Sometimes I'll ask an owner or manager about using pre-employment assessments as part of their employee selection process and they'll say something like, we tried that and it didn't work. To be fair, sometimes assessments don't appear to make a difference. Here are some reasons why assessments may not seem to be helping you hire and retain stars as promised:
You're using the wrong assessment. A good consultant - one who is looking to sell solutions, not assessments - is going to look at the roles you are trying to fill, ask relevant questions, discuss alternative assessments that are available, and make recommendations based on your need, not just on what they offer.
Your assessment is not benchmarked. Some consultants give the assessment to your best two or three employees, then blend the results and call that a benchmark. It's really better to benchmark the job, not your people. I prefer a process where we get a group of stakeholders in a room and discuss the success factors of the job, then run a benchmarking assessment against those success factors. This gives much better results than benchmarking incumbents.
The failures of new hires have nothing to do with assessment results. People typically leave jobs in the first six months for one of three reasons - 1) Bad management. The assessment may be identifying ideal candidates, but those candidates are quitting because their supervisor is a jerk, or the company culture is negative. I haven't found an assessment yet that will predict which candidate will prefer working for a bad supervisor. 2) Poor job design. The job itself is no fun and even though we did our best to put lipstick on that pig during the interview process, once the reality of the job sets in, they choose to do something else. 3) Poor pay. There is usually a link between pay and job design. Do you really expect workers to do your job for the same wages they could do some other job that is more interesting and generally more attractive?
Should you ditch your assessment or the consideration of using an assessment? Unfortunately, the alternative is to base your hiring decisions almost 100% on interviews. Studies show that unstructured interviews are almost a waste of time - you are likely just as well off making job offers based on applications or resumes, sight unseen, than bringing people in for casual, unstructured interviews. Make the interviews more structured by using pre-selected, valid interview questions and the results are slightly better.
Step one is to understand why your workers are leaving and take appropriate action to close the back door. Step two is to add more structure to your interviewing process to increase the validity of your results. Step three is to add one or more benchmarked assessments to your selection process. Invest in these three steps and you'll find that each time you add a new hire to your company, you've upgraded your talent pool.
The Davidson Group can assist with all three of these steps - contact us for more information.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
A Common Recruiting Mistake
Perhaps you heard about the college baseball coach in Texas that notified a prospect in Colorado that he wasn't welcome. Unfortunately, we are not recruiting players from the state of Colorado. In the past, players have had trouble passing our drug test, he wrote to the high schooler.
This is an example of a very common error related to recruiting - the tendency for hiring managers to draw conclusions about an individual based on past experience with other individuals who share some common link.
In this case, the coach's failed logic is pretty easy to spot - by excluding all prospects from Colorado, he is unnecessarily limiting his prospect pool and he might possibly miss out on a future hall of famer, like Goose Gossage (from Colorado Springs) or a Cy Young Award winner, like Roy Halladay (from Arvada).
Most companies have competitors they respect and competitors they don't think as highly of. As a result, managers often have a strong bias against candidates who previously worked for one of the companies that are not as well respected. In essence, they are saying, since we perceive Company X to be a lousy company, Candidate A is probably a lousy candidate.
This is a lazy shortcut that so many managers and owners make in a variety of ways. Other examples include:
We prefer workers from a certain ethnic group rather than workers from another ethnic group. The reality is that there are hard workers as well as lazy individuals in every ethnic group.
We don't interview anyone with an aol email address. The assumption here is often that workers over 40 aren't "energetic" enough or will expect too much pay. That candidate you passed-up based on indicators they are older might be a marathon runner or yoga instructor who is highly skilled and very affordable.
We don't hire anyone with tattoos or goofy hair colors. 40% of millennials have a tattoo. Are you sure you want to automatically eliminate that much of your prospect pool based on what is likely a faulty assumption - that a large percentage of your customers will be put off by someone with visible tattoos?
Men do this job better than women (or vice versa). Statistically, men dominate certain fields and women others. Does this mean that a dentist should automatically reject a male dental hygienist candidate or a construction contractor ignore a female carpenter applicant?
Humans have a natural tendency to assign people to groups and to attribute skills and abilities based on group stereotypes. Since hiring managers are busy and want to be efficient in their interviewing and selection processes, it is tempting for them to screen people out based on these types of broad-stroke criteria.
Hiring managers will get much better results if they evaluate each candidate as an individual rather than a member of some arbitrary group first. The kid from Colorado may be a stoner, but he might also have never smoked marijuana in his life and go on to be a star player at another university. If that turns out to be true, the college in Texas missed him because they used faulty criteria to evaluate his potential.
This is an example of a very common error related to recruiting - the tendency for hiring managers to draw conclusions about an individual based on past experience with other individuals who share some common link.
In this case, the coach's failed logic is pretty easy to spot - by excluding all prospects from Colorado, he is unnecessarily limiting his prospect pool and he might possibly miss out on a future hall of famer, like Goose Gossage (from Colorado Springs) or a Cy Young Award winner, like Roy Halladay (from Arvada).
Most companies have competitors they respect and competitors they don't think as highly of. As a result, managers often have a strong bias against candidates who previously worked for one of the companies that are not as well respected. In essence, they are saying, since we perceive Company X to be a lousy company, Candidate A is probably a lousy candidate.
This is a lazy shortcut that so many managers and owners make in a variety of ways. Other examples include:
We prefer workers from a certain ethnic group rather than workers from another ethnic group. The reality is that there are hard workers as well as lazy individuals in every ethnic group.
We don't interview anyone with an aol email address. The assumption here is often that workers over 40 aren't "energetic" enough or will expect too much pay. That candidate you passed-up based on indicators they are older might be a marathon runner or yoga instructor who is highly skilled and very affordable.
We don't hire anyone with tattoos or goofy hair colors. 40% of millennials have a tattoo. Are you sure you want to automatically eliminate that much of your prospect pool based on what is likely a faulty assumption - that a large percentage of your customers will be put off by someone with visible tattoos?
Men do this job better than women (or vice versa). Statistically, men dominate certain fields and women others. Does this mean that a dentist should automatically reject a male dental hygienist candidate or a construction contractor ignore a female carpenter applicant?
Humans have a natural tendency to assign people to groups and to attribute skills and abilities based on group stereotypes. Since hiring managers are busy and want to be efficient in their interviewing and selection processes, it is tempting for them to screen people out based on these types of broad-stroke criteria.
Hiring managers will get much better results if they evaluate each candidate as an individual rather than a member of some arbitrary group first. The kid from Colorado may be a stoner, but he might also have never smoked marijuana in his life and go on to be a star player at another university. If that turns out to be true, the college in Texas missed him because they used faulty criteria to evaluate his potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)