May 12, 2004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in this issue
-- Shedding new light on employee abilities for selection
-- Identifying employees who can think on their feet and learn on the fly.
-- Hiring employees who "get it" and avoiding those who don't
-- A solution for managers who hate doing performance reviews.
-- Question of the week: Isn't testing employees considered risky in today's litigious environment?
-- Have you read about CriteriaOne?
-- Can You Spot the 6 Deadly Sins of a Bad Hire?
-- What's Your Interviewing IQ?

Greetings:

The Total View is written and published each Wednesday by Ira S. Wolfe, founder of Success Performance Solutions. (Yes, Ira writes every article, every week!)and is distributed with permission by The Chrysalis Corporation.

To learn more about The Chrysalis Corporation or to read back issues of The Total View, visit our website at www.chrys aliscor poration.com

Shedding new light on employee abilities for selection
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch some water. Jack and Jill each had a 5 gallon container. Jack's container was shaped like a jug with a small mouth opening while Jill's container was a pail with a very wide opening. On the way up to the top of the hill, Jack challenged Jill to a race to see who could fill their container the fastest and then get back down to the bottom of the hill first.

When Jack and Jill reached the top of the hill, they both rushed to fill their respective containers. Because Jill's wide-mouthed pail was easier to fill than Jack's jug, Jill was headed down the hill before Jack barely had his jug half-filled.

While charging down the hill, Jill's pail was swinging wildly and water schlossing right out of her pail. By the time Jack filled his jug, Jill was nearly at the bottom. He ran as fast as he could although at a much slower pace than Jill. He was very cautious not to lose any water.

Jack finally caught up to Jill. Jill beat Jack to the bottom of the hill by several minutes. "What took you so long", Jill said with a broad smile and sarcastic tone. "But who has the most water in the container?", Jack shouted back. Jill looked down to see her pail was only half-full. She leaned over to peer down Jack's jug to see that his container was filled to the brim. "You may have beat me down the hill but I've got the most water", Jack snickered.

Who won the race? If the goal was to get to the bottom of the hill first, Jill won. If the goal was to finish with the most water, Jack won.

Now you may be thinking - who cares about Jack and Jill's race. You should. If you hire, train, manage, or coach employees, this Jack and Jill story mimics what interviewers must assess when it comes to qualifying how "smart" an individual must be to function effectively in a job.

Identifying employees who can think on their feet and learn on the fly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What most managers mean when they talk about "smart" is general abilities or cognitive skills. General abilities suggests how quickly and how accurately an individual thinks logically and sequentially through formulas, reads and comprehends, thinks on their feet, and visualizes and conceptualizes in three dimensions. They determine how quickly and accurately an individual can work with complex numbers, complex documents and complex blueprints and schematics. The higher the abilities, the faster and more accurate an individual is likely to get the correct answer, comprehend what is said or written or see the solution. In other words, "how quickly individuals connect the dots, get it, think on their feet, learn on the fly".

Low general abilities don't mean an individual can't get the correct answer, find a mistake or solve a problem. General abilities merely determines how accurately an individual might reach a conclusion when time is an issue and he or she is unfamiliar with the situation. The more time-sensitive a situation, the more likely an individual with lower abilities either will make a mistake or be that "deer caught in the headlights.". You know the type. You ask an assistant to make changes in a report and they look at you like you've just landed from another planet. This reaction is very different from the high abilities individual who is calculating ROI (return on investment) for a client before a client has even given him all the details. General abilities basically assess how quickly individuals process data and turn it into information when they find themselves in new and more complex situations.

Get the TotalView - Assess Abilities and Personality with Accuracy. Type "TotalView" in the comment box.

Hiring employees who "get it" and avoiding those who don't
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now what does all this have to do with Jack and Jill. Jill represents the high abilities individual. She reached the top of the hill quickly, filled her pail well before Jack, and reached the finish line far ahead of Jack. But while it took Jack much longer to fill his jug, when he reached the bottom of the hill he retained much more water. Individuals with higher abilities "get it" quicker but they may also lose it quicker as well. (No jokes about losing it as we get older although in a way this is exactly what I'm talking about.)

Follow this link to learn more about TotalView and view sample assessments.

A solution for managers who hate doing performance reviews.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's time to take a serious look at Janus Performance Management System. With Janus it's easy to identify the competencies that should be evaluated, set up evaluation forms (online or paper), and assess from 1 to 1000s of employees in minutes.

Click Here to view and download actual samples from the Janus Performance Management System

Question of the week: Isn't testing employees considered risky in today's litigious environment?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To the contrary. In fact, according to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, any inventory or procedure used during any employment decision is considered a test. Much to the surprise of even Human Resource managers, the interview is considered a test and must meet the same validity and reliability standards as personality tests, ability tests, and even resume evaluations and screening.

Reliability is a huge problem with the interview. If you can't prove that an interviewer wasn't affected by being tired, rushed or turned off by the tattoo, piercings and blue hair then you can't prove reliability. If you can't prove reliability, the interview is suspect and increases the risk of prejudice, no less hiring mistakes, during employee selection.

To post your questions about employee selection and testing, click here and visit our Discussion Forum.

Have you read about CriteriaOne?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CriteriaOne is THE blueprint for organizations who want to acquire an unfair share of the best talent in the market.

"Light years ahead of the competition" says one CriteriaOne participant.

If job analysis, job matching or employee testing is on your strategic calendar this year, you don't want to miss CriteriaOne. ( CritieriaOne )received trademark status in March 2003.)

To learn more about the CriteriaOne process to help you hire, manage, and motivate top performers, follow this link.

Can You Spot the 6 Deadly Sins of a Bad Hire?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They are. . .