One thing that I've noticed about ethical or socially responsible investment firms is that they have a very specific list of ethical concerns that they offer to help investors use to make investment decisions (maybe the most commonly-expressed ones, maybe ones that are most similar to the founders' concerns, and maybe the ones that are easiest to measure). But of course there are lots of things that people feel passionate about, and some of them are more obscure and not the subject of major current divestment campaigns, and some of them are opposite of each other!
For example, some people find it very important not to invest in nuclear energy (often because of the risks of radioactive waste, among others), while other people find it very important to invest in nuclear energy (often because of the lack of greenhouse gas emissions) -- especially given the alternative of, say, hydroelectric power. Some people find it very important to divest from Israel, and other people find it very important to invest in Israel. Some people want to invest in developing countries, and other people want to promote employment in their home country. People might strongly disagree about which of {porn, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana} they don't want to invest in.
So, this hiring-oriented service has a similar set of challenges -- although it's easy to argue in both cases that the default is having would-be investors or employees be totally in the dark about every dimension, so it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
To give a "niche" example, two of my own traditional concerns are animal rights and free software, both of which could be relevant to investment and employment but both of which can be seen as obscure or marginal concerns in particular settings. But it's easy for me to notice that "promotes software freedom" isn't on the values list here, even though it's perhaps pretty relevant to technology jobs (maybe too few prospective employees or too few prospective employers have mentioned it?).
I was actually talking to someone a few years ago about the question of whether one could make a hyper-specific ethical investing firm that really gave people lots of fine-grained choices, and not just, say "environmental-friendly" (according to one single organization's criteria) or "good labor conditions" (again according to one single organization's criteria) or "not invested in vices" (is there a pattern here?). It might be courting far greater controversy to do that for employment and workplace culture, but it's easy to see that there are lots more details and more attitudes than are yet represented here. And also there's the straightforward question of who has assessed these things and whether different current and prospective employees employees would all agree.
Anyway, I don't mean to be super-negative here. It's a very interesting attempt at a very thorny, complex problem.
My name is Lynne and I built Key Values. I wasn't the one who posted my website to HN but I do love discussing it! :D
I don't think you're being overly negative at all. Here are my thoughts:
1. Missing values? The values list will certainly evolve over time. I started working on Key Values in May and this is the curated list of value tags that I put together after interviewing dozens of engineers and drawing from my own personal values. "Promotes Software Freedom" is an incredibly interesting one and who knows, you might see it on there some day ;) I am sure that I've missed several important values (and that I'll need to remove some of the ones I currently have on there).
2. Who assessed these things? I worked with CEOs, CTOs, engineering managers, engineers, and in some cases, technical recruiters to put together their engineering team's profile. They have 100% control over the content of their profile. The issue of accuracy was one that troubled me a lot in the beginning, but at the end of the day, who can trust anything on the internet? And really, when I'm in an interview and ask my interviewer these exact questions (ie. "how do you practice inclusion here?"), who's to say that s/he is telling the truth?
I can't force teams to write anything in their profile but my hope is that limiting teams to 8 values forces them to (a) be thoughtful in describing their culture and (b) implicitly say what they are not. After choosing and ranking their 8 values, teams then have to prove it. If they can't talk at length about why they chose a particular value, they end up re-evaluating and choosing another. Finally, I care about the quality of their profiles (they're on my website!) so I work really hard to get thoughtful, detailed explanations from teams before publishing their profile. If you read some of them, I hope you'll agree that I've done a pretty good job (they list examples, link to individual team members, and provide details about their paid family leave policies, deployment processes, and/or regularly scheduled meetings).
3. Complex problem? Yeah, but so is dating. There are hundreds of dating apps out there (maybe more?!) and finding a job really just like dating, yet there is nothing similar for job-seekers and employers. Just like dating, you don't have time to meet every available employer out there. Just like dating, you can learn a lot about a team based on how they rank their top 8 values from a list of ~40. Just like dating, reading explanations to somewhat tricky questions can illuminate things that resonate (or repel) you.
Anyway, sorry this was a novel! Thanks for your thoughts on the matter and let me know if you have other questions/comments/feedback!
For example, some people find it very important not to invest in nuclear energy (often because of the risks of radioactive waste, among others), while other people find it very important to invest in nuclear energy (often because of the lack of greenhouse gas emissions) -- especially given the alternative of, say, hydroelectric power. Some people find it very important to divest from Israel, and other people find it very important to invest in Israel. Some people want to invest in developing countries, and other people want to promote employment in their home country. People might strongly disagree about which of {porn, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana} they don't want to invest in.
So, this hiring-oriented service has a similar set of challenges -- although it's easy to argue in both cases that the default is having would-be investors or employees be totally in the dark about every dimension, so it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
To give a "niche" example, two of my own traditional concerns are animal rights and free software, both of which could be relevant to investment and employment but both of which can be seen as obscure or marginal concerns in particular settings. But it's easy for me to notice that "promotes software freedom" isn't on the values list here, even though it's perhaps pretty relevant to technology jobs (maybe too few prospective employees or too few prospective employers have mentioned it?).
I was actually talking to someone a few years ago about the question of whether one could make a hyper-specific ethical investing firm that really gave people lots of fine-grained choices, and not just, say "environmental-friendly" (according to one single organization's criteria) or "good labor conditions" (again according to one single organization's criteria) or "not invested in vices" (is there a pattern here?). It might be courting far greater controversy to do that for employment and workplace culture, but it's easy to see that there are lots more details and more attitudes than are yet represented here. And also there's the straightforward question of who has assessed these things and whether different current and prospective employees employees would all agree.
Anyway, I don't mean to be super-negative here. It's a very interesting attempt at a very thorny, complex problem.