Problem-solving has a long history of research dating back to the American Military in World War 1. General mental ability tests were developed to identify the suitability of recruits for officer training. A proliferation of research over the last 100 years has validated general mental ability as the best predictor of future job performance, no matter what the job role. This simple, one-off test has a validity factor of around point 52. In this week's podcast, I stress the importance of conducting a 'problem-solving' test on your finalists in your current hiring project. It's simple to do and very inexpensive. But best of all, it is highly productive of future job performance.
The use of video interviewing has become a standard practice for many organizations, allowing them to automate their recruiting process. On-demand Video Interviewing is another method of evaluation that is used by many recruiters. On-demand video interviewing is known by several alternative names such as, one-way and pre-recorded. This type of interviewing is gaining great traction as it saves time, standardises the interview process and can evaluate candidates much earlier in the selection process. No matter what size organisation you are, on-demand video interviews will cut administration and speed to hire on a large or small number of candidates.
Many of you would be aware of the Dr Murray fiasco. He was CEO of the Waikato District Health Board and ran up large unapproved expenses.
Past behaviour reflects future behaviour, so my burning question to the Board of Directors, "Did you talk to the Chairperson of his two previous health positions?"
The importance of doing a diligent reference check, at least three previous managers, is a given for ANY hire.
Technology has made reference checking faster, easier and more predictive. Check out http://www.assess.co.nz/reference-checking
Don't forget to rate and review our podcasts (iTunes). For those of you who use Spotify, we are now on their new podcast feeds.
Why do employees - hired by the same methods, doing the same job, and managed by the same person - perform so differently? Dependency on the traditional one-on-one unstructured interview is a prime reason.
Besides being the most expensive tool (management time) in the selection process, the unstructured interview is also the least valid - between .05 and .15 - so at best you'll get it right one out of every six interviews. The structured interview jumps validity to between .40 and .60 - much better, but still the toss of a coin.
Here is a link to the transcript:
Candidate communication is what I want to get on my high horse about. It is not only my daughter's recent experience, but bad candidate communication is one of the pet peeves of job seekers everywhere. Apart from it being just bad manners, it surely must reflect badly on the brand image of the said organisation.
Bad candidate communication can also cost you good hires. Chances are your candidates are applying for several roles so that an outstanding person will get snapped up quickly. In my daughter's experience, she had also put another two 'irons in the fire', she will likely be successful, and a big loss to the fore mentioned the company.
I am not suggesting you make instant hiring decisions based on the first person that walks in the door. Nor do I want you to be pushed into a recruitment decision by candidates that try to blackmail you into making an appointment as they have another job offer they must accept or turn down tomorrow.
Get a transcript at HERE
Often, our clients have raised the question of where, or in what order, should the components of the selection process be used. For example, is it best to apply the Fit Job Assessments (psychometric testing) up front, or on the final candidate? What about reference checking, before, or after the main interview? Moreover, what about that main interview? Where is the best position in the hiring process for that?
There is no one “correct” process. Type of job role, numbers of applicants, available openings, and internal recruiting staff workload are some issues that will impact on your selection structure.
At the start of the selection process, you will be concentrating on “screening out”, in other words rejecting candidates that don’t fit your job vacancy. It is important that you base these rejection decisions on the specifics of the job and that you treat every applicant the same way. The fundamental rule in screening job applicants is to use the most accurate and least expensive method at the earliest point in the process.
There are many myths surrounding cognitive ability testing - often referred to as a mental ability tests. What do these tests measure? In short, intelligence. According to Spearman (2005), intelligence is something that helps people to solve problems, when the elements can be apprehended by almost anyone. Most cognitive ability tests measure numerical, verbal, and spatial ability. They are very efficient at explaining how well a recruit will solve problems and learn new work tasks.
Mike and Pam Smith (2005), in their book, "Testing People At Work" found that when one implements a personality profile and cognitive ability test a validity of 0.65 is realised - quite a significant result - and this does not take into account testing aligned to a specific benchmark (job role). Hence we always strongly recommend that clients add a mental ability test alongside the personality test - it is not expensive (around $50) and quick to do (between 12 to 20 minutes).
Let's look at five myths that surround cognitive ability testing as recently highlighted in an article in the American Psychologist - the prestigious official journal of the American Psychological Association.
Here at AssessAdvantage, we are often asked to explain why the Prevue Assessment, that measures General Mental Ability, Interest/Motivation and the Big Five personality traits, is one the best available measures of job fit to identify the best job applicants.
Although we provide in-depth technical documentation to support the validity, reliability and fairness of the Prevue Assessment, we can now back up our support information with an excellent paper written by Jacob B. Hirsh from the University of Toronto entitled “Choosing the Right Tools to Find the Right People”.
Hirsh’s succinct but detailed paper confirms that using measures of General Mental Ability and the Big Five personality traits to identify “the Right People” is strongly supported by scientific research; supporting this is the acceptance of his excellent academic paper by the “The Psychologist” the prestigious publication of the British Psychological Society.
Recently on our 'Tips for Hiring' blog, we ask subscribers "What is the most burning question you have when hiring new employees?"
In most cases, the questions are very similar. However here is an interesting one that I would like to share with you.
Diane du Preez from South Africa asked: "What are the top ten obvious things I should look out for to let me know the candidate is not right for me?"
So, to answer Diane's question, I think 7 "things" would be sufficient, and in this podcast, I outline them.
When it comes to hiring, most managers only use a CV and an interview to make the big call on who to throw an average of forty-five thousand dollars to!
A bad hire cost about 2.5X an employee’s annual salary!
CVs and interviews represent around 20% of hiring effectiveness.
You need to get the big picture.
You need to understand those soft innate skills that are impossible to get from CV and interview.
You can also download an infographic on this podcast HERE