Analysis: People Who Use Firefox Or Chrome Make Better Employees

HughPickens.com writes: In the world of Big Data, everything means something. Now Joe Pinsker reports that Cornerstone OnDemand, a company that sells software that helps employers recruit and retain workers, has found after analyzing data on about 50,000 people who took its 45-minute online job assessment, that people who took the test on a non-default browser, such as Firefox or Chrome, ended up staying at their jobs about 15 percent longer than those who stuck with Safari or Internet Explorer. They also tended to perform better on the job as well. Chief Analytics Officer Michael Housman offered an explanation for the results in an interview with Freakonomics Radio: "I think that the fact that you took the time to install Firefox on your computer shows us something about you. It shows that you're someone who is an informed consumer," says Housman. "You've made an active choice to do something that wasn't default." But why would a company care about something as seemingly trivial as the browser a candidate chooses to use? "Call centers are estimated to suffer from a turnover rate of about 45 percent annually (PDF), and it can cost thousands of dollars to hire new employees," says Pinsker. "Because of that, companies are eager to find any proxy for talent and dedication that they can."

Comments

What if we use them all?

[Theovon]

I actually use all four of those browsers. I use Chrome for Google Docs, Firefox for high performance JavaScript applications and Safari for most everything else. Occasionally, I'm forced to boot Windows in a VM and use IE because of some idiots who tailored their legacy web app specifically for IE.

I've tried using just one, but each browser has or has had too many deal-breaker bugs. Actually, I used to use Firefox for everything, but there were too many problems with it, so I switched to Safari. It's improved a lot since then, but it doesn't integrate that well with Mac OS X or Google Docs, so I can't use it for everything. One reason I tend to avoid Chrome is that the developers are assholes. When I report bugs, they just argue with me and tell me I'm wrong. I actually formally studied HCI and cognitive engineering, so unlike those assholes, I know what I'm talking about.

Re:No doubt:

[FyRE666]

If you're going to try a hackneyed troll like this, kid, learn to be a little more subtle. You're like a guy running naked through a shopping mall, screaming "I'm a troll, I'm a troll! Please give me some attention! Pleeeeease!!!"

45% turnover rate IS the problem

[duckintheface]

If an industry has a 45% turnover rate, as is cited for call centers, the problem is not the "talent and dedication" of the employees. The problem is that the job is structured in such a way that it is mind numbing, repetitive, and unsatisfying to the workers. And BTW, if you really want workers who can perform under such conditions, you are NOT looking for someone who wants control over their circumstances as indicated by the selection of a non-default browser.

Re:And when the "default" is the preferred option?

[serviscope_minor]

It doesn't matter: they're looking at the marginals. Switching to a non-default almost certainly means you have some level of competence. People using the default will contain a mixture of informed and uninformed people, and about 1/3 of the density of informed people as random selection (assuming informed people are split 3 ways between firefox/chrome/default).

If you have *no* other information, you will get better employees on average if you choose the non-default browser users.

If you've got some way of assessing competence, then you're no longer looking at the marginal distribution and so browser choice provides no further information over employee competence.

Or, looking at it another way, browser use is competence+noise. You can infer competence up to the noise by looking at the browser. However if you know their competence, then all browser use tells you is useless information about the noise.