Towards the end of yesterday's post, we briefly mentioned the need for recruitment to move beyond interviews (and application forms, and cover letters!) A call to action, however, doesn't deserve to be listened to unless it also answers the most obvious questions:
. What do we do instead?
. How do we do that?
. Will it work?
. What's wrong with what we're already doing?
Interviews feel uncomfortable for both sides of the table, because everyone present is intensely conscious of a significant power imbalance - if an interviewer turns down an interviewee, they're not just saying "hey, we're not a good fit for each other"; they're saying - whether they intend to or not - "You don't have enough value to earn the right to confidence in remaining housed." A job rejection is not just a stone on a path of opportunity; it can end up being the cliff edge between getting by and literal destitution: homelessness, not just a smaller home. Starvation, not just eating store-brand, heavily processed foods. Debt that takes everything, not just a credit card bill you'd prefer not to pay.
The weight of that consciousness means many interviewees are unable to present in a state where they can communicate the very best of themselves. It prompts people to lie, to shut down, to be so nervous that they are assumed to be lying, even when they are being entirely honest.
That same weight also creates the impassiveness of many interviewers which can be perceived as judgement and hostility.
The race to the bottom delusional fixation on AI being "essential" for things it is absolutely not essential for has rendered CVs/resumes, cover letters, and written applications worthless - there's a very high chance that a bot reads and rejects something a bot wrote. Humanity is a business risk. Applying your human abilities to a routine task marks you as routine, and signals that you're just going to be a high-risk cost line on a business' spreadsheet - yet using technology which erases evidence of humanity - the very thing corporations have clearly communicated, over several years, that they strongly prefer - is held to be a form of cheating.
No one ever stops to ask what people are supposed to do other than cheat when what's at stake is the ability to remain housed, to continue being able to access food, to pay bills for which defaulting is held to be a criminal act. When you raise the stakes that high, you introduce genuine desperation - and, in a state of genuine desperation, morals have to be abandoned, and social cohesion breaks down, as the priority becomes individual self-preservation.
People who are not usually inclined to cheat delay cheating past the point where it can save them. They cheat badly, and are harshly punished. They are consumed by guilt over their cheating, and are unable to perform at their normal standards. Those who can't cheat well resent those whose cheating appears to come naturally. Those who can cheat smoothly and successfully turn on those whose cheating is always obvious, and usually unsuccesful. This is the kind of breakdown of social connectedness it is difficult, if not impossible, to recover from. Successful people are held to be inherently untrustworthy, because they are assumed to simply be successful cheaters, rather than people with genuine skills and competencies.
There's a lot wrong with what we're already doing: So, what do we do instead?
. If you are going to deem some jobs "low-skilled", then those jobs should not require any form of application or interview: State your location, state the time you expect people to be there on a given day, state the normal working hours and pay - and hire those who turn up presented well and on time. First come, first served; take contact details for those who were "close enough", so that, if any of the first-come-first-served hires drop out, or turn out to not be able to quickly pick up competency in their job tasks, you have a ready pool of potential replacement employees.
. For jobs which do require specific, evidenced skills, set a normal-workday task, to be completed on-site or remotely, depending on whether the job itself is one that, objectively, can be done remotely or not; hire the person or people (depending on the number of vacancies) who turned up on time, well presented, and performed best at the task.
. Where the job is more about soft skills and team connectedness, have applicants come in daily for a week, with the company covering their travel costs and subsistence expenses, and engage in the normal day to day work of the company; hire the person or people who best demonstrate the soft skills and team roles you're looking for.
The weight of that consciousness means many interviewees are unable to present in a state where they can communicate the very best of themselves. It prompts people to lie, to shut down, to be so nervous that they are assumed to be lying, even when they are being entirely honest.
That same weight also creates the impassiveness of many interviewers which can be perceived as judgement and hostility.
The race to the bottom delusional fixation on AI being "essential" for things it is absolutely not essential for has rendered CVs/resumes, cover letters, and written applications worthless - there's a very high chance that a bot reads and rejects something a bot wrote. Humanity is a business risk. Applying your human abilities to a routine task marks you as routine, and signals that you're just going to be a high-risk cost line on a business' spreadsheet - yet using technology which erases evidence of humanity - the very thing corporations have clearly communicated, over several years, that they strongly prefer - is held to be a form of cheating.
No one ever stops to ask what people are supposed to do other than cheat when what's at stake is the ability to remain housed, to continue being able to access food, to pay bills for which defaulting is held to be a criminal act. When you raise the stakes that high, you introduce genuine desperation - and, in a state of genuine desperation, morals have to be abandoned, and social cohesion breaks down, as the priority becomes individual self-preservation.
People who are not usually inclined to cheat delay cheating past the point where it can save them. They cheat badly, and are harshly punished. They are consumed by guilt over their cheating, and are unable to perform at their normal standards. Those who can't cheat well resent those whose cheating appears to come naturally. Those who can cheat smoothly and successfully turn on those whose cheating is always obvious, and usually unsuccesful. This is the kind of breakdown of social connectedness it is difficult, if not impossible, to recover from. Successful people are held to be inherently untrustworthy, because they are assumed to simply be successful cheaters, rather than people with genuine skills and competencies.
There's a lot wrong with what we're already doing: So, what do we do instead?
. If you are going to deem some jobs "low-skilled", then those jobs should not require any form of application or interview: State your location, state the time you expect people to be there on a given day, state the normal working hours and pay - and hire those who turn up presented well and on time. First come, first served; take contact details for those who were "close enough", so that, if any of the first-come-first-served hires drop out, or turn out to not be able to quickly pick up competency in their job tasks, you have a ready pool of potential replacement employees.
. For jobs which do require specific, evidenced skills, set a normal-workday task, to be completed on-site or remotely, depending on whether the job itself is one that, objectively, can be done remotely or not; hire the person or people (depending on the number of vacancies) who turned up on time, well presented, and performed best at the task.
. Where the job is more about soft skills and team connectedness, have applicants come in daily for a week, with the company covering their travel costs and subsistence expenses, and engage in the normal day to day work of the company; hire the person or people who best demonstrate the soft skills and team roles you're looking for.
Working hours, genuinely required skills or qualifications, and pay should be communicated clearly and directly for all jobs.
Office roles which are not centred on customer service, reception, etc, should be offered as remote by default - if people would prefer to be office based, that's entirely acceptable, but office attendance should not be required for roles which are 80%+ "just respsonding to emails and updating documents on a laptop." Always ask "could I communicate the main points of this meeting by email?"
Where a job can't be done remotely, the reason it can't be remote should be clearly communicated.
If a job does not involve driving, you should not be demanding "full driving licence and access to own transport" - communicate your precise location, and leave applicants to establish for themselves whether or not they are able to get there.
Clearly state whether a job involves a lot of remaining in one position for prolonged periods, walking, or heavy lifting - disabled people who are not able to manage those expectations will be aware of those limitations - and, potentially, how to mitigate those disabilities for themselves. (And not even just disabled people - not all able-bodied people can, or want to, manage sitting or standing for long periods, or handling heavy loads...)
Currently, there is no Universal Basic Income.
Office roles which are not centred on customer service, reception, etc, should be offered as remote by default - if people would prefer to be office based, that's entirely acceptable, but office attendance should not be required for roles which are 80%+ "just respsonding to emails and updating documents on a laptop." Always ask "could I communicate the main points of this meeting by email?"
Where a job can't be done remotely, the reason it can't be remote should be clearly communicated.
If a job does not involve driving, you should not be demanding "full driving licence and access to own transport" - communicate your precise location, and leave applicants to establish for themselves whether or not they are able to get there.
Clearly state whether a job involves a lot of remaining in one position for prolonged periods, walking, or heavy lifting - disabled people who are not able to manage those expectations will be aware of those limitations - and, potentially, how to mitigate those disabilities for themselves. (And not even just disabled people - not all able-bodied people can, or want to, manage sitting or standing for long periods, or handling heavy loads...)
Currently, there is no Universal Basic Income.
The overwhelming majority of people who end up on welfare receive less than the take-home pay for a minimum-wage job, whilst still being expected to spend 35hrs a week applying for jobs, or doing "workfare" placements - which only last for six months, and where the companies "employing" them receive the costs to do so from the public purse, rather than being expected to use their own revenues on employment costs.
There is no viable alternative to human beings being employed in decently-paid roles.
There are alternatives to application forms, cover letters, and job interviews.
Comments
Post a Comment