Tag Archives: hiring the right people

Hiring Better: Your Business – The Movie

Published with the permission of OMS Distributor Harry Lakin, Founder of Hire Capacity

A great film director once said “90% of my job is casting. If I cast the right actors in the right roles, the movie will be amazing and I can take 100% of the credit for just 10% of the work.”

Hiring for your business works in a similar way – the right people in the right roles means higher productivity, greater quality, and a better overall experience for everyone. Let’s just say…a bigger take at the box-office!  And you, lucky hiring manager, get to reap the rewards and take credit for a job well done.

You see, my friend, you are the casting director for the movie that is your business. The tricky part is figuring out just who should slot in what roles when hiring time comes around.

Cast The Right People In The Right Roles!

Tom Hanks and Morgan Freeman are both Academy Award winning actors, with tons of talent; but suffice it to say each actor is more qualified for certain roles than the other.

Shawshank Redemption would have been an entirely different movie if Tom Hanks had been Bobby Dufresne’s prison friend Red and frankly, I can’t even imagine Morgan Freeman as Forrest Gump. Can you?

The same holds true for your business. It’s incumbent upon you to match the right candidate with the right role, often with only a resume and an interview as your guide. Wouldn’t it be so much simpler (not to mention faster) if you had more and deeper information…like a way to peek inside of your candidate’s heart and brain to help you figure out which candidates are best suited to the rigors of the positions you need to fill?

BOOM!

Done.

Behavioral Assessment makes the hard work easy, so you have a meaningful way of matching candidates with positions.

Of course, the flip side is the need to completely understand exactly what the position you are trying to fill calls for in a candidate. Every role requires behaviors that high achieves will possess. You need to understand what those qualities are…before you even talk with your first candidate.

We can’t start filming until we have a script.

Just as a director would never start awarding parts without a script, you should never begin to hire without building a job model for the role at hand. After all, if you don’t have a target, how do you know what you’re aiming for? 

More often than not, jobs are a lot broader than what’s written in a simple job description.  Often, we wear a lot more hats than just the one with our title on it. For example, some sales roles also demand a lot of the functions customer service typically provides when something goes awry. Likewise, a delivery tech may also be required to deal with workplace safety from time to time. And we all know that hiring managers also have to have some measure of HR ability. In short, job descriptions are not all-encompassing and are not really what candidates should ultimately be measured against. What we really need to do is build a great job model to compare candidates to.

Creating a job model is not as daunting as it sounds. In many cases, using the right tools a comprehensive job model can be created in less than an hour.

Once this job model is in hand, you can begin to objectively compare candidates against the role and indeed individual candidates against each other to find the best of the best for your company.

So, while you may not actually end up hiring Tom Hanks or Morgan Freeman – if you hire the right people for the right jobs, you’ll be well on your way toward business stardom yourself!

Though if Morgan Freeman does walk through your door, hire him. Don’t even do an interview, just hire him.


With OMS you can gain a competitive edge by combining personal decision-making skills and know-how, scientific measurement techniques, and web-based organizational diagnostic tools into a comprehensive decision-making system for all your managers. With OMS your executive team can develop strategic initiatives far more likely to succeed, and make faster, better-informed operating decisions leading to higher individual and group performance, greater retention, and lower costs. Learn more: http://2oms.com/start/

Originally published on LinkedIn

That Time Your Lawyer Was Glad You Used A Hiring Assessment

Published with the permission of OMS Distributor Harry Lakin, Founder of Hire Capacity

Inevitably, if you’re in business long enough, it’s going to happen to you.

You will pass on a candidate and it’s going to tick them off to such an extent that they’re going to threaten to sue you.

They may claim racism, sexism, ageism or a host of other “ism’s”.

What do you do?

Even if you’ve been extra thorough about interviewing, resume investigating and reference checking, you know, some attorney somewhere will be willing to take the case.

You and your company are not racist or sexist or ageist…but that really doesn’t matter now does it? This person and their mouthpiece want their pound of flesh, er…payday!

Are you paying close attention, because I’m about to give you your “Get Out Of Jail Free Card”.

It’s imperative that you use an objective NORMATIVE hiring assessment as a regular part of your hiring process.

Below is an example of the output from our OMS Assessment. It compares a candidate’s behaviors to those from our JAX Job Model (name redacted). Can you tell from this graph if the candidate is man or woman? Can you tell if they are Asian or Anglo or Native American? Can you tell how old they are? Can you tell if they’re in a wheelchair, or blind?

The answers are most definitely no.

The only information one can discern is about them behaviorally. And, the right behaviors are something you can and should be looking for from the best candidates for your positions.

Further, so long as you’ve clearly created a job model that the candidate has been reliably measured against, you can honestly (and easily) say they’re either a fit or not…and that other candidates (i.e. the ones you progressed with) were a better fit. Add to the mix solid statistical validation and their “ism” assertions become weaker by the minute.

In the instance above, the candidate is in red and the job model required behavioral traits are in black. Clearly, as anyone can see, this candidate is not a fit for this role.

Don’t get me wrong. They may still sue you, but the more arrows in the quiver that’s your defense, the better off you’ll be in front of a judge or jury (should things progress that far).

All of this, comes on top of the added BONUS you’ll get by having a phenomenal way to tell which candidates you should actually BE hiring.

That last sentence there is a feeble attempt at tongue in cheek humor. Of course you should implement a sound assessment strategy as part of your selection criteria for actual hiring.

But, If a great assessment tool has the added benefit of being your out, when a disgruntled candidate starts rattling sabers…

Well, what’s piece of mind worth?

How to Use Personality Tests for Employee Selection and Rejection

rejectedIn my experience, most users of personality tests aren’t aware of the practical distinction between using these tests to select candidates and using tests to reject them. In fact, selection and rejection are very different testing stratagems and, for both decision-making and legal reasons, users need to be quite clear on what those differences are.

Candidate selection is what most people associate with testing, but the reality is that tests do a better job of signaling who is unlikely to perform well in a job than they do of predicting who will likely succeed. Even one behavioral factor, by its presence or absence, might greatly increase the odds of job failure, but it rarely works the other way around. Complex roles are dependent upon so many diverse variables that no one test can accurately predict high-level performance on a sustained basis.

Using a test as a method of rejection means employing it in a frontline screening role where a cut-off score of some type determines who gets weeded out and who continues through the evaluation process. This is ideal for high-volume hiring situations where speed is essential. To some people, this seems terribly unfair or, at the very least, impersonal. Quite to the contrary, so long as the organization undertakes an objective, statistically based study of the job, preferably one in compliance with EEOC guidelines for such studies, it is very fair. Personality tests have not been found to produce an adverse impact on any protected group, so tests do not cull out candidates in any disproportionate way, and they provide an objective, as opposed to a subjective, means of differentiating job-performance potential.

The critical consideration for a rejection process to work is the quality of the job analysis. Sometimes less formal, but statistically sound methods work.  For example, accomplishing an indiscriminate group analysis of top and bottom performers in a job, but only where clear behavioral or trait differences exist between the two groups, can be an effective means of measuring candidate potential. Better still is an in-depth statistical study that generates at least one or more statistically significant correlations between the test measures and actual job performance outcomes. Such a study might show that sales revenues increase in unison with increases in assertiveness or initiative, in which case, candidates with more of those qualities will be more likely to generate higher sales.

Without rigorous job analysis, even ignoring possible legal concerns, the screening process could produce false positives, filtering out potentially higher performers in lieu of those with less likelihood to succeed. As implied above, when used in isolation, tests can only in the broadest way predict performance. In reality, no tool or process unilaterally has that type of predictive capability.

Alternatively, employing valid personality tests at the selection stage in conjunction with job benchmarks should enable users to objectively extract talents, motivational factors, as well as job-related behaviors that can only be inferred from interviews, yet with more precise calibration. One of the nuances of understanding personality is that the degree of various traits a candidate possesses is as crucial a consideration as the traits themselves! In some jobs, this gradation can be the one differentiating variable between top and middling performance.

At the selection stage, tests should also help validate and amplify what is learned from other tools and procedures, such as simulations, reference checks, résumés, and interviews. Effective assessment should leave no loose ends, so tests should either confirm insights from these sources or raise red flags where inconsistencies are evident.

Hiring is much like gambling: It’s always a game of odds. The issue is how to shift those odds more consistently in your favor. Tests can do that, but you have to be realistic in your expectations and know what you want testing to contribute to the overall assessment process. Even shifting those odds a couple points can have a tremendous accumulative effect on improving hiring success and job performance, and minimizing hiring and onboarding costs.

__________________________________________________________________________13259f4For more than forty years, Frank Gump has been helping corporations become more productive and profitable by helping management teams identify and hire top performers and manage them most effectively. Developed and refined through extensive experience in more than 1200 organizations in the United States, Canada, England, and Australia, ADGI’s Organizational Management System (OMS) is a finely calibrated, technologically advanced decision-making process offering the potential for enormous payback. Contact ADGI for more insight and connect with Frank on LinkedIn. Follow ADGI on Twitter @ADGIGroup. Like ADGI on Facebook and follow us on Google+.