Shaker Consulting Group Logo Virtual Job Tryout Logo

Posts Tagged ‘pre-employment assessment’

December 13, 2011

Measure Twice, Cut Once – It is all about job-fit

Sage advice to the trades suggests an accurate fit can be achieved by taking the time to measure, and then to take a second measure to verify, before making the cut. Two measures increase the confidence in and accuracy of the cut. Following that guidance helps reduce waste and rework when crafting a fine object. The same holds true building a workforce that achieves superior results. Using a multi-method pre-employment assessment allows you to measure twice or even seven times within one candidate experience, to help determine job-fit.

Measure Twice, Cut Once

I have worked in the trades and the joke about the advice above is – I cut it twice and it is still too short! Well intended and skillful recruiters sometime take a pipeline full of candidates, cut it twice and still make job-fit hiring decisions that miss the mark. Measurement to support job-fit decisions is critical.

Job-fit is complex. I have never sat across the desk from someone who said, “Our jobs are simple, people don’t need to bring much to be successful here.” In fact, even in entry level jobs, the variables that drive success are complex and can be difficult to objectively measure. Jobs with complex demands require rigorous evaluation methods, methods that measure twice and cut once.

Measure Twice

A common practice in the use of assessment is to administer a combination of a personality or work style questionnaire and a reasoning test. This is a simple form of two measures. The unfortunate and common outcome is poor accuracy and the ‘cut’ can be ‘off the mark.’ Candidate job-fit is far more complex than a test score and diverse high-to-low ratings on a number of personality traits.

Multi-method pre-employment assessment integrates an assortment of evaluation types to deliver a whole-person examination of diverse knowledge, skill, traits, characteristics required by the job demands. Multi-method assessment makes it possible to obtain two or more measurements or evaluations of each job relevant performance domain. When attempting to predict candidate behavior across six to eight competencies, a well developed multi-method assessment can evaluate each competency with multiple measures, thus delivering a confident job-fit measure.

Multi-Method Measurement

Here are some common assessment types that can be integrated into a multi-method assessment.

Situational judgment – choosing among options on how one might respond to common interactions with customers or co-workers

Problem solving – accessing and considering information to address questions, resolve issues

Idea generation/brainstorming – recalling or synthesizing options for a given scenario

Work history – identifying job relevant career experiences, achievements, work habits and career management behaviors

Data analysis – computations, trend analysis, comparisons and drawing conclusions from various information sources

Diagnostic reasoning – applying rule-based logic to system analysis

Prioritization – evaluation and ranking of relative importance and potential consequences of work flow demands

Delegation – discerning appropriateness of and approach to assigning work to others

Multi-tasking – splitting attention among competing demands while performance complex tasks

Work style- comparative description of preferred behavior patterns

The elegance afforded by many of these assessment methods is the ease by which the content can be created to reflect or mimic the actual demands of the job. For example, a day-in-the-life of a manager may include working with operating statements to identify issue that need attention, coming up with a variety of ways to handle the action items, selecting action items to delegate to team members and being prepared to handle a variety of team member responses.   A multi-method assessment can combine a series of exercises that present that entire sequence; Data analysis, idea generation/brainstorming, delegation, situational judgment.

Whole Person Job-Fit Profile

Whole Person Job-Fit Profile

The complexity and diverse range of job-fit attributes measured with this approach allows candidate results to be presented across a job specific competency model.  This is done through the use of HR analytics and a scoring algorithm that weights and values candidate responses according to their relationship with actual on-the-job performance.

In addition to obtaining the evaluation information, the candidates are invited to step into the job and get a glimpse of what it is like to handle the work flow. The assessment can become a form of realistic job preview.

Pre-employment testing has evolved a great deal in the past few years. The web has provided a format for delivering a highly engaging and robust multi-method assessment experience. If you value accurate job-fit, it may be time to explore how a multi-method pre-employment assessment could support your recruiting and hiring process.

Call (888) 485-7633 or write to set up a demonstration.

Measure twice, cut once to reduce staffing waste from your hiring decisions. The result is a workforce that delivers superior results.

October 14, 2011

Assessments Are Now As Much About the Brand

Top Employers Deliver Better Candidate Experience

According to Moses Bar-Yoseph, the national director, talent attraction, for KPMG in Canada, “The line is now blurring between assessment and branding.”

KPMG Canada recently launched a pre-employment assessment for managerial candidates.  Positioned as a Day-in-the-Life experience, it provides a candidate experience as unique as the KPMG brand, and as challenging as the role of a manager in tax, audit or consultancy.  KPMG sees candidate engagement as a two-way process of both education and evaluation.

The KPMG Canada virtual job tryout was developed with high levels of involvement from across the firm.  Hundreds of existing managers completed the initial version of the assessment to support the in-house validation analysis.  Their responses to various day-to-day work issues, job relevant questionnaires, and individual business results were analyzed to create a scoring algorithm.  The go-live version reports on Overall Fit and provides ratings on KPMG Canada specific competencies.  Recruiters identify best-fit candidates quickly and objectively.  The results provide better candidate data for comparing and contrasting among candidates and exceptional decision support for hiring managers.

Bar-Yoseph was recently interviewed by Todd Raphael of ERE Media about the process.  The article is here.

September 22, 2011

Validation of a Pre-employment Assessment and Crowdsourcing

Find the truth about predicting on-the job success

This week in the journal Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, it was reported that gamers contributed to a scientific breakthrough.  The problem-solving was achieved by a form of crowdsouring with a focused purpose. Earlier this year, I wrote about Jane McGonigal and her view that gamers can make significant contributions to solving significant world problems.  This is one more piece of evidence that her theory is on track.  Validation of a pre-employment assessment can be viewed as a form of crowdsourcing to solve a complex staffing problem.

Read this quote from an article about the breakthrough.

“Games provide a framework for bringing together the strengths of computers and humans. The results in this week’s paper show that gaming, science and computation can be combined to make advances that were not possible before.”

Gaming, science and computation are at the core of the Virtual Job Tryout.  We crowdsource from two groups to solve the question of what it take to be successful in a job.

When you ask ten recruiters or ten incumbents about what it takes to be successful in a job, you get ten opinions.  Of course there will be some overlap, but the overlap will contain both true and false assertions.  Humans can describe the same experience in many different ways.  People perform the same task differently as well.  What is needed to solve complex staffing problem is better candidate data.

The Virtual Job Tryout is a bit of a game.  It is work-sample and problem solving activity.  We crowdsource a large group of existing employees to complete the sample activities in the validation process.  When hundreds of people complete the same tasks, we obtain a robust data set on different approaches used to address the same issues.  We also crowdsource a comprehensive data set of on-the-job performance by asking the supervisors and managers to document productivity and rate competencies of the existing employees.

Computers are good at collecting information in a standardized format.  The web makes it easy to deliver an engaging, multi-media experience that can mimic certain aspects of a job.  In addition, how people navigate web experiences allows us to collect far more data than just a specific response.  Think about it like solving a math problem.  Sometimes the teacher wants to only see the answer, however, sometimes seeing ‘the work’ is more insightful.  The web allows us to collect ‘the work’ as well.

Industrial-Organizational psychologists are scientists.  One specific skill set of these scientists is developing algorithms to drive insightful outcomes from HR analytics.  The development of the correct algorithm is critical.  Using algorithms based upon validation from other companies delivers ‘vanilla candidates’ at best.  At worst, you hire candidates just like your competitors, thus reducing your differentiation in the talent aspect of your business.  Using data from your company, your employees, and your candidates is what makes pre-employment assessment work most effectively.

If you want to use crowdsource data to create  a highly effective solution to your complex staffing problem, give us a call.

The discovery may not be as significant as learning more about the HIV virus.  However, a better way to define what it takes to be successful in your company can improve the health of your bottom line.

July 25, 2011

Shaker Consulting Group Hires Dr. E. Daly Vaughn to Support Virtual Job Tryout Design

To meet client growth and expanding market demands, Shaker Consulting Group is proud to announce the hiring of Dr. E. Daly Vaughn as Virtual Job Tryout Design Scientist.

“His experience in HR analytics, pre-employment assessment design coupled with the use of social media in hiring will prove invaluable as we expand our service offering,” said Joseph P. Murphy, vice president of Shaker Consulting Group.

Vaughn, a native of Texas, with a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, brings a unique mix of capabilities to the firm.

For more information, read the full release: Shaker Consulting Group Hires Dr. E. Daly Vaughn to Support Virtual Job Tryout Design and Enhancement of the Candidate Experience.

March 28, 2011

Alchemy and Algorithms – Recruiting by Ego or Evidence

Alchemy attempts to take common materials and transform them into something rare and valuable. I don’t think anyone has succeeded in this endeavor to date.

Algorithms Can Be Derived from HR Analytics

Unlike alchemy, algorithms can turn raw goods into gold.   The raw goods can be candidate evaluation data and the gold is on-the-job performance.  However, many recruiters have not invested in the data collection and analysis required to create an algorithm.  As such, they make decisions based upon anecdote and conjecture.

Stock traders want to predict future prices and values of individual companies and broader indices.  Recruiters want to predict future behaviors and on-the-job results of candidates. Algorithms are used by the best-in-class of both of these disciplines. And the results they achieve are documented by superior outcomes.

The reason both of these professions use algorithms is to identify meaningful relationships among complex data sets.

Variables that drive company performance and market fluctuations are complex. And, there is likely no doubt in your mind that variables which drive people’s performance are complex, very complex. In fact you might assert people are unpredictable. If that was really the case the workplace would be chaos. And that is just not true. There are some predictable elements.

Algorithms are special equations, expressly for the purpose of teasing out insights and conclusions from complexity.

When used well, the outcome of algorithms increases the probability of making a correct decision more often than not. An algorithm based upon pre-employment testing brings a sophisticated level of HR Analytics that can dramatically improve your quality of hire.

Algorithms were used to determine the premium for your auto insurance, your credit score, the offer you received for a vacation package, and the books recommended for you in on-line shopping. In each case two or more large data sets were analyzed to determine the nature and significance of relationship that exist between and among the variables.

Big Bucks for Equations.

In a current algorithm competition $3 million is being offered for the equation that takes large data sets of health care and lifestyle information and calculates the likelihood of an individual being hospitalized sometime in the future. The underlying assumptions are two-fold. You could be charged a higher insurance premium based upon your probable path to the hospital, or you could be given a specific preventative intervention to reduce or eliminate the necessity of being admitted for medical care.

Why a competition?  The analysis and mental energy required to derive the equation is significant. Asking one individual to undertake the work may take a long time. A competition can attract the intellectually curious and competitively driven statisticians. Having a solution sooner than later is valuable.

How much would your organization pay for an algorithm that predicted your customer’s behavior?  Or possibly a more accurate question is how much has your organization already paid in an effort to better understand and predict your customer’s behavior. Go ask your chief marketing officer.

Ego or Evidence?

Best-in-class recruiting professionals use algorithms.  (We can introduce you to some of them.) Each hiring decision is supported with evidence.  But, just like the challenge in the competition, developing algorithms require thoughtful effort.  When I describe the process of developing a recruiting algorithm, I get two reactions.  One says,”That seems like a lot of work.” The other states. “That seems like it can add significant value to our process.”

Algorithms are derived from analyzing large data sets. Three data sets are required for transforming recruiting raw goods into job performance gold:

  1. Candidate Evaluation data – pre-employment assessment
  2. Behavior/Competency Evaluation data – supervisor ratings
  3. Productivity Evaluation data – objective metrics of on-the-job performance

Recruiting professionals working at the leading edge of candidate evaluation capture 200 to 300 data points from candidate evaluation. The data encompasses work history, work style and work samples.

Similarly, job performance, as defined by 100 to 200 data points from ratings and metrics for each individual provides a robust description of the complexity inherent in any job and the company culture in which it occurs.

When a recruiting professional embarks on capturing this level of data on their staffing process and its outcome as job performance they have the raw goods for the algorithm that predicts the future and answers the essential question – which candidates are more likely to be successful on the job.  Working with this type of information delviers a very powerful recruiter experience, adding both efficiency and effectiveness.

Differentiated Workforce

And, that ability to differentiate among candidates is competitive advantage. Michael Porter the strategy guru at Harvard states competitive advantage comes from business processes which are difficult to replicate.  In their book The Differentiated Workforce, authors Beatty, Becker and Huselid assert competitive differentiation comes from efforts that align jobs with strategic capabilities. (see page 10).

Using an off-the-shelf assessment, and generalized validity is defined as a ‘Me Too” strategy, one that is easy to replicate.  An algorithm which predicts candidate performance in your organization is impossible to replicate. Call us to explore what it might take to transform your candidate experience into competitive advantage and a strategic business driver.

It’s not alchemy, it’s algorithms. And they really do turn raw goods into gold. Employees who perform at gold star levels.

February 10, 2011

Do You Have A Talent-matician?

Kevin Wheeler wrote a great article on ERE asking about selection science and measurement.  His is suggesting staffing professionals adopt better methods for candidate evaluation or assessment and make more effective use of HR analytics to link candidate evaluation data to business outcomes.

Here are a few questions around measurement discipline, the answers to which may be revealing.

  1. Ask your CFO – “How much has been invested in the data capture and analysis system you use to report EBITA?”
  2. Ask your EVP of Sales – “How much has been invested in the data capture and analysis system you use to report daily sales performance?”
  3. Ask your EVP of Manufacturing ; “How much has been invested in the data capture and analysis system you use to calculate process yield?”
  4. Then ask your EVP of HR (self) – “How much has been invested in the data capture and analysis system you use to create a differentiated work force?”

In every case, for Fortune 1000 companies, the answer to the first three will be hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of dollars.  Unfortunately the answer to #4 typically pales by comparison.  Why? 

I have never sat with an executive who stated their organization was just like their competition.  In fact, great pride is expressed in how their people, their products, their services are different than others.  The work that true talent-maticians (I just invented that) do is using HR analyitics in quantifying, to the degree possible, the human variables that contribute to those differences.  That requires, rigor, discipline, experiment design, and time.

Michael Porter of Harvard suggests competitive advantage comes from business processes which are difficult to copy.  Authors Becker, Beatty, Huselid, in The Differentiated Workforce present a similar framework for evaluating HR practices that put forth a ‘Me Too’ or a Differentiated outcome.  An example of this is the use of off-the-shelf assessments without local validation.  By default the user states, we are willing to use a measurement tool developed for and by someone else and calibrated by another organization to provide data on our talent decisions.  Sounds like a Me Too tactic.  One path to a differentiated workforce is at least conducting a validation analysis on how the measurement tool (pre-employment test) is adding value to your decision process.  The underlying premise is that a good assessment provides a degree of better data and therefore, better decisions.   With in-house validation, you document the relationship between assessment results and business outcomes. 

Without an in-house validation, the test is not calibrated to performance in your organization and outcomes are anecdotal.  The practice that gives assessment a poor reputation is poor implementation.

In an earlier work by the three authors above The Workforce Scorecard, they document those organization hiring a higher percentage of employees with validated evaluation methods achieve higher levels of financial performance.  Aon and SHRM conducted a significant piece of research in the mid 1990s that included a glimpse at staffing process outcome (out of print but avaiable from the research dept).  Survey participants stated the most lacking qualities in new hires were defined as work style, and basic reasoning.  Those traits or attributes can be objectively evaluated with a variety of pre-employment tests.  Companies stating they were most satisfied with staffing process outcomes were using the most comprehensive candidate evaluation methods.

  • Companies hire engineers to solve complex measurement problems.
  • Companies hire actuaries to solve complex measurement problems.
  • Companies hire statisticians to solve complex measurement problems.
  • Companies that know their competitive advantage comes from their people hire industrial organizational psychologist to solve complex measurement problems in staffing.  These folks are the talent-maticians.

Even if you do not measure variables that provide insight to performance potential, performance variation exists.  In fact you hired your best performer and your worst performer with the same evaluation process.  In manufacturing terms that is known as performance variation and is marked by upper and lower limits.  You see, staffing is a business process with a yield to measure and manage.  To do that requires data capture and analysis.

However, enter another piece of data.  It has been known for some time that a structured interview extracts better candidate evaluation data than an unstructured interview.  In a survey on Use of Objective Candidate Evaluation Methods I conducted with SHRM (write for a copy), very fascinating evidence of interview practices emerged.  Only 55% of respondents stated they use behavioral interviews with questions written in advance (an intentional discovery process).  When asked if the interviews were supported with behaviorally anchored rating scales (a method to discern an effective response from an ineffective response), only 24% of respondents stated this practice was used.  Staffing practitioners are largely ignoring known practices which at the simplest level produce better outcomes.  Implementing assessments requires the same rigor the CFO expects from data capture and analysis in financial matters.

In some jobs, learning more about what factors contribute to retention can add signnficant value.  However,most companies do not even  measure and track the cost of early turnover.  In a survey on Staffing Waste I conducted with SHRM (write for a summary), only 8% of 636 respondents stated they track and report the costs of what I call False Starts – new hire turnover that occurs in less than 120 days.  The analogy would be a head of manufacturing that does not measure defects and scrap rates.  Manufacturing is held accountable for managing the yield of that process.  In my paper Staffing Waste: Identify it, Measure it, Reduce it, a range of examples for applying measuremen- based process improvement to staffing is offered. You can read it here

Yes Kevin, the future of staffing practices will include more measurement, more science, more accountability for understanding and managing process yield.  There are exceptional methods to evaluate candidate-job fit.  It can be measured, it can be analyzed and it can contribute to the bottom line.  However, the practice leaders are already out there, doing the work right now. 

For one example kook at the 2010 ERE Award winner KeyBank.  They reduced staffing waste in one position by over $1.7 million in one year by bringing science and measurement rigor into their staffing process.  They were able to add objective candidate evaluation in a manner that measured candidate-job fit.  The retention and gains in a range of job performance metrics are impressive.

We have many more examples of how talent-maticians drive economic impact from staffing process improvement.  To explore the scope of opportunity you might have, see our ROI calculators.Call me.  We can discuss your opportunity.

January 7, 2011

SHRM HR Magazine Features Virtual Job Tryout – Effective Assessments

When doing research on thought leadership in assessments, writer Dave Zielinski was directed to us by several resources.  He wrote a thoughtful article for SHRM’s HR Magazine from his findings.

Dave found out that market leaders, high performing organizations and highly brand conscious companies are using custom simulations for pre-employment testing and employee selection.

In the article, Dr. Nina Brody of Take Care Health Systems (a division of Walgreens) stated: “the assessment gives candidates a highly realistic job preview – causing some to self-select out early and others to solidify their commitment – and creates an impression that Take Care is operating at technology’s cutting edge..”

Also in the article, Beth Yates of KeyBank states, “the simulations create an interactive, highly immersive, multi-media experience; they mimic key job tasks and test for competencies such as providing client service, adpting to change, supporting team members, following procedures, cross selling, and working efficiently…”

Simulations deliver a highly engaging multi-method assessment inside a company branded candidate experience.  Candidates walk away feeling like they learned a great deal about the job and the company.  The company also learns a great deal about the candidate from the work sample they provide by completing the Virtual Job Tryout.

If you are a member of SHRM, check out the January issue of  HR Magazine article Effective Assessments on page 61.

If you are not a SHRM member, drop me an e-mail at joe(dot)murphy at shakercg.com (you can figure that out)  I can forward the article to you.

November 15, 2010

All Referrals Are Not Created Equal – Quality of Hire = Quality of Referral

John Sullivan points out in his ERE post on referral programs that numbers are available for those who want to invest in measurement discipline and operate at the level of evidence versus opinion.  There is plenty of data that suggests referrals work and make sound business sense.  And, just like the issue of diversity, there are other dimensions of referral process effectiveness that can be quantified.

In a hiring environment using pre-employment assessment, it is possible to examine the relationship between quality of hire and quality of referral.  In one client analysis, we were able to document that individuals scoring higher on the assessment tended to refer individuals who also performed well.  And as one might also conclude, those who scored less well referred candidates with similar performance results.  It is important to create referral behaviors from those more likely to generate high value candidates. 

The anomaly, and there are always some, was the cluster of individuals with modest assessment results but with a high level of referring activity. There was no pattern to the quality of the candidates they put forth.  We called these the ambassadors.  They are just out piping a ‘follow me tune’ attracting all comers.  Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.  It is important not to get referrals for referrals sake.

As such, using HR Analytics it is possible to target referral behaviors more selectively.  But first, you need better candidate data.

November 4, 2010

Simulations and Selection Science: Interview with Mike Hudy, Ph.D. Part One

Mike Hudy is an Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychologist and principal of Shaker Consulting Group.  He began designing custom simulations for pre-employment testing in 1997.  His work is marked by innovation in developing high-fidelity, on-line work samples and interactive evaluation experiences that expand the science and art of the profession. 

In what ways have simulations for pre-employment assessments changed the way I/O psychologists think about measurement science for the hiring process?

Psychologists have to apply traditional psychometrics to a more complex playing field.  In developing a simulation you have to capture core elements of the job in a manner that is not overly complex yet still accounts for traditional psychometric principles.  Now I/O psychologists have an opportunity and challenge to be better at balancing art with selection science.

Tell me more about the Art.

The art is the process through which we gain an understanding of a job and devise a way to represent or recreate aspects of the job in an internet delivered simulation.  Simulations collect a work sample through an informative and interactive candidate experience. This method captures a level of data a traditional Likert scale or multiple-choice assessment can never achieve.  The art is to capture some of the complexity without making it overly intricate.  The candidate needs to be able to proceed with minimal instruction to complete the exercises.  And the exercise needs to be clearly job relevant.

Is that where the power of face validity comes into play?

Yes, it is the goal is to invite the candidate to step into the role and perform elements of job which measure attributes critical for success and do job.  We create and deliver candidate evaluation in a way that the individual does not feel like they are being tested.  They know what is going on, however,the link to the job is so strong and clear.  Feedback we get from candidates strongly suggests they appreciate being afforded the opportunity to complete the Virtual Job Tryout.  They come away with a better understanding of the career opportunity they are considering.  Exposure to the role through well balanced realistic job preview and concrete elements of job demands puts the candidate in better position to decide if the job is right for them.  When we accomplish that, we know the art has achieved its purpose. 

The psychometric challenge is to still get good reliable measurement of the construct you are trying to tap into without introducing too much noise into the exercise.  What I mean by that is simulations can introduce many more moving parts into the measurement experience.  With that the risk is the moving parts or elements of the simulation could have an unintended impact on what it is you are actually trying to measure.

Can you give me an example of this?

A good example is we developed simulations for two different call center jobs.  One of them more closely resembled the actual problem solving on the job.  It simulated searching for, finding and using information to solve problems by looking for information in a multi-layered data base.

The second problem solving simulation was much simpler. It eliminated the need to search for and find information and dealt exclusively with the ability to use technical information to address customer issue and resolve problems.

While the first simulation more closely resembled the actual job, we achieved better results predicting on-the-job performance with the simpler, second simulation. 

By introducing the searching and identification task, it became a distracter and we limited our precision in assessing the actual problem solving ability.

How does that difference in complexity impact the way the candidate responds?

Candidates appreciate engaging, interesting and interactive exercises.  Not all applicants appreciate increased complexity in their candidate experience.  And, they let us know about it in the feedback.

So, how do you determine the level of complexity that is appropriate?

That is the intersection of Art and Science.  The key is to constantly take off your I/O hat and view it from the candidate’s perspective, through the test takers eyes.  At Shaker we do this through defined roles in our project teams.  It includes peer review, end-user advocate review and then a significant population of incumbents during the validation phase.  We learn more from each perspective and refine the exercises.  In developing a Virtual Job Tryout, at least four I/O psychologists will critically evaluate the experience through the eyes of the candidate.  Our programming team has over 20 years of experience designing graphically rich user interfaces and technology based training.  Each layer of feedback impacts the design.  Ultimately, the data from our HR analytics will tell us if we have it right or not.

In what ways do simulations increase the power of the selection science?

Human behavior is complex.  What defines success in any given job is complex.  Simulations allow us to measure a range of capabilities that do not lend themselves to be readily measured with traditional evaluation tools.  For example, let’s consider multi-tasking. That is the ability to split attention between numerous competing tasks.  

Measures such as personality, cognitive ability, and biodata are not able to accurately assess this construct.  Thus we developed a multi-tasking simulation that places candidates into situations where they must divide their attention between a variety of tasks that simultaneously compete for their attention.  Individuals who perform well in this exercise perform better in environments that truly demand those skills.  In call center agents, proficiency in this construct correlates to more efficient after call work and better handle times.

With a simulation we are able to capture more robust work samples such as speed accuracy, latency of response, navigation accuracy, and learning from repetition in one exercise.  Traditional and static measures such as personality and critical thinking are just not able to zero in on the subtle complexities of certain job performance domains.

Part Two

October 21, 2010

Realistic Job Preview – Unrealistic Expectations?

Conversations about realistic job preview are on the rise.  In the past six months I have had an unusually high number of discussions with corporate talent leaders about methods to help the candidate make a more informed decision.  I have even conducted a few video interviews for this blog on the topic.  Why this interest in realistic job preview?  Talent teams want to address a problem realistic job preview will not solve – to stop unqualified candidates from applying, to stop the flood of resume  spam, to reduce the flow of applicants.  Realistic job preview (RJP), while an important tool in the recruiting process, will not reverse the deluge of applicants the sourcing engines have created.

Let me offer a definition so I can be realistic in offering my opinions here.  Realistic Job Preview is a balanced exploration and overview of what happens on a day-to-day basis in a given job.  It will present the challenges, frustrations, demands.  It will present the satisfiers, rewards and motivators.   It is a matter-of-fact approach to present the job for what it is.  This story can often be told in a three to five minutes video.

I made a Boat Hand job preview while at Disney to use in my presentation on Pre-employment Testing in the Experience Economy.  It is very realistic but un-balanced.  It only shows the repetitive and menial aspects of the job. 

Many examples of job preview on career sites are equally un-balanced, showing only the glamour, the sunshine, the positive.   I call this hype, not help.  Most jobs just are not made that way, they have balance, so should the preview.  But even if your RJP has balance it won’t stop many people from applying.

Barriers to RJP Impact

There are a number of reasons RJP will not make a meaningful dent in candidate flow.  Maybe your company has been actively working on one or more of initiatives like these:

  • Efforts to become an employer of choice
  • Being recognized as a great place to work
  • Incentive based referral programs
  • Marketing driven employment branding
  • Corporate citizenship and sustainability reputations

The list goes on, and on.  A five minute video will be challenged to counter act the momentum of attraction and the prospect of a job at one of the best places to work.  People come to your site because you have captured share of mind for their career aspirations, they feel they can offer you their best, they want a job, no, a career!

Corporations have invested heavily in building and projecting messages into the talent pools that attract the masses in the hope of finding the ONE.  I call it blinded by star gazing.  While staring at the hopeful STAR in the sky, the entire Milky Way was pouring into the top of the candidate funnel.  The funnel gets clogged.  A galaxy of applicants, (who, by the way, all think they are STARS) get neglected and sucked into the ATS black hole and maybe lose some of their glow from the candidate experience.  Recruiting crumbles under the weight.  A cry of help beams forth from the edge of the recruiting universe – STOP (the flow of unqualified candidates) PLEASE!

Someone suggests: Maybe if we tell them more accurate information about the job, and what it is really like to work here, fewer people will apply.  In particular, we hope it will stop those who don’t want this type of work, those who don’t have what it takes to be successful, and those who don’t fit our culture. Great concept, but it does not work very well.  The two biggest reasons RJP does not get a lot of drop-off in applicant flow are disregard for the R in RJP and the corporate marketing ego. 

No Appetite and Hungry Candidates

Most companies do not have an appetite for being realistic. Here are a few real examples. 

A firm had more than 70% turnover in new sales representatives in the fourth month.   There were a number of factors contributing to this, but unrealistic communications about expectations was at the core.  When we came back with the script for the REALISTIC Job Preview, the editorial pen struck out most of the REALSITIC message.  The executives said they could not put that message out on the street, no one would want to apply.

A prominent company has over 20 testimonials on their career site that would make just about anyone who reads them want to APPLY NOW.  I have spoken with their recruiters, trainers and experienced performers.  Not one of the testimonials is realistic and by that I mean balanced, in the information provided.  Truthful?  Yes indeed.  This is not about deception, but the compelling success stories lack a clear line of sight to the effort it takes to achieve the success described in each scenario.

Mutual Decision Making

The fatal flaw in pursuing RJP is the assumption that it will impact the recruiting process in a meaningful way.  Make no doubt, I am a proponent of using the principles of RJP.  However, at the end of the day, it is the company that is in the decision seat.  An RJP is a one-way information exchange that educates the candidate.  The recruiter gets no data to differentiate among those candidates left in the pipeline.

The former Ohio State University professor and RJP researcher Dr. John Wanous, identified that indeed RJP was a useful tool to help a candidate self-select out of consideration.  However it was impacting less than 10% of candidates on entry level, simple jobs.  One of clients is achieving similar results with a more complex job.  RJP can help a small percentage of candidates with their career choices. 

Alternatively, and even more valued was the RJP’s impact on helping with retention.  After weeks or months on the job, when the tough days show up, the new hires react with: “You told me this was part of the job, there is no bait and switch here, I will stick it through to better days.”

RJP tells you something about those who dropped off.  It tells you nothing about those who remain, those who are still being drawn in by your employment brand and career prospects.

To help recruiters with their choices, the hiring decisions they make, you need to gather more useful information from candidates, better candidate data. That is the role of pre-employment assessments.  And simulations for pre-employment assessment collect more data about an individual that just about any other means of candidate evaluation.  That will be the topic of another article.

RSS Feed LinkedIn