People search is "the new black"
".... People search is “the new black” ..."
The data already exists so compiling it is a routine exercise. I wonder how this kind of service could be fooled or played or worse misattributed?
"... Spokeo fits in nicely I think, to answer the so what and offer a more rounded view on prospective candidates. ... It reduces asymetry (sic) of information and reduces the risk of adverse selection by employers ..."
It would do nothing to reduce risk. In fact I'd go further to say that organisations that hire on unverified information are open to risk of future legal action. This is information gathering at its worst. How does more information of dubious quality on a candidate rule them out distinguishing themselves at a given task? I would propose a counter application to the likes of Spokeo - a registry of potential employers. Free along the line of Craigslist. Someone looking for a job can view lists of companies by sectors and geography, rated by what matters to employees and updated.
This is an example of asymmetry.
Companies may have more money but there are more employees than companies. More data thrown at the employee allows greater scrutiny than what I guess most companies would like. A comprehensive list of companies worldwide ranking them by employee friendliness. More information in choice of companies you work for might make you think twice before you apply. The cream of companies rising to the top? For example imagine if you could view a company that you thought might be a good place to work only to find company information:
- In the press current directors are constantly in the news for poor financial results, mismanagement or outright law breaking.
- Ethical status encourage low wages and outsource, made no efforts to improve greenhouse gas emissions
- Enhancement no effort to supply extra training
- Finances public finance information reported against the rest of the market. For startups it might also have the VC's or publicly declared finance as this has implications on how a company behaves.
- Blunders What was the last publicly acknowledged blunder? How was it handled.
- Relations do they have induction? how do they handle various HR issues?
As you imagine if you start to put the spotlight back on companies that employ people a lot of PR companies will be getting anxious calls.
Maybe it might force change?
"... I don't think there's any substitute for a good face-to-face interpersonal interaction to determine a person's character or suitability for a role. ..."
This is one point I agree on. The problem, the best shady characters can fool all but the most thorough of vetting. I'm not sure how software can play a meaningful part in this process?
<<< start
People search is "the new black"
".... People search is “the new black” ..."
The data already exists so compiling it is a routine exercise. I wonder how this kind of service could be fooled or played or worse misattributed?
"... Spokeo fits in nicely I think, to answer the so what and offer a more rounded view on prospective candidates. ... It reduces asymetry (sic) of information and reduces the risk of adverse selection by employers ..."
It would do nothing to reduce risk. In fact I'd go further to say that organisations that hire on unverified information are open to risk of future legal action. This is information gathering at its worst. How does more information of dubious quality on a candidate rule them out distinguishing themselves at a given task? I would propose a counter application to the likes of Spokeo - a registry of potential employers. Free along the line of Craigslist. Someone looking for a job can view lists of companies by sectors and geography, rated by what matters to employees and updated.
This is an example of asymmetry.
Companies may have more money but there are more employees than companies. More data thrown at the employee allows greater scrutiny than what I guess most companies would like. A comprehensive list of companies worldwide ranking them by employee friendliness. More information in choice of companies you work for might make you think twice before you apply. The cream of companies rising to the top? For example imagine if you could view a company that you thought might be a good place to work only to find company information:
- In the press current directors are constantly in the news for poor financial results, mismanagement or outright law breaking.
- Ethical status encourage low wages and outsource, made no efforts to improve greenhouse gas emissions
- Enhancement no effort to supply extra training
- Finances public finance information reported against the rest of the market. For startups it might also have the VC's or publicly declared finance as this has implications on how a company behaves.
- Blunders What was the last publicly acknowledged blunder? How was it handled.
- Relations do they have induction? how do they handle various HR issues?
As you imagine if you start to put the spotlight back on companies that employ people a lot of PR companies will be getting anxious calls.
Maybe it might force change?
"... I don't think there's any substitute for a good face-to-face interpersonal interaction to determine a person's character or suitability for a role. ..."
This is one point I agree on. The problem, the best shady characters can fool all but the most thorough of vetting. I'm not sure how software can play a meaningful part in this process?
<<< start