Q&A #4: Joe Murphy

This is the fourth in a series of Q&As I'm doing with thought leaders in the area of recruitment and selection.

This edition features Joe Murphy, VP and Co-Founder of Shaker Consulting Group. Brief bio: Joe is a former principal at SHL USA, Inc. and co-founder of Olsen, Stern, Murphy & Hogan, Inc. He has published articles in a variety of professional publications and presented seminars on staffing metrics at a number of conferences. Joe is very active in the recruiting space (e.g., ERE) as well as an active member of SHRM, having conducted the 2004 survey of assessment practices and a national web cast on Quality of Hire.

I've been meaning to post about Shaker's Virtual Job Tryouts for a while because I like what I've seen, so this gives me a chance to highlight it. Joe's thought-provoking responses are longer than previous Q&A'rs, but well worth the read.

(Note: as always, some links are provided by yours truly)

BB: What do you think are the primary recruitment/assessment issues that employers are struggling with today?

JM: Education. Both for consumers of assessment products and providers of assessment resources. The retailer SYMS uses the phrase: “an educated consumer is our best customer.” This is also true in the field of assessment.

Just as recently as last year a VP of HR asked me if using assessment was legal in the US. I was a bit shocked.

I walked the exhibit hall at the EMA conference in San Diego and the SHRM conference in DC last year and stopped into many booths that offered some form of testing or assessment. I asked a few simple questions that I thought might trigger a good dialogue and allow me to gauge the quality of the resource. I varied my probing based upon the responses I received.

1. What do you do to establish job relevance of your assessment?
2. What steps do you take to conform to the uniform guideline on employee selection procedures?
3. Describe your approach to job analysis.
4. What criteria have been used in your validation work?
5. Do you have a sample validation technical report I could examine?
6. What norm groups do you have?

With the exception of a few providers, those questions brought blank stares or “What do you mean?, type responses. One of my favorite responses was: “Well we didn’t use prison inmates like one firm did.”

My take aways were:

• Many assessment providers have no meaningful results or best practices to share
  Training personnel working in an exhibitor’s booth on knowledge of assessment fundamentals is not valued
• And last, but most telling - Assessment providers do not expect a well educated assessment consumer

I have been involved in objective candidate evaluation practices as a user or provider for over 25 years. From my experience HR practitioners have limited knowledge regarding the use of objective candidate evaluation methods. This is most evident when exploring one word: Valid.

Validity is not an easy construct to wrap your arms around. However, many assessment consumers fall prey to the generic offering “Our test is valid.” It never dawns on many to ask: “Valid for what?” The answer to that question is far more important than just being valid.

I strongly recommend that any one considering the use of assessment go to a nearby university and take two courses: one on Tests and Measures and another on Personality Theory or Measurement. These courses will raise the caliber of users significantly.

BB: What is an example of an innovative or creative recruitment/assessment practice that you've seen recently?

JM: A focus on the nature of the candidate experience has been leading companies to be innovative. There are a number of companies that have taken the resume out of the front end screening and candidate evaluation process. The resume is then only used as context for the structured interview. By using scorable applications or biodata questionnaires, companies have become more objective at putting candidates into “Yes” and “No” piles. This also sends a nice message: “No resume needed to apply here.”

At TalUncon [Ed: Joe's link] in Redwood City, CA Gerry Crispin was talking about competency based interviews captured on video. A candidate could receive a set of questions, record their responses and post them to a YouTube like location for the recruiter. This raises questions about what is really being evaluated, but is certainly can provide side-by-side comparisons.

We like to think our Virtual Job Tryout™ is out on the leading edge. This approach to objective candidate evaluation transforms the candidate experience into an interactive, informative two-way exchange. The candidate learns about the job by performing work samples, and making choices on how they might handle specific interactions. Recruiters learn about work style and job related competencies, all from one experience.

BB: What is an area of research that you think deserves increased attention?

JM: Three things have been gnawing at me recently:

1. Attitudes and beliefs around un-proctored, on-line assessment.

I believe industry has to accept that there are sound and effective methods to administer and interpret un-proctored assessments.

2. Why do organizations place such low expectations to be measurement oriented on HR?

I believe we hide behind the term “soft costs” as an alternative to doing the rigorous work of developing the infrastructure and discipline of measurement required for the task at hand

3. How can the misguided opinion of one executive prevent an organization from realizing the gain available from objective candidate evaluation methods?

I believe we need to find better methods of documenting and presenting the benefits of assessments for executive audiences.

Here are three examples that illustrate my points.

One of our clients has the enviable, yet challenging scale of a 500 to 1 applicant to hire ratio. Their current methods of screening have been deemed both unfair and un-scalable. Unfair because the recruiter wrestles with looking at 50 candidates and makes a hiring decision, and wonders what talent was in the 450 with only a resume in the data base. Un-scalable because their growth plans simply make this semi manual process and the scope of needed recruiters unreasonable. The marketplace demands a faster and more objective data gathering process from the candidate. Relying on resumes searches or forcing the candidate into an on-site experience adds steps and negates cycle time reduction initiatives.

I heard a participant at a conference on HR Metrics openly state she went into HR because she was “bad with numbers.” The unfortunate part is that being light on that competency was OK with the company’s executives. The term “soft costs’ shows up a great deal in HR discussions. Some might say that term is used because you can’t measure it. If that is the case, will your boss mind if you double your soft costs next year?. There are sound methods to make the intangible more tangible. At the other end of the measurement continuum, one recruiter I met at an EMA conference stated her company captured and reported on 27 variables that made up their cost per hire figure. It can be done.

The now retired CEO of one of a company had a bad experience with an assessment center for executive development early in his career. As he rose through the ranks, he was able to forbid the further use of assessment in the organization. This edict lasted several decades. Last year, objective candidate evaluation was implemented at a new plant start-up. The financial implications were described by the VP of HR as one of the highest ROI projects in the company last year. Objective candidate evaluation has economic value.

BB: As someone who has their own consulting business, have you noticed any changes or patterns in the types of requests you're getting from clients?

JM: I see two camps. The novice user is still seeking the silver bullet. They want the omnibus assessment that can be used for many positions and predict any job behaviors. This is exasperated by the providers who lead under-educated HR practitioners to believe such an assessment exists.

Practitioners with a passion for process improvement get excited about taking measurement more seriously and seek more job relevant approaches to objective candidate evaluation. Project teams with six sigma training see the application and value of assessment clearly. The experienced user has achieved some degree of success and has learned that the more job relevant the assessment, the more accurate and valuable the results. Sound analytics help a user sees both the limitations and value from assessments.

BB: Have you read any books or articles lately that you would recommend to the professional community?

JM: I am in the middle of reading Susan Conway’s The Think Factory (Wiley 2007) [Ed: Joe's link]. Her mission is to bring Lean and Six Sigma practices to Information Worker (I Worker)process models. In reading it from a recruiting perspective (one of my major frames of reference) I continually see how formal and objective data gathering methods such as job analysis, assessment, and predictor-criteria correlation analysis fit right into her framework. The hiring process is a perfect example of her definition of I-Work: gathering and/or transforming data and making decisions,.

I have been pushing forth the concept of measuring the financial impact of waste and re-work in staffing processes for years. Conway addresses these issues, re-work in particular, as being significant drains on profitability. The high turnover in many entry level jobs causes re-work to the tune of millions of dollars. Yet company presidents have looked me in the eye and said, “That’s just the way it is in our business.” Responses like that change quickly when someone owns the budget for staffing waste.

Susan also addresses issues of efficiency and effectiveness in a manner that reinforces the real value driver is the later. While cost per hire and cycle time factors are important to manage, the high gains come from increases in effectiveness. This translates into making hiring decisions based on candidate data that correlates to performance outcomes.

I can’t wait to finish the book and apply a range of her assertions and models in communicating what we do. The alignment is fascinating.

BB: Is there anything else you think recruiters/assessment professionals should be focused on right now?

JM: I conducted a small survey (N = 558,) with SHRM in February of 2004. 85% of respondents stated they had not conducted an ROI analysis of their selection practices. This forced me down two paths:

1. Why do organizations allow so many resources to be invested in a business process without demanding some measure of return or contribution?
2. Why do staffing and HR professionals jeopardize their credibility by not holding themselves accountable with sound economic measures of performance?

The most common metrics in staffing are based upon cost and time. When you report cost, you get pressure to make it smaller. In essence budget constraints on staffing functions might be directly attributed to the nature of reporting.

I suggest, if not compel recruiters to partner with other in-house disciplines such as finance and process improvement. Use these combined resources to focus on value metrics, and invest in the rigor and discipline of capturing business process data that can be used to document the contribution of recruiting to the top line and the bottom line.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

If a recruiter adds value but nobody knows it, does it make a difference?

Indeed. Thank you Joe!

Q&A #3: Dr. Charles Handler

This is the third in a series of Q&As I'm doing with thought leaders in the area of recruitment and selection.

This edition features Dr. Charles Handler, founder and president of Rocket-Hire, a consulting firm "dedicated to helping organizations use technology and best practices to build effective, legally sound employee selection systems." Dr. Handler is also very active professionally and is a frequent contributor to ERE.

See if you can spot the similarities between Dr. Handler's responses and those of the previous two Q&As...

(Note: as usual, links are provided by yours truly)

BB: What do you think are the primary recruitment/assessment issues that employers are struggling with today?

CH: I believe that the primary issue being faced is understanding how to find applicants with the traits desired by the organization and how to keep them. There is a shortage of talent and persons do not stay in jobs as long as they used to. So, finding folks who have what it takes and keeping them long enough so they can provide a contribution is very difficult.

BB: What is an example of an innovative or creative recruitment/assessment practice that you've seen recently?

CH: Thinking about using virtual worlds such as Second Life as venues for employment branding and recruiting is the most interesting thing I have seen done as of late.

BB: What is an area of research that you think deserves increased attention?

CH: Moving beyond thinking about validating tests towards a broader viewpoint that takes into consideration looking at relationships in data collected as part of the recruitment/hiring process and key organizational outcomes. A broad focus on business intelligence is going to be key for understanding the value of hiring in terms of organizational goals and outcomes.

BB: As someone who has their own consulting business, have you noticed any changes or patterns in the types of requests you're getting from clients?

CH: No, just more interest in using assessment and using it correctly.

BB: Have you read any books or articles lately that you would recommend to the professional community?

CH: The tipping point. Cant recall the author's name but it was a good one.

BB: Is there anything else you think recruiters/assessment professionals should be focused on right now?

CH: Doing it right!!! Taking the time to understand key performance drivers before choosing an assessment, using good quality assessments, and measuring the impact they have on key outcomes. These are the basics and they are still not being given the attention they deserve.

Thank you Dr. Handler!

Q&A #2: David Hamill

My Q&A with thought leaders in recruitment and assessment continues with David Hamill. David is currently the Director of Workforce Development for Marriott International. David is also Past President of IPMAAC and a former senior research psychologist for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

I think if you read David's responses and compare them to Dennis Doverspike's, you'll see some recurring themes...

(Note: As last time, links are provided by yours truly)

BB: What do you think are the primary recruitment/assessment issues that employers are struggling with today?

DH: Finding and holding onto top talent! There is a war for top talent across all businesses including state and federal government agencies. Organizations must develop and maintain relationships that they can draw talent when needed and put valid selection procedures in place that do not discourage high-potential candidates from pursuing a position. Once a selection is made, organizations need to have a solid engagement strategy that helps to retain, develop, and promote their associates. Employing valid and fair selection practices does not go far enough if employees only leave the organization soon after being hired.

BB: What is an example of an innovative or creative recruitment/assessment practice that you've seen recently?

DH: I’m familiar with a program that was designed to attract hourly associates that offers a complimentary gift cards and free daycare while the candidates apply, take an assessment, and interview with an organization. This often eliminates a barrier to simply applying for a position. I also think the use of online, multi-media or interactive assessments will help to streamline the application process and enable organizations to expedite the on-boarding process.

BB: What is a research topic in this area that you think deserves increased attention?

DH: Unproctored assessments and the use of IRT/CAT assessments is an area that needs much research and thought leadership. We (I/O psychologists/assessment professionals) have successfully converted paper based assessments to the computer. However, this is hardly adequate in leveraging technology to improve prediction. Technology can greatly improve the richness of the test content, minimize the cognitive demand, assess previously un-tapped job domains, improve test security, expedite the hiring process, and provide tailored feedback to applicants. Before organizations can truly embrace online assessments, we need to develop some standard best practices with proven results.

BB: What subjects are you personally interested in, and what are you learning?

DH: I’ll limit this one to my professional interests, since my interests in fly fishing will never pay the bills. On a professional note, I am interested in developing online assessments that are fully integrated with other HR systems like performance management systems, compensation, training/learning platforms, and recruitment initiatives. I am also interested in getting more experience in working with international applicants and colleagues.

BB: Have you read any books or articles lately that you would recommend to the professional community?

DH: The Extraordinary Leader: Turning Good Managers into Great Leaders by John Zenger and Joe Folkman; Love’EM or Lose’EM: Getting Good People to Stay, by Beverly Kaye & Sharon Jordan-Evans.

BB: Is there anything else you think recruiters/assessment professionals should be focused on right now?

DH: Partnering better with key business leaders/strategic business units to develop tools and procedures which help them achieve their mission and business goals. In addition, we need to prepare better for recruiting and assessing international populations who are becoming part of the landscape.

Thank you David!

Q&A #1: Dr. Dennis Doverspike

This is the first in a series of Q&As with experienced professionals and academics in the area of recruitment and assessment.

This Q&A is with Dr. Dennis Doverspike, Ph.D., ABPP. Dr. Doverspike is a professor of psychology and Director of the Center for Organizational Research at the University of Akron, as well as a consultant in I/O psychology and human resource management. He is also the chair of the IPMAAC Scientific and Professional Affairs Committee and a regular contributor to IPMA publications.

(Note: links within answers provided by yours truly)


BB: What do you think are the primary recruitment/assessment issues that employers are struggling with today?

DD: By the time I write this and it appears in print, I will probably change my mind as I have never been good at predicting present or future trends. However, I would argue for two issues:

1. How to mix science and technology in a practical, effective, and legal manner. In particular, how to make the best use of computer and internet based screening and recruitment while still complying with legal requirements. This is especially true in the area of unproctored internet based assessment.

2. How to balance the competing demands of recruitment and assessment (selection). We tend to go through cycles in where the emphasis is placed. For awhile it was almost 100% recruitment, and then we seemed to start shifting back to the assessment process, now the emphasis seems to be about 50%-50%. But the question or challenge remains, how can we recruit large numbers of highly qualified applicants, and how do we know they are really highly qualified.

BB: What is an example of an innovative or creative recruitment/assessment practice that you've seen recently?

DD: I will answer this question in three ways. First, devil's advocate, I have not seen any innovative or creative approaches. We have a new technology, but the approaches themselves come out of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Many of our "innovative" approaches consist of the computerization of very old approaches. The one truly new advancement, Schmidt and Hunter's utility and meta-analysis theories, has still not had much of an influence on practice, especially on legal guidelines.

Second, I guess this would be angel's advocate, there has been a shift to 1) a greater concern with fairness and justice and the perceptions of the applicant 2) with seeing HRM as being an advocate for the employee. I see these trends as related in that they both reflect a great concern with human factors, especially the view of the applicant or future employee.

Third, especially in the public sector, I believe the innovation has not been so much in product as in process. That is, some of the innovations in recent years have not had so much to do with new approaches or methods of assessment, as much as they have had to do with finding new ways to do bigger, more complex projects, in less time and at lower cost.

BB: What is an area of research in this area that you think deserves increased attention?

DD: The science, or art, of recruitment is less developed than the science of assessment. I believe there is a real need for research of all types on how to target recruitment so as to more effectively deliver a large number of high quality applicants.

Going one step further, and there are obvious exceptions, as a field we have tended to look for solutions that work across jobs. In a sense, we assume that our solutions will work across all types of jobs. Meta-analysis would tend to support that finding, but I think it is an overstatement. I believe our field could advance substantially if we devoted more time to the study of specific individual jobs. In the 1980s we tried to do this with a series of studies that involved detailed protocol analyses of jobs followed up by the development of very specific computerized tests based on the identified cognitive requirements. I still believe that the in-depth analysis of specific jobs accompanied by the development of very specific tests of job-related information processing abilities would contribute to both science and practice.

BB: What subjects are you personally interested in, and what are you learning?

DD: My time is limited so it does not matter what I am interested in or want to learn. Usually what I look at is driven by the projects I am working on. But in an attempt to answer the question, I believe that one area that may contribute to advances in selection is "taxometrics." Taxometrics is fairly complicated statistically, so it does take a lot of time to start to understand its possible implications. I remain very interested in the concept of basic fairness in testing, including what that means in terms of the difference between individual and organizational utility. I have always been interested in gerontology, although as I grow older I find I cannot accept aging, so maybe that is not the best area for me. However, it is clear that with our aging workforce, we need to know a lot more about dealing with older workers.

Finally, and this is a big shift for me, recently I have started to work with our Engineering Department in the areas of MEP (Minority Engineering Programs), STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education), and SLD (Significant Learning Disabilities). This has included working with children who are in the autism spectrum. This has been a very enlightening experience and returned me to my clinical roots.

BB: Have you read any books or articles lately that you would recommend to the professional community?

DD: Malcolm Gladwell's books--blink and The Tipping Point. blink in particular is an excellent book that takes a huge body of social cognitive research and presents in a style that is both interesting and engaging. He also does a good job of being faithful to the original research. In addition, especially in the case of blink, there is a great deal that is applicable to the interview and selection.

Most of my reading is research articles or textbooks, and I am not sure those are books or articles I would recommend to the professional community. That is why I recommended Gladwell's books.

If you are a golfer, save your money and take lessons instead of buying books.

BB: Is there anything else you think recruiters/assessment professionals should be focused on right now?

DD: Focused on? Sure:

1. How to appeal to the ipod generation?
2. How to appeal to baby boomers?
3. The impact of the new OFCCP rules on applicants, and when they come out, the new EEOC rules on applicants.
4. The rapidly changing field of unproctored internet-based testing.
5. Making sure that HR is seen as a profession.

========

Thank you, Dr. Doverspike!