Companies like Facebook, IBM and others are starting to use artificial intelligence in their hiring processes. How can candidates impress an algorithm? Sean Captain in his article, “How AI Is Changing Human Resources” writes “They’re using machines to scan work samples, parse social media posts, and analyze facial expressions on behalf of HR managers. Such practices raise questions about accuracy and privacy, but proponents argue that harnessing AI for hiring could lead to more diverse, empathetic, and dynamic workplaces.” Captain points out that recruiting isn’t just about discovering the best people, but it’s also about eliminating the worst, and AI helps with this process. There are so many companies that have developed software to help in the recruiting process. These include HireVue, Koru, Fama, and Interviewed. From digital interviewing to automating soft skills. Co-founder of Interviewed, Chris Bakke, says “An algorithm’s ability to understand something like empathy, points to a new hiring technique- one in which machines assess, but humans make the final call.” What do you think? HireVue is leveraging AI in recruiting so organizations can consider ALL candidates in a pool, rather than the 2.5% typical in a manual screening process. Learn more about HireVue’s pre-hire assessments. Find Sean: Twitter LinkedIn
In Sarah O’Connor’s article, O’Connor addresses the protest outside the UberEats office in London in August. UberEats opened up with above market pay. As customer demand increased, they reduced the pay and delivery contractors got angry. Many left their jobs to work for UberEats, and they even helped recruit. What happened? These employees are “managed not by people but by an algorithm that communicates with them via their smartphones. And what they are rebelling against is an app update.” Algorithmic management creates “new employee opportunities, better and cheaper consumer services, transparency and fairness in parts of the labor market that are characterized by inefficiency, opacity, and capricious human bosses.” But with the protest and other complaints from varying companies, we see that many employees struggle between being their own boss and being managed by an app. What do you see as the benefits of companies using algorithmic management? What about the upsetting factors? Find Sarah: Twitter
In Mary Faulkner’s article, she describes this situation: leadership launches a survey, then the process drops off the radar and it’s time for an action plan. Time passes, work returns and people forget about the new ideas they were supposed to implement. Another survey is sent out, and the results are worse or the same. Action plans are important, but too often they never come to pass. Some reasons why your action plans aren’t resulting in real action:
- Maybe too much time passed or not enough time passed.
- If a process is too hard to complete, people will resist it.
- Focusing on the wrong deliverable. Don’t confuse activity with results.
- Trying to fix EVERYTHING.
- Expectations, not setting. Don’t create unrealistic expectations.
- Right problems, wrong people.
In Tim Sackett’s article, he addresses these seven truths about recruiting:
- There’s no difference between selling cars and recruiting. Make it look good, even when it’s not.
- Recruiting has nothing to do with Quality. It’s all about speed. Recruiting is about filling positions as fast as you can with the best talent that is available at the time you’re actually looking to fill the position.
- The majority of recruiting leaders have no idea what they’re doing.
- Real recruiters have figured out Employment Branding has little impact in filling positions.
- Your organization would fill openings with or without a recruiting team.
- Corporate recruiters will always be less effective to Agency recruiters until you change your compensation.
- 90% of your positions are filled by candidates finding you, not a Recruiter finding them.
In Bob Sutton’s article, he cites studies that prove that “when it comes to teams, many hands do not make light work.” It is found that, “four to six members is the team best size for most tasks, and that no work team should have more than 10 members, and that performance problems and interpersonal friction increase “exponentially as team size increases.” Why is this? Larger teams often place larger cognitive loads on others. As numbers increase, each member spends more time with coordination chores instead of the worthwhile work. A good analogy Sutton uses to illustrate is dinner reservations at restaurants. More than 10 people with you and you cannot possibly spend time talking with every single one. Smaller conversations break out in between three and four members. With fewer members on teams, there is also a greater sense of responsibility for each member to do their part. What are your thoughts on team size? Does your company follow the rule of having no more than 10 people on a team? Find Bob: Twitter LinkedIn