SOAP BOX
I am often asked about my opinion on what I think about the use of Personality Profiling. My answer is always the same.....
Recruitment is about people and in this age of technology, you have to be careful not to become too enthralled and overkill your recruitment process by removing the people / personable element. As human beings, yes we make a lot of judgments and decisions based on emotion, fact is always the best basis for a decision. However, do we really need a piece of software to tell us if we engage with our potential hire well enough? Or do we always need a piece of software to back up what we already think?
The point I'm making is that like any tool, in the right hands and used properly, the end result will mostly be a positive one. In the wrong hands, someone who doesn't understand where, why and how to interpret, the decision will be misguided.
Again, like any piece of software, it has to best suit the needs of the business, be fit for purpose. There's always the good and there's always the bad and after all, this software has been designed and interpreted by people. It's only as good as the person who designed it, and the person who uses it.
I have come across several brands and I'd say the most problematic case I have come across is one where the employer used the testing to decide on who would go through to the interview stage or not. Candidates would be selected to attend the premises, not meet anyone of any importance, complete the 45 minute test and would be told will be contacted if they have "passed". The other issue was that this particular questionnaire asked very random questions such as "Which do you prefer, hunting or fishing?" If a candidate scored over 60, they would make it through. On what basis? Because they prefer fishing over hunting?
Because Psychometric Testing isn't a one size fits all (I believe its best used at management level), and because the testing was being used as a deciding factor and not as a guide to support those who actually did the deciding, approx 1 in 10 people made it to interview (and that was a good campaign). Therefore, on average, a hiring company would normally physically meet 5 people at interview. On these numbers, this means 50 people would have to be screened before 1 person was hired. Realistically, can 49 people out of 50 (bearing in mind they would have been invited for screening based on the experience their CV offered) really and truly be the wrong fit??
An extremely time consuming and unnecessary exercise and therefor the outcome was that the candidate pond became smaller and smaller whilst the ability to meet orders and customer demands became critical due to lack of resource. There comes a point where you have to admit this just isn't working.
Best practice is to use the testing prior to going to 2nd stage interview ensuring the info is used as a guide and a basis for additional questions at the next meeting. This way, at 1st stage, you have established the personable element of can you engage, are the right skills and the right attitude apparent at face value. To put it simply, do you like them. Even then, after the 2nd stage, the testing isn't the ultimate basis for a decision. It's a guide to quantify who best fits your required profile, and in your personal opinion, who best performed when questioned about what makes them who they are.
The biggest brands out there are Thomas International and SHL. Both provide fantastic training and SHL, an accreditation. It;s vital that if you are currently using or plan to use Psychometric Testing, you plan and implement the software as you would a new accounting package or CRM database. The better equipped users are, the better know-how to get the best out of it, thus the more effective it will be.
IN THE NEWS
Russell Brand is causing a stir again, urging young people not to vote. This got me thinking though on the whole basis of Democracy and institutions run by a committee and the best at winning popularity contests. Now I'm not particularly politically driven per say, however could there be a way to qualify voters and their ability to make an informed decision?
For example, in a workplace, it is widely adopted that everybody counts no matter the level of role they are in. However, as much as you would like to value every employee's opinion, you perhaps would take little influence from your receptionist on the question of marketing strategy or supply chain management.
Thus, here's an idea. Could Democracy evolve into something more? Could we make the voting system more robust through people having to "earn their right to vote" through a means test that qualifies they have enough of a political understanding as to what they are actually voting for? We wouldn't let unqualified drivers loose on our roads, and so I merely debate that are there voters who do not possess the abilities to make an informed vote? In turn, are these votes then letting loose the wrong politicians that everybody loves to despise? I have absolutely no idea as to the content of this means test, but just a thought!
LUNCH BREAK
Currently reading "The Bridges of Constantine" by Ahlam Mosteghanemi. I am a fan of socio-economic reads and was drawn to this book by it's description of the struggles of an Artist and a Writer suppressed by pre and post revolution Algeria. In fact although only half way through it, it's more of a love story, very metaphoric, almost poetic. It would certainly be a great read for a lover of the arts but for me, it lacks any punch and is slow going. I have never not finished a book and so I shall persevere on this poetic journey into Constantine and Algeria. Wish me luck!
AFTER WORK
Excited and compelled to go out of my way to watch the documented film "The Armstrong Lie". Alex Gibney directs the story surrounding Lance Armstrong and his drugs use confession. No doubt I shall be scrutinizing every facial flicker from the fallen angel.
I am often asked about my opinion on what I think about the use of Personality Profiling. My answer is always the same.....
Recruitment is about people and in this age of technology, you have to be careful not to become too enthralled and overkill your recruitment process by removing the people / personable element. As human beings, yes we make a lot of judgments and decisions based on emotion, fact is always the best basis for a decision. However, do we really need a piece of software to tell us if we engage with our potential hire well enough? Or do we always need a piece of software to back up what we already think?
The point I'm making is that like any tool, in the right hands and used properly, the end result will mostly be a positive one. In the wrong hands, someone who doesn't understand where, why and how to interpret, the decision will be misguided.
Again, like any piece of software, it has to best suit the needs of the business, be fit for purpose. There's always the good and there's always the bad and after all, this software has been designed and interpreted by people. It's only as good as the person who designed it, and the person who uses it.
I have come across several brands and I'd say the most problematic case I have come across is one where the employer used the testing to decide on who would go through to the interview stage or not. Candidates would be selected to attend the premises, not meet anyone of any importance, complete the 45 minute test and would be told will be contacted if they have "passed". The other issue was that this particular questionnaire asked very random questions such as "Which do you prefer, hunting or fishing?" If a candidate scored over 60, they would make it through. On what basis? Because they prefer fishing over hunting?
Because Psychometric Testing isn't a one size fits all (I believe its best used at management level), and because the testing was being used as a deciding factor and not as a guide to support those who actually did the deciding, approx 1 in 10 people made it to interview (and that was a good campaign). Therefore, on average, a hiring company would normally physically meet 5 people at interview. On these numbers, this means 50 people would have to be screened before 1 person was hired. Realistically, can 49 people out of 50 (bearing in mind they would have been invited for screening based on the experience their CV offered) really and truly be the wrong fit??
An extremely time consuming and unnecessary exercise and therefor the outcome was that the candidate pond became smaller and smaller whilst the ability to meet orders and customer demands became critical due to lack of resource. There comes a point where you have to admit this just isn't working.
Best practice is to use the testing prior to going to 2nd stage interview ensuring the info is used as a guide and a basis for additional questions at the next meeting. This way, at 1st stage, you have established the personable element of can you engage, are the right skills and the right attitude apparent at face value. To put it simply, do you like them. Even then, after the 2nd stage, the testing isn't the ultimate basis for a decision. It's a guide to quantify who best fits your required profile, and in your personal opinion, who best performed when questioned about what makes them who they are.
The biggest brands out there are Thomas International and SHL. Both provide fantastic training and SHL, an accreditation. It;s vital that if you are currently using or plan to use Psychometric Testing, you plan and implement the software as you would a new accounting package or CRM database. The better equipped users are, the better know-how to get the best out of it, thus the more effective it will be.
IN THE NEWS
Russell Brand is causing a stir again, urging young people not to vote. This got me thinking though on the whole basis of Democracy and institutions run by a committee and the best at winning popularity contests. Now I'm not particularly politically driven per say, however could there be a way to qualify voters and their ability to make an informed decision?
For example, in a workplace, it is widely adopted that everybody counts no matter the level of role they are in. However, as much as you would like to value every employee's opinion, you perhaps would take little influence from your receptionist on the question of marketing strategy or supply chain management.
Thus, here's an idea. Could Democracy evolve into something more? Could we make the voting system more robust through people having to "earn their right to vote" through a means test that qualifies they have enough of a political understanding as to what they are actually voting for? We wouldn't let unqualified drivers loose on our roads, and so I merely debate that are there voters who do not possess the abilities to make an informed vote? In turn, are these votes then letting loose the wrong politicians that everybody loves to despise? I have absolutely no idea as to the content of this means test, but just a thought!
LUNCH BREAK
Currently reading "The Bridges of Constantine" by Ahlam Mosteghanemi. I am a fan of socio-economic reads and was drawn to this book by it's description of the struggles of an Artist and a Writer suppressed by pre and post revolution Algeria. In fact although only half way through it, it's more of a love story, very metaphoric, almost poetic. It would certainly be a great read for a lover of the arts but for me, it lacks any punch and is slow going. I have never not finished a book and so I shall persevere on this poetic journey into Constantine and Algeria. Wish me luck!
AFTER WORK
Excited and compelled to go out of my way to watch the documented film "The Armstrong Lie". Alex Gibney directs the story surrounding Lance Armstrong and his drugs use confession. No doubt I shall be scrutinizing every facial flicker from the fallen angel.
No comments:
Post a Comment