Robo-HR: An Idiot's Guide to Hiring and Firing

I suppose with the incessant drive to introduce ever more smart technology to simplify our lives, it was only a matter of time companies began using machine learning to do the messy work of HR.  A slew of innovative tech solutions like Doxa, Gild and Textio are promising to do a better, more objective job of making hiring decisions by making sense of mountains of data (including data mined off the internet).  What's best is the promise of making sure that now only will the new hire be a better fit in terms of values, beliefs and work ethics, s/he will also be hired free from bias (e.g. gender, race, sexuality, socio-economic background, old girl/boy networks, etc).  That's where the debate lies.

Most comments I've come across don't seem too optimistic though.  Not because they don't support the eradication of bias, but because they don't trust computers to make such a complex judgment which most people feel comes down to one's gut feel.  They might well also be right that computer algorithms could encode the bias of the coder, and if that were so, machine learning can hardly be trusted to make an accurate and objective choice.

But I think that counterargument seems to miss the point.  Whether the proposed solution can accurately predict or make a good decision is one thing. But that's different from whether it'll be good to have such a solution in the first place, especially if eventually, we can make it work.  And to add to that, I also hope that companies can be a little more explicit about the way they design the algorithm so that at least there can be public accountability and reassurance that HR decisions aren't purely based on old boys networks, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.  

Of course, people of certain social variables tend to have shared values and beliefs.  But I think the values and beliefs, and how they fit the organisation should be prioritised, not factors beyond their control.  And I also think governments and NGOs should publicly acknowledge and reward companies that do.  No one's going to do that on their own - yes, I know companies love to say how much they believe in diversity and how diversity makes economic sense but really, who knows?  At the end of the day, it's about dollars and cents.  Which sensible businessman would invest so much money into diversity for its own sake, without solid proof that it leads to greater profits?  If these tech solutions can prove that hiring decisions were free from traditional bias, and if governments/NGOs can back their use, may be this could work!

Don't make gifted kids an easy scapegoat for inequality

WE NEED to view gifted children with more compassion ("Gifted tests: Ensure we don't create elitist mindset" by Mr Jeffrey Law Lee Beng, and "Risky to gauge potential based purely on IQ" by Mr George Lim Heng Chye; both published yesterday).

Some argue that there should be a more holistic view on giftedness, that is, one that includes social indicators like adversity and emotional quotients, as opposed to limited measures like IQ scores.

But schools already make values-driven education, focused on developing children holistically, a priority; it is infused throughout the curriculum.

Others say tests for giftedness will lead to "a generation of intellectual snobs". But doing away with the notion of giftedness will not magically lead to a more compassionate and egalitarian Singapore society.

The socio-economic stratification of Singapore stems from a complex interplay of cultural, economic and historical factors, which gifted children have little control over and which all Singaporeans are complicit in.

Society will always find inventive ways to distinguish between groups of people, with or without the notion of giftedness.

Let us not make gifted children a convenient scapegoat for inequality in society.

The responsible thing to do is to recognise that each child has something different to offer, and to bring out the best in every child's strengths.

Gifted children have gone on to contribute much to society, whether in public service or civil society.

Failure to give the diversity of gifted children the space to grow contributes to even greater socio-economic inequality in Singapore.

We will be, on the whole, worse off if we do not celebrate excellence (not elitism) as a desirable outcome of education.

What we should stigmatise are views that make a convenient scapegoat out of gifted children and make their growing-up experience that much more difficult.

Published in the Straits Times on 20 June 2015

What is the colour of prejudice?

I've been trying to wrap my mind around why I felt disturbed by this but I'm not quite sure.  Read the NY Times article for a little more background on the issue.  But anyway here goes: Rachel Dolezal, a white, blonde-hair blue eyed woman, is exposed for falsely passing off as a black/biracial woman.  To add fuel to fire, she's got a career in social activism for coloured folk, being the president of the NAACP for her local chapter.

Is race but a performance?

The public is out raged but for a whole variety of reasons. 

Some are angry because they saw what she did as a misappropriation of identity by a dominant group (i.e. the whites) where it is to their advantage, in the way say white rappers approach hip hop and rap music.  But of course, she's actually the president of her local chapter for an organisation fighting for the advancement of coloured people - so I'm not sure where the real racial domination is.  Isn't she fighting for coloured people - does the fact that she's white disqualify her from doing so?  Is it a regression the fact that we're outraged a white person becomes the president of an organisation?  And if you say only a black person can be the president - is that a progression or regression of civil rights for coloured folk?

Others are angry because she deceived the public as to her racial heritage when she clearly knew otherwise.  No one's stopping her for being the social activist that she is as a white person.  Plus she intentionally deceived the public and has hitherto been unapologetic until the media shove evidence to the contrary in her face.  Now I think people are right to be outraged.  But then, the extent to which they are outraged seemed to suggest that race matters more than it should.  Would you be similarly outraged if a transgender woman (e.g. caitlyn jenner)  tried to pass off as a woman and ran for the presidentship of a women's rights organization but was caught for it?   What if say the president of AWARE in Singapore were exposed as a man?  

Gender as a performance

I certainly wouldn't condone her act.  She intentionally deceived, and plausibly, for benefits she otherwise wouldn't have received -the media attention and career in activism.  But then, perhaps part of the public anger I think also stems from people's personal anger with themselves - that fundamentally, race (unfortunately) still seems to matter even among professed liberals.