http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-how-browser-affects-job-prospects
Employers are starting to change the methods in which they make hiring decisions. Small factors such as what web browser you use have been correlated to how long and how sucessfull an applicant will be in a certain job. In the past employers have used facts such as if an applicant has tattos or body piercings to bias in decisions. However these new factors seem to have a much higher rate of correctly predicitng how well an applicant will do in the future. It is interesting in the fact that by shifting to these methods, some of the human bias can be elminated from the hiring process. I think that this helps not only the applicant pool, but also help companies get stronger employees as well. Additionally, our society has become more technology dependent and it is crucial to incorporate these factors in to the current job market. These findings will prove to be crucial in the future, especially as the competition for jobs tightens, and many jobs are now very untraditional. It seems fitting that we should start to shift to more untraditional methods of hire as well. As a result, these methods could lead to new motivation in the work force, and as a result much less apathy when searching for a new job, hopefully cutting down on unemployment length.
I think this is great news. I have always hated it when employers look at the fact whether an applicant has tattoos or piercings to make hiring decisions. I think it only makes people become someone they are not.
ReplyDeleteBut there will always be bias in hiring decisions regardless of whether or not a person uses three different social networking sites or if they use Chrome or Firefox. I think that this is adding another level of competition that is entirely unnecessary. And what about differences between types of jobs too? Algorithms aren't very telling of job fit, work ethic or other factors. They can spit out statistics, but do they really show truths about people any more than other manners? While I think this should be looked at, it shouldn't be the beat-all-end-all anymore than piercings or tattoos.
DeleteI believe that using algorithms to make hirings is a mistake. If we continue with this we might as well get rid of most of the human resource sectors in businesses. If we base hirings on equations of success then we might as well not even have an interview process. Algorithms cannot help determine a person's personal qualities, and judge a person character and integrity. Overall I believe there could be certain factors that would be beneficial to the hiring process but I do not believe it should be predominately run by computers and equations.
ReplyDeleteFundamentally I agree with Matt, however I think there can be a happy medium. I think we are a long ways away from any algorithm being deemed accurate enough to elimate the need for a HR department. However, what I think this technology can do is rather then replace human judgement, it can help assist it. If an algorithm can help eliminate factors that humans do already, then it can help take the burden away from employers and instead allow them to put more focus into small details during an interview process which can help greatly. The need for an interview is still there for sure, regardless of technological influence.
ReplyDeleteFor example, a big business such Booz Allen goes through countless applications and resumes, which only get a small glance over. If an algorithm can help to eliminate some of these applications based on factors that humans are already looking for, then this can allow them to give more time looking at applications, allowing them to pick up on something that could be very desirable in a candidate, but not picked up at first glance.
ReplyDelete