My Thought behind HR Evaluation
My passion is to bring Asian talent base at the level of global impact, and I also believe that it stems from individuals. I’m a fundamentalist who believes in the market mechanism; hence I think that personal strength at global impacts mostly comes from market values.
See the post below describing my root motivation :
https://medium.com/@hajime_hotta/global-ai-industry-fusion-ef5552dc766a
That is my only motivation to design the whole HR evaluation as well. The corporate value must be something that reflects the core foundation of market value. The evaluation of corporate value must measure the market value as well. The difficulty, though, is that there are so many people doing good in different ways. Someone can write software 10x faster than others. Someone can write documents much quicker than others. Computer science professors of top-tier universities may not be able to implement any software. How can we compare? If we stuck with “how” discussion, it’s often a good strategy to come back to fundamental questions,
“what determines the market value?”
A formula of market value
Here’s my formula.
This formula is not very accurate, yet it reflects many truths. For example, pens are something that made me significantly smart. Pens contributed my intelligence a lot, and without pens, I could not even enter the university. Even my $20k car did not bring as many things as pens do. However, the value of a single pen to me is $1 because I can easily find alternatives. That means, the factor of the real contribution may matter, but the uniqueness, or irreplaceability, matters even more significantly.
Based on this formula, there’re two strategies to bring up the market value;
(1) aim at the high demands or
(2) aim at unique positions.
Intuitively people want to take 1st strategy, but it’s undeniable that the 2nd strategy should be much more achievable and powerful because most of the high demands have a high volume of talents as well. If the demand for AI engineers are 100k while the population of qualified AI engineers is only 25k in the world, then the market price is 4. If the demand for AI-focused venture investors are only 500 while the supply is only 10, the market value is 50. I feel like consequently, the income is almost proportional to this number, so again, the uniqueness brings us much more market value.
Then the next question could be: how to evaluate the unique value? Sure, I have another formula.
Being different from others is always a source of value. The difference can be anything. The way of thinking could be different. The vision of technology. The methodology of operations. Presentation skills. Communication skills. Leadership. The speed of prototyping. Emotional understanding of others. Anything can be the difference. We must be an organization where those specialties are well respected, rather than having stereotyped technical skill evaluations like school exams.
However, the difference requires “the level of influence” to finally make sense in the world. I define the influence here as the change of decision of someone. There’re no real things as the authority. People can change their minds only in case they feel convinced. People can only be confident about decision making if they feel convinced. There are plenty of things that only you may know. This algorithm would work better. This comparison would be better. This company operation would be better. Those “difference of angles” are all USELESS unless influencing to others to finally follow the idea.
Conclusion
Training to push up the level of influence would be the key to grow.
