism makes us do it.
- ggasdgasd 3y ago[flagged]
- latentcall 3y agoAmazing what people are willing to trade in exchange for a fat salary with decent benefits. Even if it means trading their moral code.
- shon 3y agoReally? You think this is that bad? I always said “at least we’re not building weapons we are trying to get people jobs (or keep them in jobs)” But aside from weapons, if you think building a retention tool for HR is bad, you certainly should not ever look at AdTech or the types of things insurance companies are doing from a data perspective. Or ah hem… Palatir for example.
- doktrin 3y ago> I always said “at least we’re not building weapons" If everyone in my country decided to stop working in or sponsoring the arms industry, we'd be invaded by an authoritarian dictatorship tomorrow. If in contrast we all summarily banned these aspiring social credit tools, the negative side effects would be negligible to nonexistent.
- blibble 3y agoso your argument is that you don't need to be ethical because there exist people that do worse things than you?
- shon 3y agoNo, my argument is that building an employee retention tool is not the same from an ethical perspective as building a weapon system. One is like a hammer, it was envisioned for and can be used for good, like building free houses for the poor. But it also makes a great bludgeon. The other is like building a weapon that is used as a weapon. And then there’s AdTech.. lol
- blibble 3y agoI'm sure zuckerberg says the same thing to his kids
- zettabomb 3y agoPaycheck go brrrr I assume
- ashton314 3y agoCan you tell us more? What signals should I be worried about employers looking at?
- shon 3y agoIt’s worse and deeper than you’d want to know. That said most HR Tech companies and large corporate HR departments are incompetent so it’s not really as scary in practice as it sounds. Also GDPR/CCPA has hamstrung a lot of this and HR depts are fairly petrified about it. Talent Acquisition, not so much…
- generalizations 3y agoWait, how much worse, and how much deeper? Unless that kind of stuff is a trade secret.
- shon 3y agoSorry, I’m being a little dramatic. I mean the data part is a little scary. Look up People Data Labs. There are lots of these data aggregators and that data can be used for a lot of scary things. HR in practice is probably the least scary.
- chaxor 3y agoI know many people who have been fired for _liking_ a post on Facebook. So there's that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- araes 3y agoYour website returns: Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN The certificate is only valid for the following names: *.allegisgroup.com, allegisgroup.com hiring solved
- shon 3y agoSold the company to Allegis.
- AndyMcConachie 3y agoDo you sleep well at night?
- shon 3y agoYes, actually. Hiring sucks. We wanted to make it better. I believe we did do that by showing the HR world that data driven insights could be a better indicator than what school someone went to or whether they played Ultimate Frisbee (a real hiring signal used by a Fortune 500 tech co). We didn’t solve hiring. It’s a tough problem with many strange human biases and rituals. But I do think we made it better even if only a little.