13 Comments

Summary:

By now if you haven’t heard of Klout and in a moment of vanity checked your own Klout score, you’re in the online minority. Regardless of your opinion of the service, we’re heading into a world of Klout — whether we like it or not.

Hiding

HidingBy now if you haven’t heard of Klout and in a moment of vanity checked your own Klout score, you’re in the online minority. Klout engenders a lot of debate about its algorithms and relevance, but regardless of opinion, the undercurrent of the conversation is that we’re heading into a world of Klout whether we like it or not.

More broadly, we’re heading into a world of unprecedented measurability. Historically, great advances in society have been directly correlated to progress in two things: computational capability and measurement. Take for example the early age of American discovery. Until the invention of the astrolabe (a rough but effective instrument to calculate latitude and longitude) – and thus the increased accuracy of maps — marine exploration was limited to a few hundred miles off any coastline. With the ability to quickly measure location, explorers ventured progressively further away from the coast. Eventually, they ran into the Caribbean (which they first thought was China – we’ll give them a pass on that). The science of exploration and the ensuing discovery of the new world accelerated at an exponential pace after that.

As more of our daily activities move online, our ability to measure these activities is increasing. Klout is a leading indicator of this capability; a first glimpse into the ability to measure someone’s online influence. Once we have measurement, we can determine score, and then we can rank. Foursquare is a similar form of measurement – how loyal are you to a business. It simply measures your visits, scores your participation and ranks you against other customers.

Crowdsourcing marketplaces are taking measurability to the next frontier: work activity. In the same way that Klout has quantified Influence, crowdsourcing markets are quantifying expertise. Crowdsourcing companies are now quantifying the quality of software testing, paid search expertise and graphic design. No longer does the subjective and anecdotal reign; we actually have the data.

Much like Klout, the algorithms, complexity and understanding required to move from qualitative to quantitative assessment are in their infancy. There will be many permutations for both technical and emotional reasons. Expertise is a complex subject and in many cases it’s contextual. Who is more influential on Twitter: Robert Scoble or Ashton Kutcher? The answer is it depends on the context. The same applies to work expertise. A phenomenal back-end software tester might not be as good at UI testing.

What we do know is that once a solid foundation is laid, a wellspring of activity emerges around measurement. Take a common consumer example – getting a $5,000 line of credit on a credit card from a bank you’ve never done business with before. This is only possible now because of the standardization of credit-worthiness that came from the invention of the FICO score. This measurement allows you to receive credit card offers without having to engage directly with the bank. Once we derive benefits from such measurement, we then care to learn how to positively affect our scores (we’re all much more aware of our credit score activity now than we were 20 years ago). Systematic ratings drive an ecosystem of value.

As crowdsourcing models emerge for any form of expert labor that can be discretized and paid for based on performance and unit pricing, reputation scores will necessarily emerge with them. If you’re not participating with these scoring systems now, you’ll likely be left behind when they become critical to getting a job. During the hiring process, many social media managers now look at applicants’ Klout scores as a proxy for their true social media skills. Many engineering managers are starting to ask for TopCoder ratings or StackOverflow scores as well. In 5 years, the same will be true for most expert-based work.

Another change indicator is LinkedIn’s move to add skill-assessments to their profile pages. While still a first version and surely something they will evolve, freelancer markets such as eLance have been doing this for numerous years. Not to mention the ubiquitous eBay seller rating which is basically a customer service reputation system. The problem until now has been that these system have been based primarily on subjective human-based rankings. With crowdsourcing markets, there is an underpinning of data that drives these reputation and expertise scores. Just like Klout sees your social presence, crowdsourcing markets see the results of your work. As LinkedIn’s features progress, they will likely start to integrate these scores into your resume and profile. No longer will your resume be your own version of your work history; it will also include a data-driven third party’s assessment.

To go even further, these metrics of expert reputation are creeping into traditional businesses as well. Marc Benioff of Salesforce has all but publicly declared the company’s Chatter product is taking them in this direction. Through Chatter, Salesforce will start to derive both a reputation system and a compensation system for participants. The good news is that work-based game mechanics are emerging at the same time. Game mechanics will help us keep on the rails and remind us what’s important (to our employer or labor market). If designed correctly, they won’t be as much about the game as a reminder of behaviors that drive success. Even Klout employs game mechanics now with its badge system.

The next 20 years of work activity will see an incredible change in how we are measured. If you’re not thinking about your expert reputation and how to build it, it’s probably time to do so. The next time you look for a job, don’t be surprised if someone asks you for your score.

Niel Robertson is a three-time entrepreneur and CEO of Trada Paid Search, a crowdsourced paid search marketplace. In October of 2010, Niel introduced The Crowdsortium, a crowdsourcing industry group. You can find Niel on Twitter at @nielr1.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

Image courtesy of Flickr user jonny2love.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. We’re always talking about desired behaviour for _companies_, and what value such organisations can get out of influencing the actions of their employees. We overlook the value for customers, and the value for employees. Decisions about what is desired are still desired by management, those “in the know”, but we are increasingly confronted with the inadequacies of management trained to execute Taylor-influenced methods suitable for the predictable and manageable world of fifty years ago.

    There is a great risk of rewarding behaviours through reputation management that will not lead to desired outcomes because it will always be trying to measure something that was important months ago, but is not now, nor will it be in the future. Customer desired outcomes rather than company desired outcomes will determine the viability and sustainability of businesses, and employee behaviour that will to meet customer needs rather than management needs for tracability and vanity stats will be key.

    Reputation management will not be the salvation, and will likely pose additional issues such as increased visbility on the market for employees to take their skills elsewhere. Thinking that reputation scoring will be another coercive tool to motivate employees is fOll’s Gold. Those that are motivated will work hard to up their score – and then take their business elsewhere.

  2. While there’s value in this new era of online measurability, it will also engender a lot of foolishness. The problem is that these are really noisy, and often easily gamed, signals of reputation. StackOverflow ratings are a better indicator of how much you like to answer questions online than of true coding ability. LinkedIn skill ratings measure how many keywords you like to stick in your profile more than actual skills. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s not necessarily truly informative.

    Now if you really want a nightmare scenario, imagine today’s world of SEO practices applied to online reputation. Do we really want people putting out Mechanical Turk contracts to retweet their pontifications? The Twitter stream can be bad enough as it is! That’s the problem with any reward system based on online activity. Once there’s an incentive to maximize a certain metric, people will hit the reward lever obsessively regardless of whether it’s a net positive for the system.

  3. when internet access increasing someone will make it like a bomb. Oh… come one, let’s talk about security. What happen when we never talk about security

  4. Michelle Greer Monday, February 21, 2011

    Comparing one’s Klout score to their credit score is a bit much. We still have a long way to go in this field.

    The thing no one has tackled in the social media space is my level of expertise about “subject XYZ”. Brian Solis has a Klout score of 86. @shoeblogger has a Klout score of 40. As someone who would market, say, Jimmy Choo shoes, one of these people is much more powerful to me than the other because his audience is targeted. If I can’t find those people, online influence measurements are not as useful as they are being touted.

    That being said, we do have to start somewhere and I think the space will heat up very soon and very quickly.

  5. Niel,

    Thanks for the write up I really enjoyed the perspective you set up here.

    I used to think Klout was an amusing and perhaps worthwhile evolution of the social web. But lately I’ve seen this plutonic, top-down measure of influence fail to deliver when implemented in the real world to track and reward social media success.

    Humans don’t deal with ambiguety very well and with the rush of all these new social media tools marketers, business owners and consultants look to latch onto any tangible definitive signal to direct their activity.

    Unfortunately often these signals turn out to be noise as business objectives and outcomes take a backseat to Klout scores and Facebook Fans. The average person would rather use a shallow signal than take the time to deal with the true complexity and ambiguity of the social web.

  6. Nowhere to Hide: Assessing Your Work Reputation Online: Tech News and Analysis « | Lots Of Thoughts. That I Want to Share. Monday, February 21, 2011

    [...] Nowhere to Hide: Assessing Your Work Reputation Online: Tech News and Analysis «. You can not electronically assess anyone’s true work productivity online. Someone who has exceptional leadership or interpersonal skills can never ever be judged by a machine. That is by a computer’s processing Modus Locus of otherwise. The fact of the matter is people do change by the people they surround themselves with. If they are around terrible ineffective negative people then that is the standard that is set. You stay long enough with that team you see those actions as acceptable and it damages your Ethos. Making it your Pathos. [...]

  7. Funny, I never heard of Klout before I saw this article. Minority? Hardly. I would suspect the vast majority of people have never looked at it, because they don’t live in the So-Cal echo chamber.

    1. You’re not alone. It’s Wikipedia page was created in October 2010 and has only had 5 human edits.

  8. What’s a Blogger? What’s a Developer? What are YOU, Online? — Global Nerdy Monday, February 21, 2011

    [...] the recent GigaOm article Nowhere to Hide: Assessing Your Work Reputation Online, Niel Robertson writes that with all the data about ourselves online, coupled with ubiquitous [...]

  9. As someone who does not have and likely never will have a Twitter account, who cares.

    After all, never in the history of the world has so much been said by so many people that meant so little.

  10. the system will be gamed, just like any other HR system … the question to pose is what is the correlation between their “klout” score and real world performance

    i think most people here have seen that just because you can brown nose the boss into getting a good performance review, doesnt mean you are actually good …. or in the modern sense, “experts” write blogs and posts without true expertise

    im sure all those wonderful nokia, microsoft, sony and yahoo managers had “great” reputations and performance reviews before dumping their respective companies into the toilet

    as they say in the mutual fund industry … past performance is no guarantee of future performance …

    if you believe that, ive got some pets.com shares to sell you ;)

Comments have been disabled for this post