Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

6Sense Matching Launched for Applicant Ranking

by
John Zappe
Jun 28, 2010, 4:33 pm ET

Monster unveiled an applicant matching feature today at SHRM that leverages the 6Sense Semantic Search it introduced last fall. The new feature matches applicants to jobs, producing a ranked order list that includes a side-by-side comparison of the top matches.

Last fall, the company introduced 6Sense for resume searching in a product it branded Power Resume Search. Not long after, it launched Job Search, enabling job seekers to search for jobs using 6Sense.

Don’t confuse a 6Sense match to the traditional keyword match. Old school keyword matching does little more than search for certain keywords and rank the results on frequency and sometimes proximity. More sophisticated features allow you to take into account years of experience, and even career progression.

The 6Sense technology is more sophisticated yet. It can handle concepts. It looks for connections among skills, career progression steps, and responsibilities, and weighs the factors in aggregate. So if you are looking for a bookkeeper, 6Sense isn’t going to give you a CFO, even if bookkeeping is among the listed skills. Unless, that is, you decide otherwise.

Officially unveiled this morning, Monster Applicant Matching comes at a time when employers are being overwhelmed by applications for every position they post.

“With employment rates still recovering, employers have been overwhelmed with job seekers applying for their positions.  Our customers asked us for the ability to use our semantic search technology to help them instantly identify the best qualified applicants,” says  Darko Dejanovic, EVP, global CIO and head of product at Monster.

The company also reported that it has introduced 6Sense in Canada and the United Kingdom, it’s in beta in France, and will be launched in Australia later this year.

The technology is built out of the core of the matching software developed by Trovix. Monster acquired the startup two years ago for $64 million and then spent more than a year and millions more reworking the technology before introducing 6Sense last fall.

The company didn’t say whether or what it would charge to use Monster Applicant Matching. It does charge a premium for Power Resume Search.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  1. Richard Melrose

    Using the words “Applicant Matching” in the context of being able to “instantly identify the best qualified applicants” sounds like unwarranted hype to me.

    The new Monster offering may well perform much better than previous applications. However, unless it starts with a Job Analysis that establishes “what it takes to perform well” in each particular job and then validly measures the extent to which each applicant for that job “has what it takes”, in a way that produces permissible applicant rankings, then it cannot possibly live up to Monster’s claim.

    The “best qualified applicant” would make the best hire. The best hire would become a highly engaged top performer in the position of interest and a long-term contributor to the hiring enterprise.

    As a subject matter expert in both personnel assessments and expert system software, I can state unequivocally that Monster cannot possibly meet the “best qualified applicant” standard by starting with resumes – i.e. sales documents, roughly half of which contain material misstatements of fact. Most programmers know about “garbage in garbage out”.

    Moreover, even if all resumes were accurate, in every respect, there is little about the standard content of resumes that even a room full of computers could process to predict job performance. That’s just about like asking the miller to turn straw into gold. Did we mention instantly?

    We do have the means to pick top performers, systematically. The recipe for success is available in the U.S. Department of Labor’s 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. All the experts agree and they have for over thirty years. Moreover, properly applied, computers, the Internet and advanced psychometrics have made high-performance assessments readily accessible and, better than affordable, those assessments are now downright profitable!

    Every employer, even the EEOC, wants honest, dependable, hardworking, drug-free employees. But roughly half of all jobseekers have a problem satisfying one or more of those descriptors. If Monster Applicant Match isn’t even trying to make those important determinations, how can it claim to deliver the “best qualified applicant”.

    The same can be said for cognitive measures, behavioral measures and occupational interest measures, as proven predictors of job performance. Resumes do not provide the basis for making those determinations, either.

    I also doubt that Monster has determined whether, under the four-fifths rule, Monster Applicant Match may give rise to “adverse impact”. Remember, employers (not Monster) end up being responsible to prove the job-related validity of their selection procedures (resume screening included) in order to avoid findings of discrimination in the presence of adverse impact.

    The appeal of the Monster Applicant Match offer is that it sounds good – unfortunately, from several perspectives, too good to be true.

    Richard Melrose
    r.melrose@vision21.us

  2. Joseph Slevin

    I agree with what Richard Melrose posts above. As I mentioned in my comment about what CareerBuilder provides, there is no way that Monster can validate what it is claiming. Good that it can kick out a CFO from a bookeeping job, but again, the ‘years of experience’ creating a ‘better match’ can be problematic if candidates of age who can do the job and within salary guidelines are purposefully overlooked. In some states, overqualified may help find you in court. Class action suits are not a real good use of HR, legal or any other part of corporate time.

  3. Martin Perez

    I agree with both Joseph and Richard. At Jobsket.com, we’re a small company developing technology very similar to 6Sense Matching engine. In fact it’s been live to our customers for several months. It contains all that stuff about contextualization, language interpretation and so forth.

    We even have gone further ahead supporting cross-language matching and even estimating how much each candidate is worth (30K, 50K, etc. ).

    That money valuation is just that, an estimation of the value. It is just like our matching technology, we’re estimating that the candidates we recommend to you are the best candidates, but after all it is just a guess. Mind you that it is a far better guess than any other traditional system does as it is using more accurate technologies.

    That’s also why the main customers for our technology are HR agencies. Because it can drastically reduce the amount of work these guys are doing by removing data entry and reducing CV Screening work considerably. We’re trying to help agencies to be more efficient and to concentrate in hiring the best talent, providing them more time to keep a close communication with the candidate and the customer and spending less time downloading and screening CVs.

    But we always make the same recommendation to regular companies that approach us. Our technology will help you but you need to hire an expert. It may be an in-house expert or an external recruitment agency but you should have some people with broad experience who are able to detect all the stuff that machines can’t and that Richard mentions.

    Best,
    Martin Perez
    martin@jobsket.com

  4. Dr. Tom Janz

    Here’s what SHOULD keep Darko Dejanovic up at night. While Monster has chosen to trot out the old tired empty promise of “no effort” hiring accuracy, yet again, CareerBuilder has released Hire Insider– simple, clear, powerfull, data-driven feedback to candidates on where they stand in a given job competition.

    The question that I would like to hear Darko answer is, “Which is more accurate when it comes to predicting job performance:[A] the Monster Performance Assessment provided by DDI OR [B] the 6Sense resume devining method ?” Answer that one and then I would like to know BY HOW MUCH for which types of jobs.

    Accuracy is measured by correlating the candidate pre-hire fit score generated by whatever method is being validated with a reasonably sound measure of job performance. Monster owes it to its clients to help them choose which of it’s methods of finding “the best match” work best, and how much each costs. I am aware of no other way to make an informed, prudent, decision around which one (or both) to use.

    I applaud the clear thinking in all of the comments so far. I’m afraid that Darko et al. may be hoping that there is still a healthy supply of those people that PT Barnum declared are born every minute. Among the commenters on ERE, it appears not.

  5. Edward Powell

    I love reading comments by the dinosaurs and other crazies in our industry. I’m not disputing the importance of job analysis, the applicability of the Uniform Guidelines, or the value of cognitive/behavioral/occupational interest assessments. I laugh at DOCTOR Tom Janz “Accuracy is measured by correlating the candidate pre-hire fit score generated by whatever method is being validated with a reasonably sound measure of job performance” and Martin Perez’ tool for estimating candidate worth. However, we exist in a time and in an industrial setting where MOST candidates are being sourced and pre-screened by relatively low paid inside recruiters or “speed is of the essence” headhunters who are “filling reqs,” not filling jobs. They get little information and even less participation from hiring officials. Many don’t know (or care about!) the difference between validity or reliability and most have never heard of Marv Dunette. Also, most hiring decisions are still made on the basis of unstructured interviews (DOCTOR Janz, does that make you head hurt!)
    If someone delivers a tool that will enable my staff to find the same (or better!) candidate quicker and more efficiently, I’ll use it.

  6. Lou Adler

    Interestingly I had lunch with Dr. Tom today at SHRM in San Diego (June 30) and I called him out on this post. To automatically conclude that 6Sense isn’t effective makes 0sense unless you can prove the same claims you’re asking of Monster. Any decent recruiter can separate resumes into A-B-C categories using some level of judgment and insight with respect to the job. Perhaps Monster has captured this in their model. It would be pretty cool if they did.

    In fact, I was hoping to view Monster’s product at SHRM today to see what their matching mechanism is all what, but they closed shop early (or I arrived late). From what I saw of their earlier product this Jan they seemed to be onto something interesting. Regardless, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. In a world of rapid change, I’d suggest an open mind and a try everything philosophy is the better course of action. You just might stumble onto something that works before everyone else.

  7. Dr. Tom Janz

    Au Contraire, Mr. Powell, it spells opportunity. The opportunity to keep our clients out of the claws of the EEOC and OFCCP lawyers into whose grasp you would so blindly and gladly deliver them. The opportunity to increase the financial performance value of new hires to the tune of about 30% (over all job levels– some more, some less) of the expected life-cycle spend on their compensation. Money you would prefer to waste in the interests of ease and haste. The opportunity to replace the true dinosaurs of the industry– you and those like you who accept and profit from the tyrany of ignorance. Marv Dunnette had a great article that covers the essential value of your contribution. It was titled “Fads, Fashions, and Falderol.” Finally, Benjamin Franklin pointed out that “if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” The same can be said for uneducated hiring decisions. And I don’t mind the ‘crazy’ moniker so much. For more on that search You Tube for the Apple clip on “Think Different”.

  8. Dr. Tom Janz

    As for Lou (whose post just showed up)– you are too generous. I am reasonably confident that with your vast experience and for specific job classes on which that experience is based, you can sort of candidates based on resumes. But you are hardly typical of most recruiters.

    Over 40 studies reviewed in a meta-analysis by McDaniel, Schmit, and Hunter found that the best recruiters can do when reviewing resumes (and even when guided by clear behaviorally anchored scales that defined education and experience) was a validity of .17 or 17% of the talent pool value that would be captured by a perfect predictor. So if seasoned recruiters (in general) can’t do better than 17% in the best of conditions, what chance does an algorithm have trying to make signal out of noise? I don’t see it, but show me the unvarnished numbers and I can be easily convinced.

    So if 6sense (which Monster has been reportedly spending “millions” to improve over the Trovix tool it acquired over the past several months) HAS the validation evidence to show that it can predict job performance, then great. Let’s look it over. I am all for doing what we KNOW works. But you don’t ask the owner or the sales guy who face moral hazard to tell you that. You get one of us pointy headed IO Psychology research types with no skin in the game to confirm the value– just like they do in all those double blind medical studies that debunk the flim-flam in that arena. Evidence based decisions vs. self-serving intuition. I’ll take the former, please.

  9. Martin Perez

    Dear Edward,

    I invite you to contact me so I can explain you our value estimation algorithm myself or make you a demonstration. I personally believe that you shouldn’t laugh at a feature that has been live and publicly visible at our website for more than a year now and a feature with which thousands of people are happy with. And furthermore a feature that is optional and can be disabled by any candidate if he/she does not like those tricks or by a recruiter if he/she thinks it will not help in their recruitment environment (e.g. high management roles are way too difficult to estimate).

    We try to be very transparent. In fact our algorithm is well explained at the help pages and has been contrasted with several recruitment agencies before launching it. And I repeat, it is something that we are very sure it can be helpful to our users (ever started a job and wondering how much should you earn?) and therefore its reasoning has been made entirely public and available. If it was that bad or laughable our users have had kicked our ass months ago. But anyways, it is just an estimation and we give people the chance to ignore/hide it, but most of them don’t hide it (some of them do it!) because the truth is that it is on that +-20% we aim to.

    With regards to the other topic that is being discussed, automation. I cannot talk about Monster because I don’t know the technology or details. I’m not a marketer or a sales guy. But what I can tell you is that our customers report a 70% time reduction in their selection processes. They may be lying to us, but the truth is that they now do not have to spend most of their time doing CV screening and data entry. Previously they were downloading, screening, and handling updates on hundreds and thousands of CVs per process (yes, in Europe we are in crisis). And that’s a huge task!

    But anyways, at least at our system, independently on the algorithms and AI techniques applied, you’ve always have access to all CVs, so you still can iterate over each and every CV doing a traditional analysis if that’s what you want to do.

    Best,
    Martin Perez
    martin@jobsket.com

  10. Edward Powell

    Dear Martin:

    “our customers report a 70% time reduction in their selection processes. They may be lying to us,”

    Martin, that is a common experience. I have found that my customers lie all the time and tell me that products are so much better than they actually are!

    …. and yes, I am being facetious.

  11. Richard Melrose

    Edward, from my perspective, you accurately describe the current reality in mainstream sourcing, recruiting and hiring practices … not a pretty picture.

    Dr. Tom is right about the 30%, plus or minus. Dr. Wendell Williams recently put the range at 20-50% of payroll. There’s little doubt about it, employers are leaving big money on the table.

    We can systematically pick top performers using the same tool for job analysis, candidate assessment and job matching. The process is painless and does not require special expertise from recruiters or from hiring managers. Candidates complete the assessment in under an hour. The results have enduring value as they can be subsequently compared to any performance profile (job match pattern) for free.

    The particular assessment instrument that I recommend (Profile XT) happens to be one that Lou Adler has said he likes (http://www.ere.net/2007/11/30/10-steps-to-increase-interviewing-accuracy-into-the-90-range/). The Profile XT’s scientific (psychometric) design affords both performance and compliance advantages; and the publisher maintains very current, large-scale validity studies.

    A recruiting specialist can save a lot of time and effort by using Profile XT job matching (i.e. to top performers in the position of interest), as the basis for presenting candidates to hiring managers. It doesn’t take much for the hiring manager to buy into the process, because not only does the assessment systematically select very high quality candidates it also provides structured interview questions that help to make interviews more focused and more productive.

    The Profile XT approach can also aid sourcing by providing the information necessary to suggest “where else” to find individuals that match the performance profile in terms of cognitive, behavioral and interest dimensions. A recent Cornell University study concluded that such practices could legitimately expand talent pools up to tenfold.

    Edward, the Profile XT is just the tool to enable your “staff to find the same (or better!) candidate quicker and more efficiently”. I’d be pleased to show you how to deploy it to best advantage with your clientele.

    Richard Melrose
    r.melrose@vision21.us

  12. Mel Kleiman Csp

    Interesting discussion but all just a waste of time. It all boils down to one key factor. Anyone who make the decision on who to interview or move along in the hiring process based on a resume is making a decision based on bad data.

    Until companies are willing to get rid of resumes as the bases of who to interview and make canidates submit a more objective organized view of who they are and what they have accomplished you will always be dealing with flawed data.

    As someone said earlier garbage in garbage out.

  13. Richard Melrose

    Mel, you are right, it is the resume that should become extinct like the dinosaur. However, the only way that will happen is if something much better and much easier to work with takes over at the front-end of the hiring process.

    Edward, from my perspective, you accurately describe the current reality in mainstream sourcing, recruiting and hiring practices … not a pretty picture.

    Dr. Tom is right about the 30%, plus or minus. Dr. Wendell Williams recently put the range at 20-50% of payroll. There’s little doubt about it, employers are leaving big money on the table.

    We can systematically pick top performers using the same tool for job analysis, candidate assessment and job matching. The process is painless and does not require special expertise from recruiters or from hiring managers. Candidates complete the assessment in under an hour. The results have enduring value as they can be subsequently compared to any performance profile (job match pattern) for free.

    The particular assessment instrument that I recommend (Profile XT) happens to be one that Lou Adler has said he likes. The Profile XT’s scientific (psychometric) design affords both performance and compliance advantages; and the publisher maintains very current, large-scale validity studies.

    A recruiting specialist can save a lot of time and effort by using Profile XT job matching (i.e. to top performers in the position of interest), as the basis for presenting candidates to hiring managers. It doesn’t take much for the hiring manager to buy into the process, because not only does the assessment systematically select very high quality candidates it also provides structured interview questions that help to make interviews more focused and more productive.

    The Profile XT approach can also aid sourcing by providing the information necessary to suggest “where else” to find individuals that match the performance profile in terms of cognitive, behavioral and interest dimensions. A recent Cornell University study concluded that such practices could legitimately expand talent pools up to tenfold.

    Edward, the Profile XT is just the tool to enable your “staff to find the same (or better!) candidate quicker and more efficiently”. I’d be pleased to show you how to deploy it to best advantage with your clientele.

    Richard Melrose
    r.melrose@vision21.us

  14. Edward Powell

    Richard:

    What you describe is still searching and matching? If my profile says I live on Harvard Street, I will still show up on a “Harvard” search. Semantic or contextual search is different. This is the same technology that is used by NSA to search gazillions of messages each day to glean intelligence; it is the same technology that law firms to ensure compliance with “discovery” requests that cover a gazillion pieces of unstructured data. This is not s souped up version of Boolean search. You could conceiveable use the enrire resume of your top performer as youe search criteria. Or you could use the entire position description or entire job analysis as the search criteria. That’s why I am excited about the Monster innovation. (Plus, I have seen a demo.)

  15. Edward Powell

    Richard, let me try this again now that the two martini lunch has worn off…
    What you describe is still searching and matching? If my profile says I live on Harvard Street, I will still show up on a “Harvard” search. Semantic or contextual search is different. It determines the data searchers actual meaning through a process of word sense disambiguation, “understanding” such things as ACRONYMS, abbreviations, misspellings, etc. and mathematically determining the intent of your “Harvard” search from the context of the search string. This is the same technology that is used by NSA to search gazillions of messages each day to glean intelligence. It is the same technology that law firms use to ensure compliance with “discovery” requests that cover a gazillion pieces of unstructured data. This is not s souped-up version of Boolean “key word” search. You could conceivably use the entire resume of your top performer as your search criteria. Or you could use the entire position description or entire job analysis as the search criteria. That’s why I am excited about the Monster innovation. (Plus, I have seen a demo.)

  16. Mel Kleiman Csp

    If The resume is a flawed part of the system why is everyone refusing to get rid of the resume.

    If great canidates are not looking for jobs but are looking for careers moves than let build tools that work for the candidate and the company both. (I would suggest that companies turn the fact they don’t make decisions on who to interview based on a resume a benefit for attracting top talent)

    I also like all of the hype for test results even if they are the most valid part of the hiring process in most companies system.

    Just remember if the seed does not grow it is not always the seeds fault. Let’s look at all of the variables in the hiring process and it they don’t agree find out where the problem lies. Don’t always assume the test in infallible. model.

  17. Richard Melrose

    Edward,

    What I have described is definitely not “searching and matching” in the context that you are using.

    There is no intersection, whatsoever, between my assessment recommendation and the kind of Monster matching technology that you are “excited about”.

    Using the Profile XT is like taking an individual’s “job-related DNA” and comparing it to the job-related DNA exhibited by top performers in the position of interest. In this DNA analogy, instead of a double helix, we have reliable, valid, person-specific assessment measures. Instead of swabbing the inside of someone’s mouth we have them take an assessment. The Profile XT assessment instrument generates scores for 20 different scales that correspond to cognitive, behavioral and interest constructs chosen and refined by I/O Psych types for their individual and collective predictive validity in matching people with jobs. Each “STEN” scale score places the assessment taker along the normal distribution (bell-shaped curve) that characterizes the working population. So, we can authoritatively (statistically with confidence level) say things like “Jack’s Energy Level is lower than 84% of the working population” or “Jill’s Numerical Reasoning puts her in the top 2% of all employees” or “Bill’s decisiveness falls within the band exhibited by the identified top performers in this job” or “two out of three of Amy’s strongest occupational interests do not match the profile for this job”. The Profile XT also has the embedded capability to detect “polishing” or “faking good”.

    Understandably, different jobs take different amounts of Energy, Decisiveness and Numerical Reasoning, as well as varying amounts of all the other measured cognitive and behavioral constructs. The same goes for occupational interests – i.e. if your interests do not favor Financial/Administrative, don’t expect to perform well, over time, as a Controller, Credit Analyst or CFO.

    Bottom line: the Profile XT first creates an information-rich picture of “what it takes to perform well in a particular job” and then compares equally information-rich views of applicants to determine the extent to which they have what it takes. Those determinations include calculated overall job match percentages, as well as cognitive, behavioral and interest sub-match percentages.

    A recruiter who specializes in sales positions for pharmaceutical clients or software developers for defense contractors could work with client hiring managers to build corresponding job match patterns and then compare applicants to acknowledged top performers. The job match patterns could be proprietary to the client or, with a slightly different pattern development approach, might remain the intellectual property of the recruiter. Better information and better processes lead directly to better hiring decisions and better operational and financial results.

    Also, I am not suggesting that employers rely solely on one assessment. I would use additional assessments for other measures (e.g. integrity, reliability, work ethic and attitudes toward substance abuse), as well as structured interviews and job simulations to complete the candidate picture.

    Richard Melrose
    r.melrose@vision21.us

  18. Edward Powell

    Richard:

    How do you FIND the top candidates that you subject to your assessment regime, collar them on the street, troll the shopping mall, “post and pray?” Today, I am OVERWHELMED with applicants every time I advertise ANY job and it makes no sense to assess every one. This tool enables you to skim the cream off the top and THEN use expensive assessments like yours to locate the best qualified.

  19. Dr. Tom Janz

    Dear Edward: Now that is where us Post Modern Dinosaurs add real value.. It makes great sense to assess every eligible candidate and thus increase the Assessment Ratio FROM 5:1 (assessing only the top 4-6) TO 100 or even 200:1. It particularly makes great sense when there is no impact on cost.

    PeopleAssessments.com and others such as HireLabs and PeopleAnswers don’t charge per candidate, a practice which works against hiring the best by driving employers towards assessing only the top few. At $30-60 per HIRE (not test score or even candidate) for hourly to $150 – $400 per HIRE for technical, professional, or managerial roles, the cost per candidate can be less than $1 each. And that is for tests that have been taken by 140M candidates and validated in over 240 studies— not something sketched out on the back of a napkin by an IT guy or sales manager. And for the same price we collect past performance achievements online, and get them confirmed by credible third parties. See– dinosaurs can learn to dance!

  20. Edward Powell

    Dr. J:

    I’ll be glad to give them your name next Spring when I get another 14,420 resumes for an anticipated 450 jobs over the course of a year. Of those 14K+, over one half did not meet basic eligibility and less than half of the remainder met minimum quals. With your fingers on the pulse of hiring in 2010, do you still agree that those 11,000 candidates should go through youe assessment regime?

    Stick with small businesses and leave the hiring to us!

  21. Christine Tranthim-Fryer

    All comments are sound and provided by professionals who have obviously spent many years in Human Resources and in particular have an indepth understanding of what a science recruitment is. Also that the best recruiters have the ability to use the science and a vast amount of experience in understanding the motivations and the behaviours of applicants. Monster is a job board that makes its money from paid advertising let us not forget that. The prime aim of Monster is ever increasing profitable revenue.
    The prime aim of a recruiter is find gold amongst the rocks. That takes a great deal of human analysis a software application is never going to be able to do that. And yes I agree most of what is written in a resume is fictitious – so let’s get real and not lose sight of what we do as professionals we provide a very valuable service that is borne out of having the right qualifications and a vast amount of experience. Your doctor doesn’t use a software application to diagnose! Software is a tool and sometimes a clumsy tool at that.
    Christine Tranthim-Fryer http://www.netprofiled.com

  22. Edward Powell

    Christine…Let me summarize.
    You can’t trust search/match technology because the artifacts used are fictitious. Also we must spurn assesments because all the years of research that they use as a foundation are useless in comparison to the mainframe that the individual recruiter has between their ears!
    I’ll call you and a hundred of your colleagues next year when I get another 14,420 resumes for an anticipated 450 jobs over the course of a year. Of those 14K+, over one half do not meet basic eligibility and less than half of the remainder met minimum quals. With your fingers on the pulse of hiring in 2010, do you still agree that those 14,000 candidates should go through your full recruiter “Mainframe” treatment?

  23. Dr. Tom Janz

    OK Edward…Let’s do the math.
    So you place 450 jobs. Even with an average starting comp of $60K (I don’t know what types of jobs you cover) and an average tenure of new hires of 3 years, your decisions impact a human asset spend of (450 X 3 X $60,000) or $81M. A couple of really serious PhDs, (Wendell Williams and Wayne Cascio) happen to agree with me that the relationship between talent spend and performance savings in dollars available from scientific vs. intuitive selection is about 30%. So the math suggests that it costs your company about $24M a year to act on your viewpoint on assessments. Kinda nice to know how much impact you have— lots! Too bad it is on the loss instead of the profit side of the column.

    But then, if you are the Edward Powell employed by Monster.com in business development for government contracts, (and not the tattoo artist, the student, or the IT Director of the same name) you don’t really fill 450 jobs a year. What a relief.

    Even if only 25% of the 14.4K resumes were ‘eligible’, (and that number is low based on our experience) we would still request that all 4K of those candidates take the online assessment of potential and performance. That way, the we maximize the value of those placed on the interview list, and better prepare those who come in for shorter, deeper, more revealing interviews for which both sides are better prepared.

    And one more thing— What exactly is the difference between what makes a candidate “eligible” vs. “meet minimum quals”. Silly me– I thought those were the same thing. But I can learn.

  24. Dan Putka

    This has been an interesting back and forth. As a potential consumer of automated resume screening software, I would like to know one thing. Where can I find evidence that match scores produced by resume screening software are statistically linked to individuals’ subsequent performance on the job? The reason I ask is that such information seems to be absent from scientific literature that has been devoted to studying the merits of hiring tools for nearly a century. Despite its absence from this literature, I also realize that such evidence may exist in other, less visible outlets. Thus, if anyone can point me to evidence of this, it would be much appreciated. Thanks!

  25. GPS for Recruiters: Finding Top Talent Without Getting Lost | MonsterThinking

    [...] you want to stop searching and start matching, isn’t it time you tried something new?  Click here to find out how Power Resume Search can [...]

  26. 6Sense from Monster explained [VIDEO] | Global Recruiting Roundtable

    [...] If you are living in the USA you are probably aware of Monster new semantic search engine called 6Sense aka Power Resume Search for Recruiters or Job Search for candidates. This new way of searching [...]

  27. What Would Happen if Monster Vanished? A Speculation - ERE.net

    [...] the company has an impressive client list, continues to launch new products and services (BeKnown, 6Sense, SeeMore), and employs many bright and capable [...]

Post a comment

Please log in to post a comment.

Note: You need to sign up for an account on our new commenting system if you haven't already done so — even if you have an existing ERE account. Find out why »

Login Information