Thanks for this thoughtful post. My first reaction is that employers would not want to make public commitments on what they will not monitor, in case they realize additional data would be useful in the future. It seems initially alarming that employers would want to further encroach on their workforce’s privacy. But over the past decade, people have become more comfortable sharing personal information and so it seems reasonable for employers to start analyzing more workforce data as their employees become less protective of their data.
One anecdote: I used to be very protective of my cell phone number. When I got my first cell, it was unfathomable to me that I would share my number with any stranger, never mind all the websites that have my number now.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Stéphane! I could relate to your story of managers asking for any data point that supports their hypothesis and I definitely want to be asking myself more frequently how easy it would be to find data that supports the opposite side. In the end, it takes humility to admit that our hypothesis (and the beautiful narrative crafted around it) could be wrong. As soon-to-be-managers, it’s exciting that we will have more power to ask the team to take a step back and consider whether our approach to data analysis is biased.
It never crossed my mind that people analytics could be used in k-pop or the music industry in general. I’m so glad that you shared this article!
The output you mentioned (success of music released) suggests that the purpose of creating music is to sell and win awards. That probably is the true goal of record labels like Big Hit Music, but I wonder if that’s the goal of the people who create art. As a non-musician, my best guess is that singers would want their songs to provoke thought and emotion among their audience. If they wanted to test that, they could test a songs on a group of participants and use emotion recognition technology to assess how much emotion the song inspired among the participants.