Sign up for myFT Daily Digest and be the first to learn about recruitment news.
Next time you apply for a job, how will you feel if the interviewer asks to check your Uber score? This is the number you get from Uber. Their drivers give passengers a score from 1 to 5 after getting off the bus. A few weeks ago, an American boss said on Twitter that he had used it as part of the hiring process.
“It seems like a good idea,” Katsenelson told me last week.He had this idea after he noticed it Nasim Nicholas Taleb, Author of the 2007 best-selling book, Black Swan, Including his impressive 4.9 Uber rating on his Twitter contour.
As it happens, Katsenelson is always looking for a new operations manager. Uber scoring sounds like a smart and fair way to understand the true situation of applicants.
The rating of the woman he hired was 4.89, which is slightly higher than Katsenelson’s 4.86, and much better than my dismal 4.65, which is worse than it sounds.Some drivers won’t pick up anyone with a score Less than 4.6But Katsenelson soon discovered that his Uber plan was flawed. The women told him that after refusing Uber drivers’ requests, their scores dropped. Men living in simple neighborhoods tried to get off the car closer to the front door instead of unwilling drivers wanting to take risks, and they also suffered a similar fate.
To his shock, he later learned that his assistant Barbara’s score was the lowest he had ever seen. This is not calculated. In his words, she is a very kind and wonderful person. “I wish I had an entire Barbara company.”
It turns out that she has hardly ever taken an Uber. Once, when she ordered an Uber, there was some confusion, which meant that she had never been in a car.
Katsenelson quickly abandoned this idea. “I thought I was smart, but then I realized that this was not a panacea.”
After listening to him, I began to hope that more companies would be as skeptical of using algorithms to recruit employees as him.
Traditional face-to-face job interviews are at least the main way to evaluate job applicants one century, Has become its own terrible shadow of science and technology.
Recruitment is widely outsourced to companies that search for potential employees on the website. Candidates’ online applications are scanned for keywords and phrases that recruiters might want to see. A series of digital tools using speech recognition and body language software are used to predict good recruits.
I know all this because it has been managed by experts (e.g. Wharton School Professor Peter Cappelli.
Just like him wrote In the recent Harvard Business Review: “Companies have never hired so many people as they do today. They have never spent so much money to do this. They have never done a worse job than this.”
We do not know whether these practices will produce good employees. Cappelli estimates that only about one-third of US companies report that they check their hiring process to ensure that they can hire good employees. So what should they do? Provides extensive support for fashionable but unproven technical tools. Check past performance, and most importantly, test basic skills. Surprisingly, companies often require drug tests and ignore the results of skills checks.
After all, hiring outsiders is always worrying. But I think Katsenelson did something with the strategy he used to recruit analysts a few years ago. In order to find someone who really cares about investment research and not just money, he designed a long and tedious job advertisement. It requires candidates to list all the books they have read in the past 12 months; talk about the three books and two people that have the greatest impact on them; provide creative analysis of stocks and write a cover letter explaining why not hiring them will be one Huge mistake.
Approximately 50 applications were received, of which only 12 answered each question. But the successful candidate is still working in the company, and for Katsenelson, “the result is good.” This strategy is not suitable for every company or every job. But I bet it does better than ordinary algorithms.