Improving Your Good Hire Percentage

A construction company would never use a building material that has proven to be structurally sound only 40% of the time. A pest management firm would never choose a pesticide that kills its target pest only 20% of the time. No company would lease a copier that produces clear copies only 30% of the time. Yet organizations make their biggest investments, choosing whom they will invite to join their workforce, using a process that is only marginally more effective than simply choosing people at random.

Validity means a thing measures what it's supposed to measure. Scientists calibrate scales to measure standard ounces or grams so their weights are valid. Chefs calibrate their thermometers so they can measure the temperature of food with validity. But dozens of academic studies that date back to the mid-1960's have demonstrated that unstructured interviews have very low validity when it comes to employee selection. But it's still the number one method organizations use to choose between candidates. 

How can companies calibrate their employee selection process the way scientists and chefs calibrate their tools?

First, they can convert to a more structured interview process. Those same studies have demonstrated that using structured, predetermined questions specifically targeted at the critical knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to be successful in the vacant job will increase the validity of the selection.

Second, they can add a benchmarked assessment to the selection process. A behavioral or personality assessment like DISC can certainly help avoid poor hiring choices. Adding additional benchmarked assessments such as a cognitive abilities assessment (if appropriate) and/or a motivating forces assessment will increase the validity of the selection process even more.

Without a structured interview process supplemented by valid assessments, you're likely to be just as well off skipping the interview process completely and selecting your new employee randomly from a stack of resumes from candidates who have at least the minimum qualifications on paper.

To quote Golf Channel instructor Martin Hall, if you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting.

Recruiters are stealing my best people!

I hear that statement a lot. And I hear the excuses:

• My competitors are desperate and are throwing money at my employees
• Recruiters are unfairly targeting my company

The first statement is generally less true than many owners think. Of course an employee is going to say they're leaving for more money. Sometimes it's true, but often they just don't want to tell you the truth - they can't wait to get away from the management and the culture at your company.

The amount of money it takes to lure an employee away from your company is directly proportional to the level of engagement they feel toward the mission and the management of your organization. If they like their boss, believe in the product or service, enjoy their current role, believe they have a future in the company, and believe they are being treated fairly, it'll take a pretty big number to lure them away. A number that your competitors are unlikely to offer if you're compensating your people somewhere close to market rates.

But if your company culture is unhealthy, the bosses treat people poorly, expectations are unreasonable, extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are insufficient, and positive feedback is nonexistent, then you better be paying people much higher than market rates. That's going to be your only defense against those recruiters.

Speaking of recruiters, the second statement probably is true. I know quite a few industry-specific recruiters. And they know which companies are ripe for the picking. If they are leaving voicemails for your A players, they know there is a reasonable chance they'll get a return call. They don't bother to call prospects at companies with great reputations as employers. The fact that they are aggressively targeting your company is a clear symptom that your employment brand is weak. And a weak employment brand not only affects retention, it affects recruiting as well. You'll have trouble landing A players because they know what you may be unwilling to admit.

Unfortunately, some owners are hesitant to make real investments in improving management and leadership skills and other engagement initiatives. They think a cookout at the 4th of July and a holiday party in December should be enough to buy employee engagement.  But studies are clear - people join companies but quit bosses. Invest in improving how your organization manages people and who you're promoting into supervisor and management roles, and those A players will be more likely to delete that voicemail from the recruiter.