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?