Of Wal-Mart, veterans, and the nature of jobs

I think many of us were somewhat impressed with Wal-Mart's announcement that beginning on Memorial Day, they will offer a job to any honorably discharged veteran that applies within a year of ending active duty.

There's no question that the unemployment rate for U.S. vets is too high--consistently 20-30% above the rate for non-vets.

And it's refreshing to see the private sector step up after years of veteran hiring initiatives coming primarily from the government (which is not the driver of employment, at least not recently).

So kudos to them, it continues their public commitment to hiring veterans, and it's a bold gesture (although I wish the one-year time limitation was relaxed).


But what I found even more interesting than the announcement was the reaction from the veteran support community.  For example, Yana Walton from the Retail Action Project said (from the article linked above), "Workers are going to make sure that the kind of jobs that they’ve announced for veterans are the kind of jobs that workers need.  That means enough hours and living wages and jobs with benefits."

Other workers' rights groups have pointed out that these jobs are likely to include low wages and limited benefits.

Also interesting were the competing stories for why Wal-Mart likes veterans.  Wal-Mart's U.S. CEO, Bill Simon, said veterans have a record of performing under pressure, are quick leaders, and team players.  It's that last claim that is reflected in a response from Dr. Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who said, "'They like military people because they have a sense of hierarchy and a commitment to the organization they are in.  And that's important to Wal-Mart.''

Frankly I find both comments to be slightly insulting to veterans, treating them as if they are a homogenous group.  I also find it insulting for anyone to assume that veterans are going to leap to embrace any job, regardless of the duties, pay, and benefits.

Some may see this as looking a gift horse in the mouth.  I look at it as supporting the dignity of workers and those seeking employment.

One of the most interesting debates that has occurred over the last several years of high unemployment has been about the nature of jobs that people want.  Certainly having a job and an income is better than nothing (at least in most cases), but many unemployed aren't interested in any job, they want a job that holds some promise--of good working conditions, of stability, and of promise of future opportunities.

Sadly, that may not be the types of jobs that are being created, at least not in the retail sector.  And it begs a larger conversation about education and skill mismatch, as well as how organizations define qualifications.

I also find this fascinating from an assessment standpoint.  To promise jobs to a single group of individuals without regard for assessing whether the individual applicants possess the qualifications the employer is seeking for a particular position is, well, frankly stupid from an organizational effectiveness standpoint.  This is either a leap of faith on the part of Wal-Mart, or (more likely) a calculated risk given their high turnover rate and the types of jobs veterans are likely to get.


It was with these thoughts rolling around in my brain that I watched my 5-year old's teacher open the door to her kindergarten students the other day.  I wondered what it was like for her day after day--the ups (children learning), the downs (noise)--and what attracted and kept her in the job.  I would guess that most teachers that stay teachers do so because they receive a significant amount of satisfaction from seeing students achieve and change in positive ways.  It's not an easy job, and they don't make a ton of money, so something must be keeping them there.

This made me think about why people apply for jobs at all.  Sure, for some people a job is a job--it almost doesn't matter what it is.  But I think this is probably the minority of job seekers, and it may be decreasing in prevalence.  And the historically (and I would argue misleading) high rate of job satisfaction may be losing its strength as an argument as people ask better questions like whether you would make the same career decision. 


So if more and more people are looking not only for a job, but a meaningful, rewarding one, what can we as assessment professionals do?

For starters, we can do more thinking about how to accurately describe jobs.  Regular readers know I'm a big fan of realistic job previews and that I think organizations generally do a terrible job at letting applicants know what they're getting themselves into.

Second, we can do a better job at assessing people's motivations for applying.  We've all seen the "why are you interested in this job?" question that seems entirely predictable and pointless but often yields surprisingly honest results.  If we proceed on the assumption that job performance and retention is driven at least in part by the match between a person's interests and motivations and what the job offers, we do a pretty sad job of measuring this.  Most of our measures deal with job-related knowledge or skills.  Don't get me wrong--this is really important.  But (in addition to personality) it leaves out a huge factor, namely the motivation for applying.

We should be providing more information, asking more questions, digging deeper, investigating new ways of using technology, and treating applicant motivation with a renewed sense of seriousness.

There may have been a time when measuring motivation to apply was considered secondary or unimportant, but that time has passed.

Final research update of 2011

Welcome to the last HR Tests research update of 2011! This year has been filled with research developments, building on previous thinking as well as venturing out into new areas. Let's see what the end of the year brings us (hint: a lot)...

We'll start with the Winter 2011 issue of Personnel Psychology:

- If you're looking for executives who excel at strategic thinking, you'll want to pay attention to not only their cognitive ability but their accumulated work history, according to Dragoni, et al.

- I tend to think of realistic job previews (RJPs) as occurring pre-hire, but research by Earnest, et al. suggests that an effective technique is to conduct an oral and written RJP post-hire--and be as honest as possible.

- Meta-analyses are relied upon heavily as summaries of large bodies of research. Roth, et al. point out ways we can make them better, particularly with respect to estimates of validity and group differences.

- One of the downsides of cognitive ability tests is they're not always perceived very well by applicants. Sumanth & Cable show how this perception is influenced by the status of the organization as well as individual status.

- Next, a fascinating description of a scale to measure the idea of calling by Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas. What I found most interesting was how the measure was associated with different criteria for different domains (e.g., art, music, management). You can read a draft version here.


Let's turn now to the January issue of JOB:

- Political skill is a hot topic, and Gentry, et al. demonstrate how the perception of promotability related to this skill varies between bosses, peers, and direct reports. Long story short: it differs, and also depends on behavior (attitude will only take you so far, right?). You can read the full version (at least right now!) here.

- Anyone that's worked with (or has in their family) engineers or scientists knows that they often share some strong traits. This suggests leading these groups that engage in creative activity may require specific attributes, which is what Robledo, et al. set out to describe.


On to the January issue of JOM:

- Core self-evaluation (CSE) is another hot topic, and Chang, et al. provide an important review of 15 years of research, including the meta-analytic support for CSE predicting in-role and extra-role performance.

- Boswell, et al. provide an integrative review of the concept of job search across different situations (e.g., following job loss, while employed).

- One area that deserves more attention is selection into the highest positions within organizations. Withers, et al. provide a review of the process of selecting a director for a board.


Let's not forget v41(2) of Personnel Review:

- Hoglund delves into the topic of talent management as a strategic HRM practice. A fascinating topic that reinforces the importance of HRM as an influence over employee perceptions and behavior.

- The wording of job ads can have important impacts on applicant perceptions and behavior. De Cooman and Pepermans analyze the differences between for-profit and non-profit job ads, and show how only a fraction of the information potentially relevant for job-person match is published.

- Another topic that deserves additional attention is the motivation to expatriate. Altman and Baruch describe results of a qualitative study that may be useful to organizations thinking about attracting and selecting for positions that require this substantial move.


Don't forget this one:

- Johnson, et al. with an important reminder that when looking at the issue of discrimination, using single categories to define groups is probably not the best strategy.


Whew! And last but certainly not least, in the December issue of IOP, Michael McDaniel and colleagues present an argument (similar to ones made elsewhere) that the Uniform Guidelines are outdated and, worse than that, a detriment to the field of selection. The commentaries are many and range from support to passionate disagreement, with a healthy dose of caution (and dare I say...intransigence?) thrown in. Worth a read, particularly for those following the Guidelines literally and those engaged in related litigation. You can read a draft version here.


I hope everyone has a great New Years; here's to a wonderful 2012!

Feds new jobs site is Googlish

The U.S. Government has revamped its jobs page, www.usajobs.gov, and in the process shown everyone else how its done.

Take a look at their old site. Not horrible, but cluttered with lots of features that distracted from the main reason people visit the site: to look for a job.


This picture actually doesn't do it (in)justice; there was additional content below the bar.

Now look at their new website:


This new website is what I would call "Googlish": simple, lots of white space, no scrolling required, and a single search box. The design focuses less on being pretty, and more on being functional. If you're interested in learning more about careers, or if you'd like information related to specific groups, like veterans or those with disabilities, its still there. And there's even more functionality up top in the form of drop-down menus.

Job seekers don't need a magazine ad. They need to quickly and easily find information. And this new website fits the bill.

How does yours compare?

Exploring the wild west of staffing

Last week I gave a presentation at the WRIPAC meeting in Burlingame, CA. The topic was "Using the Internet to effectively attract and screen the right applicants." Here are a few observations given my conversations with a very engaging group of participants:

1. There is immense interest in using the Internet for more than just posting jobs. But many folks are unsure how to start or what's out there. For individuals new to Web 2.0 concepts (e.g., social networking sites) there is a healthy--not necessarily unwarranted--skepticism.

2. Our worlds can shift relatively rapidly from "how do we get more applicants?" to "how do we get fewer applicants?" and then back again. As recruitment and assessment professionals we need to be able to pivot quickly and make sure our organizations are up to snuff in both realms.

3. In order to use the Internet effectively, most of us need to work with our IT staff. But this can be challenging given built-in resistances to change, security concerns, and assumptions. My advice was to push them as long as you have a good business case.

4. We have a lot of work to do on the most basic use of the Internet for recruitment and self-screening: our career portals. Many are cluttered and most likely have not been reviewed critically. More white space, more links, more pictures and video.

5. Most folks have some type of applicant tracking system, but many are unsure what its capabilities are and are not 100% sure how to use it to screen applicants. Oftentimes we rush to use built-in training and experience questionnaire functionality without first understanding the best way to use them. I just hope we move away from time-in-grade.

6. People seem to be moving away from the big job boards and towards cheaper--and usually more effective--alternatives, like craigslist or more targeted postings. People are also taking a harder look at whether their advertising dollars are really bringing in the candidates they need.

7. The balance of power has shifted in some ways from the employer to the applicant. They're not just responding to our (often uninspired) job postings, they're asking their friends, looking us up on glassdoor, connecting to people through LinkedIn, etc. As partial keepers of the organization's reputation, we need to be aware of all the different ways applicants research us.

8. These are exciting times. At several points in the presentation I mentioned that right now we are in the Wild West of staffing. Technology changes constantly, and along with them so do expectations placed upon us. We learn as we go. And it's challenging, but opportunities abound for those that are willing to take some risks.

Hang on, we're in for a heck of a ride.

We're missing half the equation

Matching the right person with the right job has two main components, one focused on the employer, the other on the applicant:

#1) A careful analysis of the job by the employer to identify the critical tasks and essential KSAs/competencies. This allows us to develop selection mechanisms that filter applicants to identify the most qualified.

#2) An accurate and thorough description of the job so the applicant can decide if there is a good match between the job and their qualifications.

We tend to do a pretty good job on #1. But many of us completely fall down when it comes to #2. We assume that the job and the organization have been described sufficiently so that applicants--qualified and not--can properly select in and out. But I think we're deluding ourselves.

Ask yourself this: What do you do to make sure applicants have a feel for the job? Let's think about this like we might a selection mechanism, from least to most fidelity:

(a) Describe the job/organization using text description of duties and qualifications
(b) Describe the job as above, also include benefits and "what's in it for you"
(c) Same as above, plus pictures of the work environment
(d) Same as above, plus other multi-media like videos and podcasts
(e) Same as above, plus Web 2.0 engagement strategies, like employee blogs
(f) Allow the applicants to perform simulated job duties online
(g) Alllow applicants to perform simulated job duties in person offsite
(h) Allow the applicants to perform actual job duties on the job site

I'll bet most of us would say (a) and (b) are standard, we have (c) on a good day, and we're moving slowly toward (d) and maybe (e). But this is, frankly, insufficient. The modern job seeker has access to a mountain of information--but desperately lacks information from the horse's (employer's) mouth. The reality is if you don't give it to them, someone else will.

What other benefits are there? Self-screening for one. The fewer unqualified people you have "in the pipe", the less time you waste screening out (not to mention the less time candidates waste, which they greatly appreciate).

By this point you might be wondering what these pictures are. They're from a children's museum I visited recently. They had all these leftover pieces of equipment for children to play with. Thing is, it was fun for the adults too. It gives you a real sense of what it would be like to sit in a helicopter, ride a police motorcycle, and drive a bus.

Why don't we have something like this geared toward adults? This goes way beyond an open house. It could be part of a career fair, or even better, employers would maintain a standalone site where applicants could get a clearer picture of what they'd be doing.

Now not everyone is going to be excited about a day in the life of a cubicle dweller, but everyone works somewhere--why aren't we doing a better job of explaining what it's like? Until we recognize the applicant's perspective, and the impact this has on getting the right person-job match, we're missing half of the equation.

Finally, for those of you that follow research, here's a listing of journals; half focus on the employer, half more on the job seeker. Which ones do you typically read?

Research round up

There has been so much good research coming out that rather than attempting to write a summary for each of them, allow me to simply present titles and links for you. I'll bet you see something you'll want to follow up on:

Cognitive and emotional processes in individuals and commercial web sites (how people respond to banner ads)

Occupational embeddedness and job performance (interesting results for people that are strongly linked to their career field)

Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions (qualitative summary)

The hidden prejudice in selection: A research investigation on skin color bias

Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence (really good stuff about moderators)

Stereotype threat reinterpreted as a regulatory mismatch.

Does socioeconomic status explain the relationship between admissions tests and post-secondary academic performance? (short answer: no)

Similarity and assumed similarity in personality reports of well-acquainted persons. (depends on which HEXACO factor you look at)

Not all conscientiousness scales change alike: A multimethod, multisample study of age differences in the facets of conscientiousness. (hint: there's something special about orderliness)

Enjoy!

Links a go-go

Good reading for February 1, 2008:

U.S. Government launches photo screening tool to help employers verify employment eligibility

New Monster ads (seen the one with the sun coming up?)

Assessment trends for 2008

Increased use of video-sharing sites in U.S.

Attracting IT talent in 2008 (thank you HR World)

Do you know what you don't know you know?

HR academics vs. practitioners

Et tu, HR?

It's easy to give out advice. HR does it all the time.

But how well does HR practice what it preaches?

In the most recent issue of the U.S. Merit System Protection Board's (MSPB) newsletter, Issues of Merit, in an article titled "Taking our own advice", the author describes attempts by MSPB to ensure they are walking the walk when it comes to hiring procedures.

So what did they find?

1) Their job announcements weren't all that attractive. They contained jargon and too much information. Perhaps more importantly, they didn't "sell" the job.

Solutions: Job description was refined and rewritten so qualifications were easier to understand, got rid of excess information, and made easier to read. In addition, they added a job preview component that helps applicants decide if the job is a good fit.

2) They were using questionnaires as an initial screen that had low validity.

Solution: Questionnaires were replaced with an accomplishment record, which they hope (and research suggests) will better predict who will succeed in the job.

3) They were using the "rule of three" for external hires which limited their ability to consider a broad candidate group.

Solution: "Rule of three" replaced with category rating, which allows them to consider more candidates.

4) Recruitment methods weren't as broad as they could be.

Solution: MSPB worked with OPM to feature their jobs prominently through USAJOBS, the federal government's online job posting site. In addition they made greater efforts to actively seek out qualified candidates whose resumes were in USAJOBS. Finally, they used professional organizations to help advertise their opportunities.

An honest review of recruitment and assessment procedures in any organization will undoubtedly result in areas for improvement. Kudos to MSPB for following their own advice.

Wanted: Chief Magic Official

You've heard of Chief Knowledge Officer, Chief Fun Officer, and even Chief Evangelist.

But Chief Magic Official?

One guess as to who would be filling that job title.

If you guessed Disney, go to the head of the class.

Yes, Disney is out to hire it's first "CMO" who will appear periodically to grant "dreams" to guests at Disney Parks in Anaheim and Orlando this year. Disney's put together a great recruiting website that includes:

- A Magic Aptitude Test (M.A.T.) that you can take to see if you qualify--you have to take a look at it just to see the pencil you'll be using for the test (by the way, I passed and am apparently similar to Mickey Mouse)

- A great job preview video

- A creative job description and statement of qualifications

In a new twist, applications must include a video resume that will be voted on online. The top three vote getters will be invited (along with three guests) to Walt Disney World resort for further vetting.

So will this work? Probably. It is Disney, after all, who doesn't usually have too much trouble attracting candidates. And some research indicates applicants are more attracted to creative job titles.

But whatever happens, you gotta admire their creativity!

Help Wanted

Sometimes the ad writes itself

Is USAJobs enough?

Check out this article that came out recently on GovernmentExecutive.com. It's about how the federal government may need to branch out and start using other advertising venues besides USAJobs.gov, which it relies on heavily.

Some individuals quoted in the article, which happens to include a manager at CareerBuilder, point out that:

- Opportunities are not automatically posted on other career sites, like CareerBuilder, Monster, and HotJobs.

- Job openings are not "typically" searchable through search engines like Google. (Although look what happens when I search for an engineering job with the federal government).

- You can't expect people to automatically look for jobs on USAjobs.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the fed's HR shop, fires back:

- USAJobs gets 8 million hits a month. This compares to CareerBuilder's 1.2 million searches a month for government jobs.

- USAJobs is well known and marketing efforts have been ramped up (e.g., last year's television commercials, which unfortunately didn't work with my version of Firefox).

So who wins the argument? I don't think the feds need to panic just yet. But it can't hurt them to investigate other posting opportunities, particularly given how much traffic the heavy hitters like Monster and CareerBuilder get compared to USAJobs:

By the way, don't overlook the comments on that page; in some ways they are more telling than the article. Readers point out that the application process is overly complicated--to the point that one of the readers makes his/her living guiding people through the process (reminds me of a guy that does the same thing for the State of California). My bet is the application process is equally, if not more, important than how the feds are marketing their opportunities.

I would also be willing to bet that it isn't just the feds that have this issue. As more organizations implement automated application and screening programs, they risk falling in love with the technology at the expense of the user experience. I may love the look of your job, but if it takes me 2 hours to apply, well...I may just look elsewhere.

JobAdWords Update

Update on the JobAdWords Survey

In a previous post I introduced a survey I'm using to answer some questions about the words used in job advertisements. The survey can be taken here, or if that's full, here or here.

Results so far? Based on responses from a mixture of HR professionals and job seekers (I'll break them out when I have a large enough sample):

The words most often seen in job advertisements:

- Motivated
- Flexible
- Customer-focused

The words least often seen in job advertisements:

- Independent
- Smart
- Friendly

The words with the most positive emotional response:

- Conscientious
- Reliable
- Strong work ethic

The words with the least positive emotional response:

- Flexible
- High-energy
- Creative

The words associated with highest probability of applying:

- Professional
- Detail-oriented
- Reliable
- Friendly
- Conscientious

The words associated with the lowest probability or applying:

- High-energy
- Flexible

So here's an interesting question (worthy of further research): do the words in job advertisements cause a reaction because they say something about what the job would be like, or because they cause people to self-assess? Or both? For example, "strong work ethic" received a high emotional response, but was not one of the highest-rated words when it came to applying. Hmmm...

June '07 JOOP

The June 2007 Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology is out, and while it has several articles of interest, there's really only one directly related to recruitment/assessment.

In the study, Piasentin and Chapman looked at how perceptions of person-organization (P-O) fit come about--whether they stem from feeling like the organization is similar to you, complements you, or some combination of both.

Using a sample of data from 209 employees "of various occupational and organizational backgrounds", the authors found support for both the similarity and complementary effects. In addition, perceptions of fit were found to correlate (and mediate the relationship) with several other important feelings, including:

- job satisfaction
- organizational commitment
- turnover intention

So what are the implications? How people perceive the match between their own skills, values, and goals and those of the organization matter--and not just to current employees but applicants as well. Organizations have to make sure they give applicants enough information to make this judgment, however. Too often job seekers are provided with minimal, or irrelevant, information about the position and the organization, such as long lists of tasks. Yes, people want to know what the salary is and where the job is located, but they also want to know who they'll be working with, what their career growth opportunities will be, and what the organization's take on work-life balance is.

This is low-hanging fruit from a staffing perspective, and organizations that get it are providing job seekers with this rich form of information.

...speaking of fit...there's a new book out on the topic, called Perspectives on Organizational Fit edited by Ostroff and Judge. It includes recruitment and selection as topics, but also covers others, such as leadership and teamwork.

Project JobAdWords

I'll be in St. Louis at the IPMAAC conference for most of the week, then taking a little time off...In the meantime I thought I would gather a little data...

I know there's research out there that looks at applicant reactions to various aspects of a job advertisement, such as information on selection procedures, pictures, and clear descriptions of work climate. But I'm not aware of any that specifically looks at the effect of WORDS commonly contained in job ads (although there is a recent study about word frequency).

You know the ones I'm talking about:
- "motivated"
- "creative"
- "works well under pressure"
etc.

But what exactly do these words mean to a reader? What reaction do they cause?

Today I'm starting Project JobAdWords, an attempt to try to answer these questions.

I've created a very brief survey designed to shed a little light on what these words mean. I would greatly appreciate your participation in this project. Simply go to one of the following websites--if survey #1 is full, go to survey #2, if survey #2 is full, please try survey #3:

Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 3

As soon as I have enough respondents--judged completely arbitrarily and in no way using statistical sophistication--I will post the results. If I get enough results, I may continue this project by looking at other similar issues.

Thank you! Please pass the word.

Feds host virtual career fair

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in conjunction with the Partnership for Public Service, will host a "virtual career conference" to highlight opportunities with the federal government today, Wednesday, and Thursday. You can view the live web cast here.

The event will kick off at 11 a.m. on June 5th with an overview of federal employment by the Director of OPM, Linda Springer. Subsequent panel sessions will focus on finding and applying for jobs, insight from new federal employees, student programs, IT jobs, opportunities in medicine and public health, how to host a career fair, and several other topics.

According to the news release, videos of all twelve panels will be available through both OPM and the Partnership for Public Service for the remainder of the year. The event is specifically targeted at the 600 colleges and universities around the U.S. who participate in the Call to Serve initiative.

Kudos to these organizations for being creative about highlighting opportunities in the public sector and taking advantage of technology to get the word out.

Must-reads on OFCCP compliance

John Sumser has written two excellent posts about OFCCP compliance, job posting in light of the sunset of America's Job Bank, and the final rules for the Jobs for Veterans Act.

First post here.

Second post here.

(Bolded date may indicate 2006 but these are 2007 posts)

Highly recommended for employers covered by OFCCP laws/regulations.

2007 SIOP Conference: Highlights, Part 3

This is the fourth in a series of posts about the 2007 SIOP Conference. In Part 1 I talked about some of the new products out there and in Part 2 and Part 3 I reviewed some of the research that was presented. This post continues that review...


Employment interview structure and discrimination litigation verdicts: A quantitative review

Pool, McEntee, and Gomez analyzed 31 federal court cases from 1990 to 2005 (27 claims of disparate treatment, 7 of adverse impact) to see if there was a relationship between the amount of interview structure and verdicts in employment discrimination cases. Most cases (73%) were brought under Title VII and involved promotional decisions (65%). Race discrimination was the most common allegation (47%) and the vast majority of cases (84%) involved a single plaintiff. For both types of claims, the strongest factors associated with a victory for the defendant (employer side) was having interviewers that were familiar with job requirements and having a guide for conducting the interview. In disparate treatment claims, defendants were more likely to prevail if they also had standardized questions and identical interviews for each applicant. In disparate impact cases, defendants fared better when they had evidence of validity (which makes sense given the burden shifting in these cases). Similar results to Williamson et al.’s 1997 study, but good data to have—see, we’re not just saying standardize those interviews because we’re sadistic HR folks.

Recruiting through the stages: Which recruiting practices predict when?

This meta-analysis by Uggerslev and Fassina of 101 studies looked at the impact that various “recruitment predictors” (e.g., job-person fit, job/organizational attraction) had on various outcome criteria (e.g., job pursuit intention, acceptance intentions). Results depended somewhat on the criterion, but perceived fit between the individual and the job/organization was across-the-board the strongest predictor. The only criterion that matched perceived fit was job characteristics, which tied for predicting acceptance intentions. The strength of the correlations varied, from a low of .15 between perceived fit and job choice to .47 between perceived fit and recommendation intentions. So how do we use this? The authors suggest efforts to increase the appearance of a good fit between the values of goals of applicants and those of the organization may pay off (I'm thinking, say, by focusing on aesthetics and message customization or clearly indicating what you’re looking for).

Meta-analysis on the relationship between Big Five and academic success

Okay, so it's not directly about recruitment or assessment, but it's still interesting. The title pretty much says it all--the presenters (Trapmann, Hell, Hirn, and Schuler) were looking here at the relationship between Big Five personality traits and academic success. Results? As you might expect, it depends what you mean by "success." Neuroticism was related to academic satisfaction (hey, that's why they're neurotic, right?) while Conscientiousness correlated with grades and retention. The other three factors (Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness) were not related to success.

That's probably the end of my review of 2007 SIOP presentations, unless I manage to obtain more presentations. Stay tuned for reviews from the upcoming IPMAAC conference!

Targeted job board: I/O Careers

Do you have a job opening in the field of Industrial/Organizational (I/O) Psychology, which ranges from individual assessment to organizational analysis? Then you might want to look at posting on I/O Careers, which now has over 650 members from 40 schools.

Membership is limited to "individuals who are serious about the field of I/O Psychology" but during the beta of the site, posting jobs is FREE. (After that it's $250 a pop).

Check it out.

Recruiting Trends Survey from DirectEmployers Association

The results from the 2007 Recruiting Trends survey sponsored by the DirectEmployers Association are out.

Data gathered from 47 companies indicated:

- 55% of hires were made from online sources (+8% from last year).

- Employee referrals were the largest single source (21% of hires), followed closely by the organization's website and general job boards.

- Employee referrals also generated the highest quality candidates (82% rated favorable), but niche job boards and search firms tied for second, with campus recruiting a very close third. General job boards were rated favorable by only 22% of respondents.

- The largest percentage, by far, of recruitment/advertising budget went to general job boards (34%). Referrals, the source of the highest quality candidates, received 6% of the budget.

- Putting these numbers together, the source value (cost/hire) was highest, by a large margin, for referrals, followed by the organization's web site and, perhaps surprisingly, social networking technology.

Comments and follow-up conversations indicated a growing frustration with general job boards (especially for IT jobs) as well as a growing reliance on sources of passive candidates, such as social networks, blogs, and search engine optimization.

Read the full report for a much more detailed analysis and insights. Thanks to Rocket-Hire for making this available.

Job ads of the future?

Curious about the direction job postings are going?

Looking for ways to snazz up your postings?

Then read this post over at jobs2web. Check out the graphic.

How close are your postings and/or career portals to this? Are they even in the same ballpark?

How hard would it be to add things like:

- links to a webinar/job preview video

- RSS feed

- subscribe to similar jobs

Answer: not hard. Let's hurry up and get there!