Have you ever wanted a job so bad, you were willing to do anything to get it? I’ve been working on developing myself as a leader for a while now, in that time I have learned a great deal about what it take to move up the corporate ladder. Throughout my journey, I’ve been told that, to move up in the company you must “play the game.” This obsession I have with politics in the work place started when, my friend applied for a position, and because of politics was denied the job. Of all the candidates who applied to the position, there was only person who stood in her way. “Aren’t you excited? The possibility of you getting this position is very high” I said. My friend was applying for the school’s principal spot. She had already taken on the role as the lead teacher, and was taking steps to make sure that when the time came she was ready for the interview, with experience. “I’m going to interview, but I most likely won’t be getting the job.” Her response was not one I expected. I couldn’t understand why anyone else would be getting the job over her, after all she had done to make sure she was a qualified candidate for the job. So, I asked, “Why do you say that?” my response was full of confusion. "Well there’s another guy who applied to the same position and he is really good friends with one of the people in power who have an influence on the hiring decision, so I doubt I’ll get it over him.” She responded. I couldn’t believe that because of politics someone would be chosen for a position over another who was more qualified, just because they were friends with the right people. It was Monday, interviews were being held the next week. I watched as my friend prepared for her interview. She asked us all to partake in a video she was going to use, we had the best time filming. Throughout the whole process, I wondered if what she said, could be true. Finally, the time had arrived. Interviews were over, and the final decision was to be made in a few days. |
There’s always someone who is very good at “playing the game”. This was the case for my friends, assistant whose goal was to one day move up and become a lead teacher himself. He held a grudge on my friend because way back when, he had the chance to move up and it was up to my friend to decide on whether he was ready. Somehow, he was told that the reason he wasn’t chosen for the position was because my friend didn’t pass off on him. The assistant decided to take things into his own hands, he started talking to “the right people”. One day, I was cleaning the counter tops and I overheard my peers talking about who would get the position. The assistant, made the statement, “I don’t think she’s going to get the job”, adding a small chuckle. Remember the person mentioned at the beginning, who held an influence in the hiring decisions? The assistant made it a point to become good friends with that person. The next couple days, we found out my friend wasn’t given the position. It was given to the person who was best friends with one of the decision makers. This example is given to shed light on the effects of politics in the work place. In time, I’ve learned that in the work place, often you must know someone to get somewhere. Unfortunately, there are many cases in which people are no longer having to work as hard as another person to get promoted. While this may not always be the case, it's important to remember that there will always be two sides to a story and here we only see one. The whole story may not always be available. The truth may sometimes be hard to uncover, there are many factors involved. |
It's fair to think that we all have the same opportunity when it comes to job employment, right? When companies look for job applicants, they want the best of the best (la crème de la crème), for the position. Of the million applicants that come swarming through the database, it's hard to weed out the “less qualified” but, thanks to algorithms, the process is much easier. My question is, are they effective?
So, what are algorithms? “Algorithms are a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem solving operations especially by a computer.” According to the dictionary. I dug into the history of the algorithm and found, it was traced back to the 9th century. “Persian scientist, astronomer and mathematician Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa al-Khwarizmi, often called the father of algebra” was indirectly responsible for the creation of the term “Algorithm”. While applying for a management position, I wondered what the results to the assessment I had taken were. Although I was unable to get my personal results, I was however able to ask one of my managers if I could see another candidate’s results. I was shown how each question pertained to a certain skill set, and how likely you were to obtain certain characteristics the company was looking for. From the individual’s assessment, it presented results as to how likely or, how often said individual would call in sick. Or, how often the individual would be late, how responsible the person was and how well the person could handle being given coaching from a superior. In this case, to move on to the next step in the hiring process, you needed to obtain a score of 80% or higher. What the computer does (algorithm) is group your answers and add them to a point system, weeding the people who didn’t meet certain requirements out. Those who did, got passed off for review by management or recruiters. “Statisticians help with grouping information and taking out key features and characteristics, using systematic sampling and experimental design techniques, they ensure data are reliable and will support confident decisions.” So, you can see how the use of the assessment are useful in selecting the right candidate for the job. Imagine, you are a person interested in getting a job at your favorite retail store. You apply and are asked to take a series of questions, for an assessment. After you have taken the assessment you are thanked for your time in the application process and are given expectations as to how long it will take for you to receive a response back, on whether you will be considered for an interview. After receiving an email within 24 hours you are told, unfortunately you did not meet the requirements and will not be considered into the final round, thank you for your interest in the position. So, you wonder why, not really getting an explanation as to what you did wrong or what they were looking for. Would you want to see how you scored afterwards? Yes, algorithms make the hiring process a lot smoother and it has been proven to be successful in many areas, in an article called “Rise of the machines: Algorithms make better hiring decisions,” by Kevin Hegebarth published January 25, 2016. He states that the National Bureau of Economic Research has conducted some research on the effectiveness of using these programs. They conducted a survey including over 300,000 hires across 15 companies concluding, “predictive algorithms reliably identified applicants who were more likely to be retained longer and outperformed their human counterparts in this regard. They significantly raise the recruiting team’s organizational value by facilitating better hiring decisions and, consequently, improving the bottom-line performance of the company.” |
My question, could these programs be turning away potentially qualified candidates? After much thought, I wondered, if we are allowing computers to look for certain qualifications, weeding out the people who don’t have these skills, but have other skills and the potential to adopt new ones. Then, aren’t we in a way being discriminatory towards others, who with a bit of training can grow to achieve desired skills. According to “Hiring in Biotech is tricky, But algorithms won’t save the day” by Luke Timmerman written February 24th, 2014, people hiring in biotech and pharma companies complain they can’t find enough good candidates. Candidates who are very qualified can’t get hired because they aren’t selecting the right boxes on the application. “The things about algorithms is they can’t imagine how a talented person who lacks a few qualifications might be resourceful, and able to adapt and grow into a top performer if given a chance in the right environment.” Should we really be so reliant on these programs, so confident, that we are making the right decision because a computer program tells us so?
In an experiment conducted by the National Bureau of economic Research, they sent out various applications responding to help wanted ads. Using white sounding names (Emily and Greg) and African American sounding names (Lakisha or Jamal). Some of the resumes contained higher credentials and experience in the field, others with less desirable qualifications or characteristics. Usually, for each ad they send two high quality applications, and two lower quality ones. Randomly assigning the names to each. In total, they responded to over 1300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical and customer service job categories and close to 5000 resumes’. They found, applicants with white names, need to send about 10 resumes to get callbacks. African Americans names, need to send around 15 resumes to get call backs. “White’s with higher quality resumes receive 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes, on the other hand having a higher quality resume had a much smaller effect for African Americans.” I found this experiment in an article called “Hiring Algorithms are not Neutral” by Gideon Mann and Cathy O’Neil written December 09, 2016. In the article, Mann and O’Neil describe algorithms to be our opinion embedded in code, they reflect human biases and prejudices that lead to machine learning mistakes and misinterpretations. To sum it all up I believe that the use of algorithms can be beneficial in saving time and money, as well as simplifying the job when looking for qualified candidates, for those conducting the interviews or looking for potential job candidates. I believe, it's also important to recognize algorithms cannot replace human interaction, that they do not possess the crucial skill of interacting with an individual, to be personable or gauge the social skills of said candidate, that are required for the job. I believe, there should be caution when using these programs. They should give others who may not score as well on these assessments the opportunity to meet face to face with the interviewer. It is said that, about 72% of job applications never reach recruiters. This leaves room for turning away candidates that could have been valuable to a company, candidates honing other necessary skills. |