Good Data Missing When It Comes to Prediciting Hiring Succes

The truth be told, many companies that create sophisticated and rigorous employee screening and selection processes are based on gut, not facts, and the result is often a lot of theoretical and academic bull____. Bottom line: most managers have no clue what it really takes for an employee to be successful on the job and within a company.

Considering that payroll and associated employee costs make up the highest expense in almost all companies, it behooves every employer to track and analyze the data.

According to a recent article in Human Resources Executive Online, improved data analytics by human resources in the area of recruiting could have a tremendous impact on the bottom line.

United States employers collectively spend about $124 billion a year on recruiting, according to Bersin & Associates, and almost $6 trillion on payroll, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. With that level of spending, small improvements in outcomes can easily be worth billions or tens of billions of dollars.

The processes used by companies to screen and select employees are highly questionable. Research shows again and again the fallibility of the interview and yet many organizations still rely in it as the sole screening method.

Research has consistently shown, however, that most interviewers aren’t skilled enough to really assess a candidate’s capabilities. One study found that interviews are substantially less predictive of candidate quality than simply looking at their resume or checking their references. Another study found that the even untrained observers can predict the outcome of most job interviews after watching the first 15 seconds.

The HRE article highlights several additional screening techniques that defy logic when you attempt to quantify results:

Job hoppers and the unemployed: Researchers at Evolv looked at the data and found no predictive value in looking at how many jobs a person recently held. “Candidates with five jobs in five years were no more of an attrition risk than candidates with only one. Candidates who had been unemployed were no more or less likely to quit or be terminated. Screening out job hoppers and the unemployed serves no purpose.”

Criminal background checks: 92 percent of SHRM member companies use criminal background checks as part of their standard hiring process. Despite the widespread usage,

Numerous studies have found that criminal convictions, especially old ones, aren’t predictive of any future bad behavior. One study, titled Predicting the Counterproductive Employee in a Child-to-Adult

Prospective Study, found that crimes committed before a person entered the workforce had no predictive value for any “counterproductive workplace behaviors.” Another study found that people with records who stay arrest-free for four to five years are only as likely as the average person to be arrested again. A third study found that, for people arrested when they’re 18, their risk of re-arrest drops to that of the normal population by around age 25.

Here’s another example. What about requirements to have a high school diploma vs. a 2- or 4-year college degree? How are these requirements determined? I have yet to find a single client who can validate that a 4 year degree is better than a 2 year degree compared to 10 years of experience is more predictive of success on the job. And yet, nearly every job description includes some minimum education or experience requirement. Who sets these limits? Often times, it is set at a notch below the minimum level of the manager. Others just claim rest their hiring decisions on the false sense of security that a 4 year degree is better than a 2 year degree….or none at all.

The quality of the workforce is becoming increasingly important as a differentiator and competitive advantage. The right approach to measuring quality of hire and using good data to guide decisions has a tremendous impact on hiring outcomes. A key objective of all human resource professionals must be to deliver to their employers the best workforce for the money. This is one of the key areas where HR can deliver true strategic value. Yet, for most recruiting organizations, “quality of hire” isn’t measured or tracked against a target.

This article originally appeared in The Total View, a weekly online newsletter that focuses on hiring, management and retention strategies. The Total View is written and published by Ira S. Wolfe, president of Success Performance Solutions and is distributed with permission by The Chrysalis Corporation. Subscribe for FREE to The Total View by typing your e-mail address in the newsletter sign-up box on the right side of this page.

Focusing on Job Applicant Behavior for Better Hires – Instant Hiring Video Tips

Discover the “red flags” that can alert you to future problems from job applicants.

 

If you want to give yourself an idea of how an applicant will behave once he or she is hired, do yourself a favor and pay some attention to their behavior during the hiring process. Keep in mind that an applicant should be on their very best behavior during the hiring process so anything other than that should be a red flag.

In particular, beware of people who are creating problems for you during the application and hiring process. For example, they are not following your directions when it comes to submitting the appropriate paperwork; they’re difficult when it comes to setting up a first or second interview claiming that their schedule is so busy that they can’t fit you in.

Other red flags can be applicants who deliberately create challenges and obstacles for you during the application and hiring process. Some hiring managers think it’s a good idea to have applicants fill out an employment application to see how thorough they are at filling it out. If you have to reach out to an applicant to get a hold of critical documents or information that should’ve been provided beforehand, chances are that applicant will require a lot of hand-holding and supervision as an employee as well and who has time for that?

Applicants should be jumping through hoops to meet any requirements you’ve established for the position. After all, they’re the one looking for a job right?

In my experience and in my client’s experience things only go downhill when poor behavior is exhibited during the application and hiring process.

People are generally on their best behavior during the hiring process so it should be a red flag when you see anything other than that. An applicant that gives you grief during the application process will probably also give you problems should you choose to hire them. Generally speaking, you can expect their behavior to get worse and deteriorate over time.

For better hires, keep an eye on an applicant’s behavior during your application and hiring process and don’t be afraid to trust your gut if you start to see some red flags.

What Jobs Should The U.S. Be Creating?

The news about jobs is getting better. The unemployment rate dipped for the fifth straight month to 8.3 percent. The number of jobs being created has been rising at a rate of 200,000 each month, topped by 243,000 jobs added in January alone. What Jobs Are Being Created In the US

That is great news for the economy and fuel for a surge on Wall Street, where the Nasdaq hit an 11-year high and the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a peak not seen since 2008.

Does this mean the U.S. economy has found a cure for the recession or a strategy to relieve and mask the symptoms of a deeper, more serious problem? The truth is that it’s likely a little of both. Unfortunately that means that sooner than later the problem will resurface, much like an untreated cancer eventually weakens and destroys the functions of the body.

Much of our unemployment since the recession has been the result of massive layoffs in construction and manufacturing. Creating new jobs in manufacturing, according to many politicos, bureaucrats, economists, and executives, are the key to our recovery. With more people working, more consumption will take place and more homes will be built and purchased, putting millions of unemployed construction workers back to work. That all makes sense.

Except (you likely knew that was coming)… that the manufacturing jobs we need to create aren’t the manufacturing jobs that existed pre-2008. We don’t need workers to just make things. We need workers who make the things that make things and then make those “thing-makers” work in seamless integrated systems.

And that’s the problem. We have a lot of people who are really good at making things. But so does the rest of the world…and they are willing to work more hours for less money. That’s one reason why the U.S. economy is struggling to create jobs. To compete, many of the old manufacturing jobs are gone forever. If those jobs exist, they have been automated, requiring maybe one worker to do the job of five or ten workers just a few years ago. In other words, we could have our manufacturing output humming at record levels and still employ a fraction of the workers that did the same job 10 years ago.

What the U.S. does better than anyone else in the world is make the things that make things. Unfortunately we don’t have enough of those skilled workers or the workers who can service those thing-makers. We need workers who can spot a faulty circuit board, not count nuts and bolts. We need workers who can design, troubleshoot and repair a defective robotic arm, not manufacture the components of the robot.

For politicians and especially low skill workers, that situation places job creation at a painful crossroad. For millions of workers over the past few decades, low skill jobs were the ticket to the middle class and upward mobility. But that has all changed. Good paying careers dependent on low skill workers are gone. That leaves tens of millions of past and future workers stuck in jobs that offer at best bare bone living wages and no future.

To create jobs that ensure workers can earn a living wage and entertain the possibility of moving up requires answers to three interrelated questions:

  1. What products should be made and supported in the U.S.?
  2. What jobs can and should be created that provide good living wages, upward mobility, and still keep the U.S. competitive?
  3. What needs to be done to train and re-train millions of low-skilled and under-skilled U.S. workers to do these jobs?

The order in which we answer the questions is critical. We first must determine what products (or services) should be made in the U.S. Unfortunately we seem to be attempting to solve the job creation problem in reverse order. We want to train and re-train for many jobs that might be obsolete or become low-paying in the very near future. And not all jobs that might be created help the U.S. become or remain competitive.

The U.S. is at the proverbial fork in the road. What road should we take? What products and services should be make and support?

This article originally appeared in The Total View, a weekly online newsletter that focuses on hiring, management and retention strategies. The Total View is written and published by Ira S. Wolfe, president of Success Performance Solutions and is distributed with permission by The Chrysalis Corporation. Subscribe for FREE to The Total View by typing your e-mail address in the newsletter sign-up box on the right side of this page.

6 Signs War for Talent is Heating Up

The jobs are out there. Companies just can’t find the workers to fill them. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics reports that 3.2 million jobs remained vacant as of the end of July, even as 14 million Americans were jobless.

This paradox was highlighted in an article posted in the recent issue of Central Penn Business Journal.

Winning The Talent WarThe article includes several interviews with local business executives whose growth is stymied by a lack of qualified workers, not a struggling economy. One owner, whose tool-and-die company doubled in size in the last three years, says he posts jobs in the newspaper and online job banks to no avail. Other executives echoed the challenge especially those leading manufacturing firms in heavy industry, food processing, and trucking.

More and more stories seem to be cropping up, especially in the small business sector. Despite large organizations like Bank of America announcing massive layoffs, a new survey reveals a compelling message for employers who might be feeling a bit complacent in adapting a new environment for recruiting and retaining qualified workers: high unemployment does not equate with ease of hiring.

Here’s 6 signs that the war for talent is heating up:

  • 77 percent of companies surveyed expect hiring competition to increase;
  • One-third of the companies expect significantly more competition for talent;
  • 47 percent currently recruit from competitors; another 14 percent plan to start;
  • 57 percent of employers are concerned with competitors recruiting their employees;
  • 58 percent use recruiting passive candidates as their leading strategy for competing against other employers; (54 percent use benefits; 47 percent use flexible hours; 30 percent use higher compensation.)
  • One-third of employers expect new employees to stay 2 years or less; 79 percent expect them to stay 3 to 5 years or less.

Questions or comments about this article? Post them here.

This article originally appeared in The Total View, a weekly online newsletter that focuses on hiring, management and retention strategies. The Total View is written and published by Ira S. Wolfe, president of Success Performance Solutions and is distributed with permission by The Chrysalis Corporation. Subscribe for FREE to The Total View by typing your e-mail address in the newsletter sign-up box on the right side of this page.

 

Jobs in Demand Can’t Be Automated.

The evidence that many forms of traditional work are getting automated and outsourced is mounting. Basically, jobs in the 21st century workplace are moving from simple and manual to complex and knowledge-based.

Another way of putting it is based on what Gary Hamel describes as the Creative Economy. We have moved from:

  • Industrial Economy based on physical capital
  • Information Economy based on information
  • Creative Economy based on ideas

When dealing with work problems we can categorize the response as either Jobs in Demand Can't Be Automated.   known or new. Known problems require access to the right information to solve them. This information can be mapped, and frameworks such as knowledge management help us to map it. We can also create tools to do work and not have to learn all the background knowledge in order to accomplish the task. This is how simple knowledge gets automated. Any job that deals with the routine and repeatable is at risk for being replaced by software and offshoring.

On the other hand, work that is valued, and therefore creates high-demand jobs, is in facing the complex and complicated, not in addressing problems that have already been solved. There will always be however complex problems that cannot be solved through automation.

Complex, new problems need tacit knowledge to solve them. Exception-handling is becoming more important in the 21st century workplace. The system handles the routine stuff and people, usually working together, deal with the exceptions. As these exceptions get addressed, some or all of the solution can get automated, and so the process evolves.

The competitive marketplace, with its growing complexity due to our inter-connectivity, requires that the modern and future workforce focus on new problem solving and exception-handing. Valued skills will be needed for managing, interpreting, validating, transforming, communicating and acting on ambiguous and fast changing information. Results will depend upon collaboration (working together on a problem) and cooperation (sharing without any specific objective). Workers with these skills can perform tasks requiring a level of action that can’t be automated easily.

A recent white paper (Future of Work) published by Vistage summed up the challenge nicely:

One challenge for organizations is getting people to realize that what they know has little value. How to solve problems together is becoming the real business imperative. Sharing and using knowledge is where business value lies. With computer systems that can handle more and more of our known knowledge, the 21st century worker has to move to the complex and chaotic edge to get the real (valued & paid) work done. In 50 years, this may not be an issue, but right now there are many people who need help with this challenge. This is the important work of leaders everywhere: enabling the current workforce to enter the 21st century.

Learn How to Applicants Test General Mental Abilities.

 

This article originally appeared in The Total View, a weekly online newsletter that focuses on hiring, management and retention strategies. The Total View is written and published by Ira S. Wolfe, president of Success Performance Solutions and is distributed with permission by The Chrysalis Corporation. Subscribe for FREE to The Total View by typing your e-mail address in the newsletter sign-up box on the right side of this page.