Suggestions
Christopher Brower
Helping companies manage their own contract workforces.
Christopher Brower is an accomplished professional with a strong background in marketing, revenue generation, and career coaching
He studied at Ohio University, where he honed his skills and knowledge in his field
Christopher Brower has held various key positions in reputable organizations, showcasing his expertise and leadership abilities
He co-founded and served as the President and Chief Revenue Officer at HireArt, demonstrating his entrepreneurial spirit and strategic acumen
Prior to that, he contributed his marketing skills as a Director of Marketing at HumanEdge and The Execu|Search Group
Christopher Brower also dedicated his time as a Volunteer Career Coach at The New York Public Library, highlighting his commitment to helping others in their career development
His professional journey includes a role as a Research Associate at Access Confidential, where he contributed valuable insights in research projects
With a versatile skill set and a passion for career development and marketing, Christopher Brower continues to make a positive impact in the professional world
Highlights
Going to be in Dallas with Graham Nelson, Martijn Bouwman, Tami LaSance, and Nick Sedlet.
Interested in talking about basically anything but the contingent workforce space? Please stop by our booth.
Insist on talking about the contingent workforce space? You can also stop by our booth, and we'll have interesting things to say, but be ~7% less enthusiastic about it.
Has anybody ever read the Frank Schmidt/John Hunter University of Iowa study looking at 85 years of personnel selection data and assessing the predictive validity of different assessment methodologies?
It was pretty influential early on at HireArt and framed a lot of how we thought about what it means to fairly assess job seekers. A lot of HireArt's earliest tech was assessment tech -- largely focused on utilizing work samples and structured interviews/scoring rubrics to assess job seekers. We still use that methodology heavily internally, though obviously our product's scope has changed in pretty massive ways since.
The data's interesting. I'll link to it in the comments and you should read the study and not rely on my analysis, but what stands out to me is how little value things like education and job experience have in predicting on-the-job success. And how, instead, structured interviews, work samples, and cognitive ability, perform much, much better.
I've been thinking a lot about candidate assessment lately, given how many companies are now touting AI as playing a key role in the process. There's been a lot of new regulation about AI during the pre-hire selection process (https://lnkd.in/ehujym6e), but it won't keep up, and it's clear this is going to be an area where our industry tries to deploy AI aggressively.
Already, ATSs, VMSs, Direct Sourcing Platforms, and the like are touting AI for candidate matching, and I get sales emails from companies that have built AI chatbots and call agents to assess job seekers daily now.
Most of these emails seem to focus on time savings and express their value in terms of efficiency and making it easy to narrow 500 applicants down to 1 hire. But it raises alarm bells for me how few of those sales emails ever seem to say anything about their assessment methodology.
I think AI has the potential to solve this problem. But those tools have to be built around an assessment methodology that's valid, fair, and transparent -- and that doesn't lost site of the basic humanity of the people submitting resumes.
In our industry, we have a responsibility to take candidate assessment very seriously. Online hiring is already chaotic and dehumanizing. It'll be very interesting to see how AI impacts that in years to come. I think it has the potential to solve big industry problems, but if we're not careful, it'll just perpetuate problems that are endemic in our industry, instead.
