Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Thu, May 17, 2012 @ 06:00 AM
Every employer wants employees who have a positive attitude and will stay on the job so they often follow the hire-for-attitude, train-for-skills approach to staffing. To identify candidates with the right fit, many employers administer employment tests - including ones they've designed themselves. Unfortunately, the design-it-yourself path is laden with legal landmines.
One human resources manager recently shared this story with me:
For several months, I have been reviewing different pre-employment assessments to use in our organization. During this week's managers meeting, one of the managers announced he was creating his own test and the rest of management bought into the idea. His arguments were convincing. First, he outlined how it would save money if they didn't have to purchase a system. Second, he felt that he and the other managers knew what it took for an individual to succeed in their organization.
This situation prompted her to email me, "Is it legal for us to use a manager's do-it-yourself pre-employment test?"
The short answer is yes. It's perfectly legal...as long as it can be proven to be job-relevant and fair. That means a homegrown test must meet the same criteria as one developed by a test publisher or industrial psychologist. While it might be true that many small employers fall under the government's radar when it comes to hiring practices, that doesn't mean they are immune to the likes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection of 1978. These are the 800-pound gorillas guarding the rights of employees. They, along with several other laws, include pertinent guidelines and instruction on ways in which testing can be appropriately used to make hiring decisions and to prevent unjustified adverse impact.
Businesses run into trouble when their hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions substantially differ and disadvantage members of a certain race, sex or ethnic group. This means that if, whatever process or tools you use to assess employees must the following criteria:
- The questions and recommendations must be relevant to the job.
- They should not adversely impact a candidate based on race, sex or ethnicity.
Creating your own test to save money is enticing. But it's like buying vitamins instead of buying health insurance because you are young. As long as you don't get in trouble, you save a few bucks. But all it takes is to get challenged by one disgruntled employee and what you saved by doing it yourself is a drop in the bucket to the cost of defending it in court. Reputable publishers of pre-employment tests avoid questions that are not predictive, irrelevant or invasive.
As I learned nearly 25 years ago during my anesthesia rotation, it is easy for anyone to put another person to sleep. The real skill of an anesthesiologist is being able to wake the patient up after the surgery. When it comes to creating test, it is easy for a group of managers to come up with a list of questions to ask. The real skill is identifying which questions can actually predict job performance and asking them in a way that is legal and defensible. If you are using or considering developing your own test or procedure, expert help is advisable to make sure your procedure as well as the test is fair to all relevant groups.
The Department of Labor offers an excellent "Employer's Guide to Good Practices" on testing and assessment.
(First published in The Total View Newsletter - June 16, 2010)
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Tue, May 15, 2012 @ 06:00 AM
There is a gaping chasm between what it takes to keep customers satisfied and loyal and what actually happens. Why?
Good customer service starts with the customer service representative. But not every employee hired to manage customer dissatisfaction is suited to the task.
The reasons for customer dissatisfaction are as varied as the people complaining. Yet, many customer service representatives address all problems the same way. For good customer service, cookie-cutter tactics don't work. Sure, it's fine to teach people to be "nice" and "good listeners." Customer service goes beyond a friendly smile and answering all phone calls within three rings. Excellent customer service starts with speaking to each customer in a "language" he or she finds engaging.
By way of example, let's look at four responses to a customer complaint. Each scenario represents one of the four behavioral styles identified through DISC. Remember DISC? It's the "universal language" of communication and assessed through CriteriaOne DISC. As you read, try to visualize each scenario. Recognize the participants? Remember, each employee believes the response given the appropriate one.
We start with the D style, the assertive employee."Just tell me the problem and I'll take care of it right now," says the employee with a high "D" behavioral style. No beating around the bush. On the plus side, high D employees listen to the complaint and quickly offer a solution. This person is perfect when customer service means getting to the point, fixing the problem, and moving on to the next customer. But bear in mind that assertive behavioral type employees are impatient and relationship building is secondary to fixing the problem. Never put an employee who exhibits high "D" behavior across the counter from the customer who wants to vent. If you do, this customer service representative may cut-off the customer mid-rant. An explanation may come across as an excuse, with an apology that seems insincere. "Oh yeh, I'm sorry too" sounds more like one more thing on the checklist even if the intentions are straight from the heart. Remember, DISC is a language and two-thirds of the population hear an abrupt "tell me what you want me to do to the fix your problem" as cold and un-empathetic.
Let's move on to the "I" behavioral type."I " represents the influencer. This customer service representative offers explanations, over and over again. It's next to impossible for a customer, who is lucky to get a word in edgewise, to vent. The influencer offers assurances, often not knowing if the promises can be fulfilled. Influencers measure results by good intentions. They trade on creating relationships, sharing personal information as a routine part of a customer service call. When the conversation winds down, the Influencer may have to ask a customer to restate the problem. "I'm sorry, what was your problem again?" she says. "I have had so much fun talking; I forgot to write it down." As an employer, you have to make a choice. Do you want customer service staff to satisfy customer complaints or make friends with disgruntled customers? "I" behavioral types often are the naturals at communicating but the least likely to track the details and follow through, without a conscious effort to do so. Apologies sound like, "I can't believe this happened to you too. I had the very same problem." High I's generally tell stories about themselves, hoping that company relieves the misery of customer dissatisfaction.
Next is the "S" behavioral type, born to serve mankind, or so it appears. This person gets energy from cooperation. She is easy going, reserved, and listens well; a behavioral style most compatible with customers who need to vent.
The "S" behavioral type employee easily builds endorsement, making it comfortable for an unhappy customer to speak freely. "Have we (note "we", not "I") successfully resolved your problem?", asks the high "S" behavioral type employee. This person gets energy from bringing closure to what she starts, so follow-up is a natural extension of a service call. However, this behavioral style is exhausted by confrontation and may go to great lengths to avoid any type of conflict. An irate, demanding, verging-on-hysteria customer eventually gets to the high "S" customer service representative who simply wants to resolve the problem and close the file. Open projects and unattended files in the inbox frustrate a high "S" employee. Apologies from the high S appear the most sincere and honest when they say "I really wish this never happened and I'll do whatever I can to make this right." And most people believe them, too.
Finally, we get to the "C" behavioral type, as identified by CriteriaOne DISC. High "C" behavioral type employees are evaluators. They need to understand everything about everything. The employee with this behavioral style makes sure the problem never happens again. He provides a minutely detailed product history including product evolution and repair record. This customer service representative believes failure to read directions is the root cause of most problems. Skeptical to the core, the high "C" employee goes through instructions line-by-line to rule out operator error. He may ask a complaining customer to answer detailed questions to ensure that he gets all the facts. Because accuracy is important, questions must be answered in order. This customer service representative may want to assign blame, although it's important that the right person (who may be the customer) or department be identified as the culprit. The high "C" behavioral type offers an apology after identifying the problem's cause and only if one is warranted. If an apology is offered, expect conditions and contingencies, and assurances couched with "there really are no guarantees in life." When you are finished complaining to the high C agent, you're comfortable the company has the whole story but not sure anything will change.
So, what is the best behavioral style for customer service? The simple answer is the best style is SITUATIONAL. Flexibility is the essential core competency required from customer service employees. Interpersonal skills, listening skills, emotional stability, organization, and follow through are important, too. Good analytical and root cause analysis skills don't hurt either. The key is the best customer service employees intuitively understand which skills to apply at the right time and with the right intensity. That's how DISC tests can help a manager determine which employees are the best natural customer service fit, if they will be motivated by helping people and solving problems, and how they will relate to different customer styles.
How crucial is putting the right people in customer service jobs? You tell me. More than half of all dissatisfied customers decide against doing business with the company again. Ninety percent admit to complaining about the experience to friends, family, neighbors and anyone else willing to listen. The take home lesson for business owners is that dissatisfied customers WILL vent. It's up to the employer then to choose the listener - will it be to an employee or another customer or prospect?
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Sat, May 12, 2012 @ 11:40 AM
Without a strong, emotionally intelligent leader, personal and professional failure is much more likely to occur than is accomplishment.
Effective leadership depends on the so-called "soft skills" that a leader possesses. But soft leadership skills are anything but soft. Soft skills depend more on transferable competencies and abilities and less on the experiences and accomplishments listed on a resume. Circumstances and situations change. What worked in the past might not work the same in the future. Repeatable results will come from the ability to apply past knowledge and adapt it to new problems. The ability to do this requires emotional intelligence and has become increasingly important considering the demands placed on managers and leaders of organizations today.
Emotional intelligence is even more critical when the need to effectuate organizational change arises. A few thought leaders have asserted recently both the existence and importance of soft leadership skills, thereby providing evidence that they do indeed matter.
McKinsey Quarterly recently focused on leadership development in the context of major operations improvement. While conceding that major organizational changes demand unwavering focus on business details at a granular level, McKinsey further stated that "...senior executives overlook the "softer" skills their leaders will need to disseminate changes throughout the organization and make them stick." In other words, leaders selected for their strategic and operational prowess will fail when they can’t get others to respond.
The same week McKinsey published its article Inc. Magazine wrote that there are, in essence, "8 Core Beliefs of Extraordinary Bosses." In short, they were all extensions of the Inc. article's basic premise that "business is an ecosystem, not a battlefield." That simple statement encapsulates what emotional intelligence is all about: The ability to strike a balance between the practical need for tough, often difficult business decisions with the emotional and psychological needs of those upon whose efforts the organization relies to succeed.
To be an effective leader, one must possess the ability to:
1) communicate goals and actions,
2) motivate others to meet those goals, and
3) provide appropriate responses when dissatisfaction results from 1 and/or 2.
Call these abilities whatever you like - soft leadership skills or emotional intelligence. It doesn't matter. They just matter.
What’s your emotional intelligence? Learn how to
test your EI skills here.
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Thu, May 10, 2012 @ 06:00 AM
I tried one of those DISC-type instruments and the report really seemed to describe me pretty well. Doesn't that mean the test is a good one?
Not necessarily. All personality tests do what they say to some degree. The question for you is whether the information is specific enough to predict hiring decisions, or job relatedness as the EEOC calls it. Many simple instruments rely on a psychological experience known as the "P.T. Barnum Effect." Experiments have demonstrated that when personality reports are written in fairly general terms, most people judge them to be accurate representations of themselves. This "Effect" is the trick behind the "try it and see if it is accurate" approach. It is not that the information is wrong, but that it is seldom adequate for employment decisions. In fact, one expert described such reports as being "just right enough to be dangerously wrong.
What should I look for in selecting a pre employment assessment test?
First of all, be clear on what you want the instrument to do. Instruments are designed for specific uses. Ask to see example of how the instruments were used.
Second, consider your resources. Who will be using the information? Certain instruments provide excellent information but considerable training is required to use the information effectively. This can be a problem if you want the information to be useful to a wide range of people. PeopleClues, Prevue, and AssessTM produces a unique form of report writing, known as a virtual interview. This type of report requires little or no interpretation or training and offers specific information on job behaviors. Many reports even include behavioral interview question guides to keep hiring managers focused on job related factors.
Third, consider the logistics of your application. Is the hiring test available online? Does it require any special equipment or requirements to access it? How quickly are the reports available? Do you want or need to process the reports in-house?
Fourth, how much time do candidates have? In the past, higher quality instruments required as much as 3 or 4 hours to complete, a psychologist to interpret, and several days or weeks to process. Shorter pre employment tests often lacked validity. Technology and automation have all but eliminated inaccuracies, improved objectivity and validity, and reduced the time to receive information from days to minutes. PeopleClues, Prevue personality, and Assess Screening are good examples of employee assessments that require 15 to 30 minutes to complete and offer real-time results.
How do I know if an instrument is valid?
All instruments are valid for some purpose. Validity is not an intrinsic characteristic. Assessments are validated for a specific use within a specific population. (Eg. DISC-type and Myers-Brigg Type instruments were never intended to be used as a stand-alone for hiring decisions, but as a vehicle to discuss communication styles or to assist in behavioral interviewing.) Be certain that the products you choose were developed for the purpose you need.
I have heard that I should ask to see the technical manual for the instrument. What is that?
An employment test technical manual describes the development of the instrument. It will generally include the objectives of the instrument's use; the concepts behind its design; the methodology used in the development process; and the statistical data upon which the instrument's information is based. Unfortunately, the existence of a technical manual, regardless of how thick or complex it may be, is not a guarantee of quality. Knowing that most human resource professionals and small business owners are not trained to understand psychometric terminology and statistical data, a number of companies have put quite a bit of creative energy into providing an impressive technical manual for some rather unimpressive products. You would do well to consider the author of these manuals and who was the technical expertise behind the development of the instrument. Fortunately, many of the newer instruments are offering user-friendly versions of their technical manuals, which are designed to educate the users and provide a guide to making a sound decision.
We have used a first generation instrument for years and everyone really likes it. Why should we change?
First of all, it is important to separate the emotional feelings of familiarity from the pragmatic issues of effectiveness. Think back to your first computer. Was it a 386; 486; Apple IIE? Do you still use it? Of course not! Did it stop working? Probably not. You just changed to newer technology because it could do things the old computer could not. Assessment technology is the same thing. New generation instruments are simply capable of providing levels of information undreamed of with earlier instruments.
We were considering creating our own tests. Wouldn't that be better than buying something off the shelf?
It depends on what you are trying to measure. If there is some unique skill, ability, or set of knowledge that is critical to successful performance in a particular job, and there is not an existing instrument that measures that, it may be necessary to construct one. However, if job success is more dependent upon a unique combination of fundamental characteristics of behavior and abilities, it is much better to use established tools. The most effective and predictable employee assessment instruments require years to develop; thousands of people to participate in the normative studies; many hundreds of thousands of dollars; and the expertise found in a relatively small number of psychometric experts. It is usually more economical and more effective to buy that level of expertise. While producing "customized" tests may offer a surface appeal, it is rarely a wise expenditure of resources with so many other options available and often exposes the business to considerable risk.
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Wed, May 09, 2012 @ 06:00 AM
That is clearly not true. In fact, proper use of good assessments can provide the most effective documentation of objective and nondiscriminatory hiring practices. Most legal issues occur when those instruments are used inconsistently or improperly. It is important to consult with individuals who are knowledgeable in such applications. Too often companies have failed to gain the benefits of new assessment technology because of conservative but uninformed advice. In today's competitive world, businesses can no longer afford not to explore every possible competitive advantage.
Won't some people be offended by being asked to complete a test?
Certainly, but if some people are offended by a company's sincere and professional efforts to ensure the success of their employees through effective job matching, it is a small price to pay for the overall benefits to all employees in the company.
Aren't there some people who just don't do well on tests?
The inherent concept in the newest assessment technology is that all people are good at something, but no one is good at everything. That includes testing. In general, most people are anxious about taking any kind of assessment. This reaction has been conditioned by years in school, where passing or failing a test determined an individual's class standing. Other tests such as driving tests or medical tests also contributed to this attitude. This is why it is important to explain the purpose of any test or assessment to all candidates before it is given. Right and wrong answers do not exist for many pre-employment assessment tests. They merely assess personality traits and personal values and then match them to job benchmarks. Outliers are not wrong but indicate that individual might need to adjust extra hard to be successful if hire. Skill tests, like Excel, typing, and math tests, on the other hand, do have right and wrong answers. People who don’t do well taking tests will certainly be affected by technical and administrative type tests. Many of the latest instruments provide preliminary messages that do exactly that and put the candidate at ease.
It is important to recognize that people with poor skills will seldom be enthusiastic when asked to take a test to measure those skills. People with performance problems will not be enthusiastic about completing an assessment to see how their abilities match a particular job. That is exactly why assessments are a vital part of today's business world. Effective assessment instruments can identify the critical areas that people do not want to reveal, but that the business must know in order to make the best decision.
Our selection process is rather long now. How can we find time to fit in any tests?
The use of good assessments tends to collapse the time needed for selection decisions, not make it longer. Using a 10 -15 minute instrument such as PeopleClues Personality Fit enables an employer to effectively screen out unsuitable candidates before spending substantial amounts of interviewing time with them. By focusing the selection efforts on those candidates that are most likely to succeed, employers can not only make faster decisions but more accurate decisions. By accelerating the hiring decision, employers also become more competitive at capturing talent in their job market.
We use recruiters for our key positions. Finding good people is their job. Why should we use testing?
Professional recruiters can offer significant advantages in seeking candidates for many positions, but it is important to remember these caveats:
- Recruiters get paid for filling positions.
- Recruiters do not get paid for screening out candidates.
- The worst recruiter using good assessments will make fewer mistakes than the best recruiter who does not use assessments.
By incorporating good assessments into the recruiting process, you gain the benefits of recruiting professionals and at the same time, gain insurance against them making a mistake that costs you money.
We use a customized interview system that seems to be effective. Do we also need testing?
Customized interview systems, behavioral event-based interviewing, targeted interviewing, and competency-based interviewing are all sound methods for identifying potentially successful job candidates. Several systems use bio-data surveys to profile successful employees and then attempt to match interviewees to that profile. These programs can be an effective part of an employer's hiring process. They, however, lack the objective measurement of current assessments. As more people become involved with the interviewing, the system becomes more vulnerable to the subjective differences of each individual interviewer. The process also requires a substantial amount of interviewing time to accomplish the screening that newer instruments such as PeopleClues can do in a matter of minutes. These instruments even provide behavioral interview questions based on the individual characteristics of the candidates. By screening candidates before in-depth interviews, the process is made much more efficient. PeopleClues and other pre-employment tests provide recommended interview questions in each employee assessment report, and then you can have the best of both worlds.
We use an industrial psychologist. Why should we consider assessments?
Industrial psychologists play an important role by supplying a professional psychological opinion as a supplement to many decision-making processes. This can be quite expensive however. It often makes sense to use an inexpensive assessment tool, such as PeopleCluesTM, to screen out unsuitable candidates before incurring the expense of the psychologist.
Several things must also be clear about the role of the psychologist:
- The use of an industrial psychologist to supply information used for a hiring or placement decision in no way limits the exposure of the client company to federal and state regulations (e.g. If that information can be shown to be discriminatory, the decision can be shown to be discriminatory.).
- The psychologist's summary information is only as good as the assessments used to obtain the initial data. (i.e. A psychologist's analysis cannot compare to the quality of information gleaned from a validated pre-employment test.).
I want to use assessments to help us hire better people. What is the best way to do that?
The best answer to that question depends upon many factors, such as the culture of the employer, the population of job candidates, the current market conditions, and many more.
Can we use assessments with our current employees?
Of course, you can use most assessments in many ways with existing employees. The exception might be honesty and integrity tests which should only be used for pre-hire candidates. For all other situations, good assessment information can help solve performance problems and improve working relationships dramatically. You may also use them selectively; it is not necessary to test as comprehensively as in a hiring situation.
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Mon, May 07, 2012 @ 06:26 AM
3 Good and Bad Things about Applicant Tracking Systems
It’s easier than ever for small business to upgrade their recruiting process. Technology has improved and costs for applicant tracking software have dropped. To fill open positions quickly and maintain or raise the quality of hire, automation of screening job applicants is a necessity. But that doesn’t mean that an applicant tracking system can do everything. Here’s a list of 3 things that good ATS can and can’t offer.
1. Candidate Sourcing.
Good: An ATS makes it easy to source candidates from many sources at once. Posting jobs on paid and free job boards, social networking sites like LinkedIn and Facebook, as well as CraigsList and Twitter takes time. It takes even more time to store and review applications coming from multiple sites. Without the automation of an ATS, that is a huge problem for most small businesses. Few have recruiters and if they have a full time Human Resource professional on staff, they likely wear many hats.
Bad: An ATS is not a replacement for good recruiting. Word-of-mouth and networking in the right channels remains the best source of quality candidates especially in industries or regions that have a shortage of skilled workers. The biggest benefit of automating employee screening in your company is that time saved reviewing applications from non-qualified and unqualified candidates can be invested in reaching qualified applicants.
2. Candidate Engagement
Good: An ATS improves the branding and image of an employer by showing a level of sophistication in your business practices. Many times it is the first contact a candidate might have with your business and it presents a progressive company image. That’s a competitive advantage. A company career website that links to an ATS beats submitting an application and resume to an anonymous email hands down. But qualified candidates aren’t interested in interacting with your ATS. They want your personal touch.
Bad: “Applicant tracking is to recruiting what order tracking is to sales. Tracking an order doesn’t close the sale,” writes a reviewer on Software Advice. It organizes process and ensures “things don’t fall through the cracks.” Quality employees expect a level of personal engagement beyond automated responses, especially those that merely acknowledge receipt of an application. Automated emails should be written so that they read like a human wrote it. But they substitute for a personal note or phone call. Automated emails merely free up more time to spend with your more promising applicants.
3. Recruiting Strategy.
Good: Automated applicant processing improves implementation and execution of a recruiting strategy. It reduces the labor and resources - generally the most expensive cost of recruiting - required to review, screen, and store applications from unqualified candidates. It makes a good process better. It doesn’t make a bad process good.
Bad: An ATS is only a tool. Like CRM software, applicant tracking software automates administrative tasks so recruiters, HR, and hiring managers can focus on high potentials. It is a means to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of recruiting. It is not itself a process nor is it a replacement for recruiters and HR. It simply makes better use of a company’s time, money, and resources.
We have moved beyond the age in nearly all aspects of business where automation is enough. No business can remain competitive without an ample source of job candidates, quality engagement with applicants, and a solid strategy.
ATS software is a necessity these days but it merely allows small business to wear big-boy pants in a very competitive and sophisticated war for talent.
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Sun, May 06, 2012 @ 02:04 PM
Comparing employees to square pegs and round holes seems to be a bit cold-hearted. But the message behind that image is the key to hiring the right person.
People aren’t pegs, of course, but some people simply fit into a job slot better than others, because of their knowledge and innate abilities. Their personality, their existing skills, and their capacity to learn can all help predict which candidates will perform up to expectations in a particular job.
Using
pre-employment aptitude tests is the best way to help predict which candidates are the best fit for your company. Aptitude tests can be tailored specifically for the job you are trying to fill, targeting exactly the traits that best match the job or the traits found in previous successful holders of the job. These may be traits that won’t be visible on a resume or during an interview, so testing can help you select the best candidate out of the applicant pool.
In addition to
personality traits, a good aptitude test will look at a job candidate’s mental abilities, including
cognitive ability and skills with logical thinking, conceptual thinking, abstract thinking, comprehension, and spatial relations. The results can be analyzed to show you the applicant’s strengths, so you can determine how he could best be placed in your company. The test results can also help you determine who would be a poor fit (you might not want someone with low math skills handling money or low stress management skills working customer service, for example).
An often overlooked opportunity resulting from using employee assessments is development. The test results show individual skills and preferences. With training, many employees can learn new skills that offset weaknesses or improve proficiency in administrative and technical areas.
Administering pre-employment aptitude tests can help you narrow the applicant pool to the top contenders before you interview anyone. At a time when technology has made it easy for jobseekers to apply for jobs, even those they aren't qualified, an effective hiring process and employee screening system is a necessity to filter our high-risk candidates quickly.
With test results in hand, employers can then tailor interview questions to check out any perceived weaknesses in the individual candidates, making the most effective use of the time spent in the interview. The test results, combined with a structured
behavioral interview, can help select the best person for the job, and avoid the expense and trouble of making a bad hire.
As many hiring manager know, the wrong hire, like a square peg, can rarely be made into a good fit for your company.
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Thu, May 03, 2012 @ 06:00 AM
I've written several posts about how ineffective the interview is in hiring the right employees the first time. To be fair, the interview can be effective when hiring managers have the training and the skills needed. But even a good behavioral interviewer can only uncover so much information assuming the candidate is a good interviewee and not over-spinning the truth.
But even I was shocked earlier this month when I attended a human resource association meeting. The presenter asked for a show of hands to "how many people use behavioral interviewing as part of their hiring system?" Nearly everyone in the audience of nearly 100 professionals raised their hands. She followed with this question: "Can anyone give an example of how behavioral interviewing improved their hiring process?"
Not a hand went up. Zero. None. Nada.
Based on studies assessing the predictability of common hiring tools, the interview is only 52 percent effective. What this means is that for every hire a company makes using the interview alone, it will take nearly two new hires to find one right employee who can do the job.
The cost of this ineffectiveness is huge. For every $10,000 a company spends on hiring using the interview, it costs them over $19,000 before they find the right employee.
Where does this leave a hiring manager? First, it is imperative that managers become better interviewers. Below I have included five steps to help improve interviewing success. But even under the best of circumstances, the interview lacks predictability. Businesses demand better in today's competitive job and economic markets.
The solution is job matching. Job matching, a combination of a behavioral interview combined with appropriate behavioral, personality and ability testing increases the odds of hiring success to a whopping 87 percent. In terms of dollars invested in hiring the right employee, job matching saves more than 40 percent compared to the interview. For every $10,000 the cost to hire using job matching is under $12,000. (Remember the cost to hire using the interview alone was over $19,000.)
Now first things first. Let's start by improving the interview.
By using the following five interview steps, you will start putting the odds in your favor at getting what you need to know about a candidate at the interview.
1. Ask only interview questions that are job related. Identify a maximum of three to five non-negotiable competencies or skills the candidate must have to perform the job.
2. For each competency or skill, write three or four behavioral interview questions for each skill or competency. Additional competencies may be added and asked only if the candidate satisfactorily responds to these "non-negotiable skill" questions.
3. Use open-ended questions whenever possible. Examples
a. Describe for me.....
b. How would you....
c. Why did.......
d. Offer another example.....
e. If you had to .....
4. During the interview, limit your talking to no more than 20 percent of the interview time. Eighty percent of the time should be spent observing and listening. The purpose of the interview is to explore the fit of the candidate to the job, team and company culture. Selling the candidate on your company (assuming you want him/her) comes at follow-up interviews or just before the job offer.
5. Allow time for candidates to ask questions. Listen to the questions that are asked. Do they indicate the candidate has researched the company and understands the job or is the candidate focused on salary and benefits and vacation days?
Observe if the candidate appears confident or reluctant in asking the question. Having no questions to ask can also be a red-flag indicating lack of interest, low curiosity, or lack of preparedness.
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Wed, May 02, 2012 @ 06:00 AM
We left off last week with Michael, our motor-mouth manager, doing all the talking during an interview for a key position. To re-read Part 1, click here.
In response to last week's column, I did receive several emails in response to my challenge of "can you top that?" Below are a few of my favorite responses: they ranged from illegal questions to "incredulous."
First, the illegal question of the day:
"Will your husband be upset if you aren't home to put dinner on the table at 6:00?"
From another reader I received:
"I was interviewing for a receptionist/inside sales/customer service position with a small company that had a great product and a good reputation. I was excited about all the different things I would be earning and the various career paths the job could lead to. The interview went very well. I received a call back, not to offer me the job, not to tell me I had been denied, but to go out on a date!"
So....back to more talk about why the interview just isn't cracked up to be all it is thought to be. Even if you can get beyond the hiring manager asking illegal questions and using the interview process as an alternative for speed dating, the reliability of the interview just does not cut it as a predictor of job success, regardless of how many years you've been interviewing or how many people you've hired. The job market has changed, the jobs are more complex and the candidates are more savvy and sophisticated.
As you just read, reliability is closely aligned to the competence of the interviewer. By most people's standard, Michael's meeting with the candidate could hardly be called an interview. That however doesn't stop managers from using Michael's interview format as the tool of choice: the manager talks and the candidate listens. The questions they ask are superficial at best and the accuracy of these hiring decisions are no better than if the manager flipped coins and circumvented the interview entirely.
Even more challenging these days is the reliability of the candidate.
Fibs, fables and outright lies are sprinkled throughout resumes today like never before. Candidates are coached in high schools and colleges by career counselors. Terminated employees are mentored by high profile outplacement services on how to put their best foot forward.
Candidates are well versed in role playing the most-asked interview questions. Ask a question and the candidate likely has been practicing the answer. (Don't believe me? Just Google "interview questions" and see how many sites offer answers to the most popular interview questions.)
Skilled interviewers understand it is not asking the "best" question that is important, but observing and listening for the responses. Too often hiring managers and human resource professionals get hung up on finding the best questions to get the right answer and avoid any training in interviewing techniques because they feel it's beneath them or not their job. Egos get in the way of objectivity.
Interviewers should focus on a few questions, then sit back to observe and listen. Unlike Michael and many others like him, the interviewer should do less than 20 percent of the talking. Armed with as few as a handful of open-ended questions, a good interviewer can elicit everything they need to know and more by just adding, "Interesting, tell me more" or "Can you give me a time when you repeated that success" or "What would you do differently the next time?" It really doesn't matter what question you ask or what response is given, open-ended questions serve as a catalyst for more questions if you just observe and listen. Although I prepare for interviews by having ten questions, I rarely need more than two or three before the candidate begins telling me their story. By listening to what they say and how they say it, candidates cover all the bases without much prompting.
What other factors besides the competence of the interviewer and the reliability of the candidate might influence the job success predictability of the interview? The setting although subtle, has an effect on both the interviewer and interviewee. Is the setting professional, clean and quiet or is the interview taking place in a cluttered office, with peeling paint, stained ceiling tiles, and constant interruptions? The environment will affect how the interviewer interviews and candidates respond.
Rapport also has a lot to do with the quality of the interview. Just the body language of the manager or the tone and pace of the candidate (or vice versa) can make or break a candidate's chances to get the job or a company's chance to recruit the candidate.
Where does this leave us? By following 5 interview tips, you will be able to ensure that your new hires have the best chance of success on the job. So stay tuned for Part 3.
In the meantime..........
Michael is not the only manager who lacks interview style and skills.
Post your interview "war stories" below: comments made by managers that forced your jaw to drop, questions asked that made you cringe.
Posted by
Ira Wolfe on Mon, Apr 30, 2012 @ 06:00 AM
Last week a client asked me to be an observer in a series of job interviews. These interviews were for new positions on a new service line. The margin of error for hiring mistakes was zero to none. In other words, one wrong hire and the whole project could go up in smoke. The "drop-dead" deadline for opening had already passed and any additional delays would only add costs, reduce sales, and turn the company from front-runner to has-been.
The first interview was scheduled for 9 AM. Additional interviews were scheduled on the hour throughout the day. Prior to the interview, I spoke with Michael, the manager and interviewer, and asked him how much, if any, he wanted me to participate in asking questions. Michael had been the CFO of a two-billion dollar business before being recruited to run and turn-around this new venture. "I've been interviewing for over thirty years and have hired nearly 1,000 employees," he responded. "Just watch and tell me if you see anything I miss."
I wanted to ask him about the 1,000 he hired. How many successful hires had he made, how many failed? I wanted to ask him but I decided in the interest of time to go with his game plan. It didn't take me long to figure out the answer.
At 9:25 AM, 25 minutes into the interview, Michael was still talking. With the exception of a brief "good morning and I really appreciate the opportunity to interview with you," the candidate hadn't spoken another word. It's not that she didn't want to; she wasn't given the chance. From the very start, Michael took over the interview. I was amazed how long he could talk without taking a breath.
Both the candidate and I heard about the whole history of the company, Michael's role in the company, Michael's role in the project, how he'd hired and managed over 1,000 employees in his career, and what Michael was looking for in the candidate he was about to hire.
Throughout Michael's monologue, I couldn't help but see the dazed look in the candidate's eyes. Finally she made eye contact with me and her glare shouted out: "Don't just sit there, rescue me."
Ten minutes later, I couldn't take it anymore. I interrupted Michael and asked the candidate, why she was pursuing this position? Before she had a chance to utter a word, Michael jumped in and answered my question! He told her how thrilled he was to be working for this company and what a fantastic opportunity this was for the right person. Unfortunately I had no clue at this point if the candidate was qualified or interested.....and neither did Michael.
Finally, the clock approached 9:50 AM. Only ten minutes to go and Michael finally got around to asking his first question: Does this job seem like something you'd be interested in? Hopefully he didn't see my dumbfounded look. How could he ask the question: what could he possibly know about the candidate? He didn't ask her a single job skill-relevant question. Hope still loomed as he asked his second question: are there any questions you have about the job? The candidate smiled and said no. "You did a great job explaining the job," she said, "and I'm really interested."
We all stood up, shook hands, and I escorted her to the front door. End of interview for candidate #1.
When I returned to the room, Michael had a big smile and asked what I thought. Before I had a chance to answer, Michael told me "she's the one." I asked him what he liked about her. "I learn a lot by just observing how they listen to me," he shared. "When you've been around as long as I have, you get a sixth sense about people."
Unfortunately this interview process was repeated another seven times during the day.
Interviewing remains the most popular assessment for employee screening, and the reliability remains low, often in the 50 percent range. Michael is not the only manager who lacks interview style and skills, especially when managers are left to their own devices.
In an upcoming post, I'll address five tips for improving the job interview and recommend a process that is proven to be 70 percent more effective than the interview.
In the meantime..........
Post your interview "war stories" below: comments made by managers that forced your jaw to drop, questions asked that made you cringe.