????對于一家初創(chuàng)公司的創(chuàng)始人史蒂夫?古德曼來說，一切似乎看起來都很順利，只有一個重大的細節(jié)不是這樣。

????即便是在經(jīng)濟衰退期間，美國的失業(yè)率高達兩位數(shù)，但古德曼的公司還是找不到既能勝任公司工作、又符合公司企業(yè)文化的電腦程序員。

????所說他說：“要想尋找、招聘到最好的人員好比大海撈針。”

????因此，古德曼決定創(chuàng)辦一家名叫Bright的公司。包括Bright在內(nèi)的幾家初創(chuàng)公司依靠強大的電腦技術以及互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上的數(shù)十億份簡歷信息來構建一種“獵頭算法”，他們相信這種算法會使企業(yè)的人才招聘變得更有效率，而且更節(jié)省成本，同時實現(xiàn)求職者和招聘方的雙贏。

????互聯(lián)網(wǎng)起初的確使找工作變得輕松了不少。只需輕輕點擊幾次鼠標，求職者就可以同時申請十幾個職位，企業(yè)的招聘通知也能同時被好幾千人看到。有些大公司收到的簡歷數(shù)量甚至增長了五倍之多。

????不過網(wǎng)絡求職很快露出了令人失望的一面。首先是許多求職者在發(fā)出不少簡歷后沒有收到任何反饋，因此變得意志消沉。同時招聘方也被淹沒在簡歷的汪洋大海里，只能根據(jù)一些表面的甚至不可靠的信息來篩選求職者——比如根據(jù)求職者的畢業(yè)院校來進行選擇。

????大約在兩年前，古德曼創(chuàng)立了Bright公司，并且收集了數(shù)百萬份簡歷和工作描述，創(chuàng)建了一個叫做Bright Score的招聘系統(tǒng)。古德曼稱，系統(tǒng)的算法具有不斷學習的能力，因此它可以告訴用人單位，對于某一個特定的工作來說，什么樣的求職者才是最適合的。

????古德曼表示：“一個招聘者現(xiàn)在只需要讀50份簡歷，因為我們替他們篩選過了。同時它也會告訴求職者，這份工作是否適合自己。如果不適合的話，它也會告訴你為什么。”

????賓西法尼亞大學沃頓商學院（Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania）的管理學教授彼得?卡培里卻對這項新技術持懷疑態(tài)度。他認為：“技術本身不是問題，問題是有些公司自己都不知道自己想要的是什么。”

????有些東西就連招聘經(jīng)理也不能用語言來表達出來，要想量化這種無形素質(zhì)，幾乎是不可能的。同時卡培里也表示，即便真的可以做到這一點，用軟件來取代真人招聘也是目光短淺的表現(xiàn)。經(jīng)濟困難時期，向招聘者身上投入大量資金很難說得通，但是說到底，最適合招聘和評價頂級人才的，仍然是真人，而不是電腦。

????另一家招聘網(wǎng)站Path.to的創(chuàng)始人達倫?龐茲表示，他的公司以及一些類似的公司并不打算取代真人招聘，他們只是想讓招聘經(jīng)理們的工作變得更輕松、更有效率。

????龐茲把Path.to比作“招聘的‘相親網(wǎng)’”，他說：“我們并不是想直接促成‘婚姻’，我們只是想把用戶介紹給我們認為能跟他們能‘來電’的人。”

????Path.to也利用評分系統(tǒng)來替招聘人員篩選人才。不過它非常關注用人公司的企業(yè)文化，因為它希望除了任職資格之外，求職者在別的方面也能更符合招聘方的要求。

????Path.to的理念是，他們可以為企業(yè)節(jié)省招聘成本和招聘時間，使招聘人員可以把更多的時間花在最有潛力的求職者身上。雖然Path.to的合作伙伴主要是中小型企業(yè)，但它的客戶也包括了在線影碟租賃公司Netflix和福克斯新聞（Fox News）等知名企業(yè)。

????這些新興的招聘公司指出，許多企業(yè)一開始對求職者進行首輪篩選時，招聘人員采用的衡量信息的方法往往是不恰當?shù)摹?/p>

????Gild是繼Bright和Path.to之后另一家主要的新型招聘公司，它采用了奧克蘭運動家隊（Oakland Athletics，是一支主場位于加州奧克蘭的美國職棒大聯(lián)盟球隊——譯注）的經(jīng)理比利?賓用來給球隊選秀的方法篩選求職者。

????Everything seemed to be going right for startup founder Steve Goodman, except for one major detail.

????Even during a recession where the unemployment rate flirted with double digits, he could not find computer programmers that were both qualified and would fit into his tech startup's culture.

????"Sourcing and recruiting the best people is finding the needle in the haystack," he says.

????So Goodman decided to start Bright, one of several new companies that rely on powerful computing and the billions of pieces of job data available on the Internet to create algorithms that they believe make the job hunt more efficient, inexpensive, and successful for both the jobseeker and the recruiter.

????The Internet initially seemed to make job hunting easier. With a few clicks, someone looking for work could apply for a dozen positions, and employers' job postings could reach thousands of eyes. Some large companies saw the number of resumes they received increase five-fold.

????But this democratization of job searching soon proved false. Those looking for openings often grow discouraged when they send out several resumes and receive no feedback. Recruiters are inundated with resumes and are forced to weed out candidates based on superficial and unreliable information such as what college someone graduated from.

????Almost two years ago, Goodman started Bright and gathered millions of resumes and job descriptions to create a system that develops a Bright Score, which tells recruiters what kind of fit a person would be for a specific job based on algorithms that are constantly learning as they devour more data, he says.

????"A recruiter now only has to look at 50 resumes because we cut it down for them," he says. "It also tells job seekers whether they are a good fit, and if not, why."

????Peter Cappelli, the George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, is skeptical of this new technology, though. "The technology is not the problem," he says. "The problem is companies that don't know what they want."

????Trying to quantify intangibles that not even the hiring manager can put into words is impossible, Cappelli says, and even if it were, replacing human recruiters with software is shortsighted. The financial investment in recruiters can be hard to justify in tight economic times, but humans, not computers, are best suited to recruit and judge top talent, he says.

????Darren Bounds, the founder of another new job site, Path.to, says that his business and others like it are not trying to replace human recruiters. They are just trying to make their jobs easier and more efficient.

????Billing Path.to as "eHarmony for hiring," Bounds says, "We don't want to follow the relationship through to marriage. We really want to introduce you to someone we feel you have a strong bond with."

????Path.to also uses a score to weed out candidates for recruiters. It focuses heavily on company culture in an attempt to match up candidates that will be a good fit beyond their qualifications.

????The idea is that the cost and time saved for companies will allow recruiters to spend more time with the candidates that have the most potential. Although Path.to works mostly with small- to mid-sized companies, Netflix (NFLX) and Fox News are also among its current customers.

????One of the problems, these new job search companies argue, is that during the initial perfunctory weeding out of candidates, recruiters are weighing information improperly.

????In the same way Oakland A's manager Billy Bean reexamined which statistics make a good ball team, Gild, a third major player in the race for improved job search, is exploring what makes a successful hire.