4 ms·

There's actually a solution around this: name and shame! Just like bad companies get called out on GlassDoor, companies should create a reputation system for pr

There's actually a solution around this: name and shame! Just like bad companies get called out on GlassDoor, companies should create a reputation system for prospective employees (e.g. a professional credit score). This already exists for potential tenants, so I don't really understand why it doesn't exist for potential employees given they occur at about the same frequency and have a similar amount of money trading hands.

ghaff 2y ago
Applicants have long sprayed and prayed even when it involved sending physical letters. Some of the current systems have decreased the effort per company applied-to but, for entry-level employees, it was rarely a carefully-targeted thing for new professionals. It was always a numbers game to some degree although admittedly the scale and tools involved have changed.
- programjames 2y ago
  The smaller scale in the past made it so managers either knew (at least by reputation) the person submitting the resume, or it was not too expensive to find out. Nowadays, jobs are getting 100x as many applications, most of which are far lower in quality. University admissions has followed a similar trend, going from 5–10 being "spray and pray" twenty years ago to 20–30 applications nowadays. However, it didn't increase as much because (1) each application costs money, and (2) most universities expect a cover letter. It still costs quite a bit to filter the applicants, but the fee helps pay for that.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    The "solution," such as it is, is that companies strongly bias towards referrals and managers towards people they personally know. And, from some conversations I've had, that is exactly what is happening. With the result that it's tough for junior people with no real networks (OK maybe their school is a signal) because companies really don't want to sift all the junk they're getting and I don't really blame them.
    - programjames 2y ago
      That's a solution, but I'd prefer a system that, when ideal/efficient, is optimal.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        I'm not sure what other solutions look like: Gatekeeping of various forms including institutions and certifications, letters of introduction like essentially the US service academies, standardized tests, informal networks, etc.
        programjames 2y ago
        There's two distinct reasons why more qualified candidates might get skipped over: 1) There is too much noise occluding their signal. 2) There is a form of gatekeeping going on. Gatekeeping only really works in exploitative systems (e.g. "me and my children are the masters, and you and your children are the slaves") or when the noise is so high that companies wouldn't gain much from not gatekeeping (e.g. Harvard admissions in the late 1800s). So, if you don't exist in an exploitative system, providing more signal is going to both benefit deserving candidates and punish gatekeeping companies. I don't see why a reputation score would increase gatekeeping. At the end of the day, every applicant could be ranked on their ability at the job. Wouldn't it be best for everyone—companies and prospective employees—to know where they rank up, so they don't waste time applying to hundreds of jobs or sifting through hundreds of applications? The only people who are hurt are the hustlers: people who spend far more time hustling for a position than gaining the skills needed to do well in that position. Their goal is the extreme limit of noise, where success rate is directly proportional to how many applications are filled out, and I have no sympathy for the destruction of the commons (that I have to live in).
        ghaff 2y ago
        For a lot of things, hustling is probably at least as important to me as a hiring manager as rather amorphous "skills needed to do well in that position" at least as an entry-level employee. Of course, I don't want someone who has none of the skills needed for the job in most cases but they probably don't know most of what they need to learn anyway.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    About uni apps in the US: Most people limit the number because there is a modest fee associated with each. I doubt it is 2-3x since last generation.
andylynch 2y ago
You’re talking about blacklists. They are not a new idea, in fact they are well known, but also prohibited by law in many places because of their widespread abuse. There’s also a more general idea in competition law that companies shoul, well, compete their fields, and allowing cartel-like behaviour on the labour market is contradictory to this.
- programjames 2y ago
  A reputation score is only a blacklist if you target specific people to tank their reputations.
  - olddustytrail 2y ago
    Yes, that's what happens.
    - programjames 2y ago
      Is this also your opinion on credit scores used for loans?
      - lstamour 2y ago
        Define the objective metric that you would use to assess a candidate's work ethic or reputation credit score. Would LinkedIn issue it, as if it were a popularity contest? And come to think of it, actually, credit scores can be gamed. It's well known that when companies and territories get credit scores they are largely a con game, as in based on the conifdence the raters have on your future performance, and not objective reality. Likewise, credit scores can be juiced and tools exist to help you improve them and track them. But a bad credit score doesn't always mean fiscal mismanagement. It could be loans from a predatory lender or due to a medical expense or something completely outside the context the credit check is to be used for. Credit scores tell you if someone has lots of money first, and if they are smart with their money second. People with financial means often have good credit scores but can be as likely to default if their circumstances change. Perhaps more likely if the amounts of money at play are greater. People got those subprime mortgages with great credit scores, somehow. So... Yeah, credit scores for loans are a form of outsourcing of responsibilities. But the point is somewhat well taken. The equivalent in hiring to a credit score isn't to ask banks but to do reference checks and ask a network or former manager about a hire. Credit scores can easily be discriminatory as much as criminal charges (without due process, at least) and other unfair systems. We just normalize it because it works for most people. We poke fun at it when other countries try to come up with e.g. a social credit score, though.
CactusOnFire 2y ago
Just like how many companies have methods available to them to remove bad glassdoor reviews (or make fake 5-star reviews), this system is even more rife for abuse.
- programjames 2y ago
  Credit scores seem to be pretty robust? Maybe this kind of system would work: 1. A third-party assigns everyone a hidden score, and gives them a cryptographic signing key. 2. They can sign off on one-time lookups to companies they apply to. Every time their credit score is looked up, it decreases to disincentivize "spray and pray". 3. Companies are incentivized to go directly to the third-party (to ensure truthiness), and not divulge the score to other companies (since they are in a competition). 4. The actual algorithms used to determine scores should stay hidden to avoid manipulation. However, how do you also ensure accuracy? Maybe have several dozen reputation companies, and apply Shapley values based on hiring decisions. To avoid correlation, you should only update a reputation's weight when the hiring decision didn't query it.
  - randomifcpfan 2y ago
    College degrees from reputable colleges used to serve this purpose, but grade inflation has greatly weakened this signal.
    - programjames 2y ago
      You also want colleges to signal to their applicants, not force them to also signal for their alumni. The two will naturally be correlated, but you can do better by specializing.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > many companies have methods available to them to remove bad glassdoor reviews I never heard about this. Can you share more details? Is it rumors or verified?
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
>companies should create a reputation system for prospective employees I guess that would work in societies where this was legal - not sure if I know of any though.

ghaff 2y ago

Applicants have long sprayed and prayed even when it involved sending physical letters. Some of the current systems have decreased the effort per company applied-to but, for entry-level employees, it was rarely a carefully-targeted thing for new professionals. It was always a numbers game to some degree although admittedly the scale and tools involved have changed.

programjames 2y ago
The smaller scale in the past made it so managers either knew (at least by reputation) the person submitting the resume, or it was not too expensive to find out. Nowadays, jobs are getting 100x as many applications, most of which are far lower in quality. University admissions has followed a similar trend, going from 5–10 being "spray and pray" twenty years ago to 20–30 applications nowadays. However, it didn't increase as much because (1) each application costs money, and (2) most universities expect a cover letter. It still costs quite a bit to filter the applicants, but the fee helps pay for that.
- ghaff 2y ago
  The "solution," such as it is, is that companies strongly bias towards referrals and managers towards people they personally know. And, from some conversations I've had, that is exactly what is happening. With the result that it's tough for junior people with no real networks (OK maybe their school is a signal) because companies really don't want to sift all the junk they're getting and I don't really blame them.
  - programjames 2y ago
    That's a solution, but I'd prefer a system that, when ideal/efficient, is optimal.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      I'm not sure what other solutions look like: Gatekeeping of various forms including institutions and certifications, letters of introduction like essentially the US service academies, standardized tests, informal networks, etc.
      - programjames 2y ago
        There's two distinct reasons why more qualified candidates might get skipped over: 1) There is too much noise occluding their signal. 2) There is a form of gatekeeping going on. Gatekeeping only really works in exploitative systems (e.g. "me and my children are the masters, and you and your children are the slaves") or when the noise is so high that companies wouldn't gain much from not gatekeeping (e.g. Harvard admissions in the late 1800s). So, if you don't exist in an exploitative system, providing more signal is going to both benefit deserving candidates and punish gatekeeping companies. I don't see why a reputation score would increase gatekeeping. At the end of the day, every applicant could be ranked on their ability at the job. Wouldn't it be best for everyone—companies and prospective employees—to know where they rank up, so they don't waste time applying to hundreds of jobs or sifting through hundreds of applications? The only people who are hurt are the hustlers: people who spend far more time hustling for a position than gaining the skills needed to do well in that position. Their goal is the extreme limit of noise, where success rate is directly proportional to how many applications are filled out, and I have no sympathy for the destruction of the commons (that I have to live in).
        ghaff 2y ago
        For a lot of things, hustling is probably at least as important to me as a hiring manager as rather amorphous "skills needed to do well in that position" at least as an entry-level employee. Of course, I don't want someone who has none of the skills needed for the job in most cases but they probably don't know most of what they need to learn anyway.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  About uni apps in the US: Most people limit the number because there is a modest fee associated with each. I doubt it is 2-3x since last generation.

andylynch 2y ago

You’re talking about blacklists. They are not a new idea, in fact they are well known, but also prohibited by law in many places because of their widespread abuse. There’s also a more general idea in competition law that companies shoul, well, compete their fields, and allowing cartel-like behaviour on the labour market is contradictory to this.

programjames 2y ago
A reputation score is only a blacklist if you target specific people to tank their reputations.
- olddustytrail 2y ago
  Yes, that's what happens.
  - programjames 2y ago
    Is this also your opinion on credit scores used for loans?
    - lstamour 2y ago
      Define the objective metric that you would use to assess a candidate's work ethic or reputation credit score. Would LinkedIn issue it, as if it were a popularity contest? And come to think of it, actually, credit scores can be gamed. It's well known that when companies and territories get credit scores they are largely a con game, as in based on the conifdence the raters have on your future performance, and not objective reality. Likewise, credit scores can be juiced and tools exist to help you improve them and track them. But a bad credit score doesn't always mean fiscal mismanagement. It could be loans from a predatory lender or due to a medical expense or something completely outside the context the credit check is to be used for. Credit scores tell you if someone has lots of money first, and if they are smart with their money second. People with financial means often have good credit scores but can be as likely to default if their circumstances change. Perhaps more likely if the amounts of money at play are greater. People got those subprime mortgages with great credit scores, somehow. So... Yeah, credit scores for loans are a form of outsourcing of responsibilities. But the point is somewhat well taken. The equivalent in hiring to a credit score isn't to ask banks but to do reference checks and ask a network or former manager about a hire. Credit scores can easily be discriminatory as much as criminal charges (without due process, at least) and other unfair systems. We just normalize it because it works for most people. We poke fun at it when other countries try to come up with e.g. a social credit score, though.

CactusOnFire 2y ago

Just like how many companies have methods available to them to remove bad glassdoor reviews (or make fake 5-star reviews), this system is even more rife for abuse.

programjames 2y ago
Credit scores seem to be pretty robust? Maybe this kind of system would work: 1. A third-party assigns everyone a hidden score, and gives them a cryptographic signing key. 2. They can sign off on one-time lookups to companies they apply to. Every time their credit score is looked up, it decreases to disincentivize "spray and pray". 3. Companies are incentivized to go directly to the third-party (to ensure truthiness), and not divulge the score to other companies (since they are in a competition). 4. The actual algorithms used to determine scores should stay hidden to avoid manipulation. However, how do you also ensure accuracy? Maybe have several dozen reputation companies, and apply Shapley values based on hiring decisions. To avoid correlation, you should only update a reputation's weight when the hiring decision didn't query it.
- randomifcpfan 2y ago
  College degrees from reputable colleges used to serve this purpose, but grade inflation has greatly weakened this signal.
  - programjames 2y ago
    You also want colleges to signal to their applicants, not force them to also signal for their alumni. The two will naturally be correlated, but you can do better by specializing.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> many companies have methods available to them to remove bad glassdoor reviews I never heard about this. Can you share more details? Is it rumors or verified?

bryanrasmussen 2y ago

>companies should create a reputation system for prospective employees I guess that would work in societies where this was legal - not sure if I know of any though.