The best recruitment and retention tool: That touchy-feely stuff

Everyone who's anyone in the HR circles these days knows that to have a "seat at the table", be taken seriously, and avoid criticism, we need to ditch our reputation as touchy feely "people" people and focus on ROI, adding value, walking the walk, metrics, and all those other magical things that will somehow convince executives that we're worth our salaries. Right?

Here's the funny thing. Probably the biggest single factor in attracting and keeping the right people is your reputation--what people say about your organization. Referrals are time and time again cited as the most valuable source of high quality candidates (although we desperately need more non-survey research into this issue). And whose word carries the most weight? Current employees. So where should our focus be? Yep, you guessed it, our current employees.

So what does that mean? All that touchy feely stuff like job satisfaction surveys and wellness programs help ensure that your employees are happy (or as happy as you can make them). Happy employees are not just more likely to leave your customers with a positive impression, they're more likely to sing your praises to potential applicants. This positive reputation, combined with salaries that are at least in the ballpark, and clear communication about expectations and rewards, will go a long way toward your future success in attracting talent.

July 2008 Issues of Merit

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) just released its July 2008 Issues of Merit and there's at least three articles worth taking a look at:

- Using engagement strategies to retain retirement-ready employees (page 1)

- An overview of accomplishment records (page 6)

- Reference checking: beware speed over quality (page 7)

2008 IPMAAC Conference: Presentations

With memories of last week's IPMAAC conference fresh in my head (and what a great conference it was!), I thought I would mention that presentation slides have already started to appear at the website.

Here's a sample of what's already up:

Police recruiting and retention: "It's Showtime"

Implementing an assessment program for executive candidates

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Expect many more to pop up in the next few weeks.

Interested in becoming a member? Go here.

Predicting turnover

Turnover can be caused by many things. Inadequate supervision/ leadership. Too much work. Not enough work. Insufficient career growth opportunities.

According to many surveys (e.g., salary.com's recent one), these are the types of things people report as primary motivators driving them to change employers.

But these are all factors outside of the employee. What about aspects of employees themselves that might contribute to turnover? We know that people are changing jobs more frequently these days (every 2-3 years in the U.S.), and there seems to be a persistent dissatisfaction among the Gen Xers with their careers, but what about someone's personality? Might there be individual differences between people when it comes to changing jobs?

You bet, according to a new study published in the Summer 2008 issue of Personnel Psychology. After meta-analyzing 86 studies, author Ryan Zimmerman found that personality factors, particularly emotional stability and agreeableness, play a big role in predicting turnover. Emotional stability best predicted intent to quit, while agreeableness best predicted actual turnover.

In fact, personality traits predicted turnover better than did non-self report measures such as job complexity and job characteristics.

Implications? Many initiatives designed to reduce turnover may disappoint because it's not the job, it's the person. The next time you design an exit interview or turnover study, make sure to add this reason for why the person left: It had nothing to do with the job, it was just me.

This also provides more support for using personality tests to predict important outcomes.

...

The other study in this issue we should look at provides some support for all you O*NET fans out there. You know...O*NET? The replacement for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles? Developed by the Department of Labor? A fount of job analysis knowledge? If you don't know it, you should.

Anyway, in this study, the authors used O*NET data to predict literacy requirements across a wide variety of occupations compared to scores on the national adult literacy survey (NALS). Results? O*NET did well--quite well in fact, with correlations around .80.

What does this mean? It means that occupational requirements listed in O*NET just got a big boost in terms of their validity. When it comes to job analysis, don't leave O*NET out.

New MSPB study has gems

A new study out by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), "Attracting the next generation: A look at federal entry-level new hires," while focused on the federal government, has good information for all of us. The study of recent federal hires uses data from over 1,000 survey participants as well as personnel records. Some of the insights include:

- Both those under 30 and those 30+ were most likely to find out about the job through a friend or relative. On the other hand, those 30+ were more likely to use USAJOBs and agency web sites, whereas those under 30 (not surprisingly) were more likely to discover jobs through school job fairs or placement offices. In addition, those under 30 were more likely to use "non-government job sites."

- The most common forms of assessment used were (mostly unstructured) interviews and reviews of transcripts. Narrative statements, written exams, and job simulations were (unfortunately) used much less often--despite evidence of their superior ability to predict job performance.

- Agencies also relied heavily on the "point method" for reviewing training and experience--i.e., the more training/experience you have, the higher your score. This despite evidence that the correlation between experience and performance is complex and peaks fairly quickly, while education does not generally predict performance very well. Not to mention that they make little sense when hiring for entry-level jobs.

- There were very few differences between age groups when it came to what applicants wanted in a job. For both the under 30 and 30+ groups, salary and benefits came out tops. The only significant differences came when looking at pensions (more popular among those 30+) and health insurance and tuition reimbursement (more popular among those under 30). Job security was also mentioned by both groups as a big draw to the federal government.

- Those under 30 were much less likely to predict staying with the feds for their entire career (although still an impressive 45%), and more likely to predict eventually moving to the private sector.

- "Length of the process" was by far the biggest obstacle faced by applicants in their pursuit of a federal job.


MSPB recommends federal agencies make several improvements to their recruiting and assessment efforts, including:

- Use more predictive assessment tools instead of relying on training and experience measures.

- Use a balanced set of recruitment practices to reach all the various segments of the job market. MSPB points out that conducting a proper job analysis and identifying true minimum qualifications can help cut down the number of unqualified applicants.

- Market what is important to applicants. For federal agencies this means job security, benefits, and the ability to make a difference.

- Evaluate the hiring process and remove any obstacles that are unnecessarily lengthening the process.

- Avoid stereotyping based on generational assumptions, since the data indicate substantial similarities between age groups in what they want out of a job.

Again, good information for all of us. There's a lot more information in the report.

January '08 issue of J.A.P.

The January 2008 issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology is out. Unfortunately there are only three articles directly related to recruitment and assessment, but they're pretty good ones, so let's dive in.

First up, a Monte Carlo investigation of the impact of faking on personality tests by Komar, et al. "What is a Monte Carlo investigation?" you may ask. Essentially it's when researchers use computers to simulate data scenarios rather than collecting actual data from participants/subjects/victims. Anyway, the researchers looked at the impact on the criterion-related validity (as measured by supervisory ratings) of conscientiousness scores adjusting for various "faking" scenarios. They found that the validity is impacted by a variety of factors, most notably proportion of fakers, magnitude of faking, and the relationship between faking and performance. Another shot across the bow of self-report personality inventories, methinks, although the debate will no doubt continue!

Next a fascinating study of motherhood bias in both expectations and screening decisions by Heilman and Okimoto. The researchers found a bias against both male and female parents when it came to anticipated job commitment, achievement striving, and dependability, although anticipated competence was uniquely low for mothers and seemed to be the major contributing factor to lowered expectations and screening recommendations. An unfortunate reminder that these factors do matter and something to watch out for. The results are reminiscent of negative behavior toward "pregnant" women found in a previous study.

Finally, Zyphur, Chaturvedi, and Arvey present a discussion of job performance. They address two subjects: the impact of past performance on future performance and individual differences in performance trajectories. Analyzing past literature, the authors note that performance feedback influences future performance directly and different individuals do have different latent performance trajectories, which has big implications for selection. Why? Because many assessment techniques (e.g., T&Es, behavioral interviews) rely on an general assumption that more experience equals better performance. This study adds ammunition to those that argue that assumption has serious flaws (or at least is overly simplistic).

In addition to these three, you may find the following interesting as well:

Challenging conventional wisdom about who quits: Revelations from corporate America. (great stuff for those of you interested in retention)

Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. (for all you trainers out there)

Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. (for those interested in performance ratings)

Rigorous assessment pays off

It's great when the mainstream press gets assessment right. It doesn't happen a lot, so I want to make sure to point out a good example.

Ellen Simon (AP) devoted a recent article to employers that, even in a tight labor market, put job applicants through the paces.

Some of my favorite bits from the article:

- Employers that recognize their employees are an integral part of their brand. If your employees are unhappy, not trained, or otherwise a bad fit, customers (and potential applicants) notice.

- This quote from Rackspace Managed Hosting CEO Lanham Napier: "We'd rather miss a good one than hire a bad one." Without getting into Type I versus Type II errors, let me just say that Mr. Napier demonstrates the wisdom of someone who's seen what a bad hire can (or can't) do. (Check out their refreshingly simple career portal)

- The fact that Rackspace interviews last ALL DAY. Yep, all day. In this age of "I only have 30 minutes for the interview", that's darn refreshing.

- The wonderful use of realistic job preview videos by Lindblad Expeditions that show employees cleaning toilets and washing dishes. Says Kris Thompson, VP of HR, "If they get on board and say, 'This is not what I expected,' then shame on us." Check out how their online preview video combines push with pull.

I don't agree with everything in the article--I'm not a big fan of the idea of secretly judging people on their waiting room behavior--but all in all some great examples here to recognize.

(by the way, the HBR article Simon cites, called "Fool vs. Jerk: Whom Would you Hire?" is here.

The Corporate Leavers Survey

This just in from the Level Playing Field Institute: a new study, sponsored by Korn/Ferry, that finds that corporate unfairness, in the form of "every-day inappropriate behaviors such as stereotyping, public humiliation and promoting based upon personal characteristics" costs U.S. employers $64 billion annually.

This sum, based on survey responses from 1,700 professionals and managers, is an estimate of "the cost of losing and replacing professionals and managers who leave their employers solely due to workplace unfairness. By adding in those for whom unfairness was a major contributor to their decision to leave, the figure is substantially greater."

Examples of the type of behavior they're talking about:

- the Arab telecommunications professional who, upon returning from visiting family in Iraq, is asked by a manager if he participated in any terrorism

- the African-American lawyer who is mistaken THREE TIMES for a different black lawyer by a partner at that firm

- the lesbian professional who is told that the organization offers pet insurance for rats, pigs, and snakes, but does not offer domestic partner benefits

What does this have to do with recruiting? Aside from the obvious (turnover-->need to backfill), check this out:

One of the top four behaviors most likely to prompt someone to quit: being asked to attend extra recruiting or community related events because of one's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Not only that, but 27% of respondents who experience unfairness at work in the last year said this experience "strongly discouraged them" from recommending their employer to other potential applicants.

What can employers do to prevent this? Aside from the tried and true methods (good and regular training for all supervisors, prompt and thorough investigations), the report offers other suggestions, which vary depending on the group (e.g., more/better benefits for gay and lesbian respondents, better managers for people of color).

Definitely some things to ponder.

Summary here

2007 SIOP Conference: Highlights, Part 2

This is the third 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 I went over some of the research that was presented. In this post I'll point out some more research that you may find interesting...

Legal risks and defensibility factors for employee selection procedures

Posthuma, Roehling, and Campion analyzed nearly 600 federal district court cases and came up with some very interesting results:

- Employers are most likely to win (by far) when defending tests of math or mechanical ability. Employers also fare well when defending assessments of employment history and interviews.

- Employers did worst when defending physical ability tests and medical examinations. Tests of verbal ability and job knowledge were also more likely to result in a plaintiff win.

Predicting Internet job search behavior and turnover

Using a sample of 110 nurses in Texas, Posthuma et al. found using longitudinal survey data that (among other things) Internet job search behavior was related to turnover--folks weren't just surfing for fun. This suggests that organizations need to pay close attention to job searching behavior among employees; not necessarily to curtail it but instead to figure out why high performers want to leave.

Gender differences in career choice influences

After analyzing survey data from nearly 1,400 fourth-year medical students from two U.S. schools, Behrend et al. found a gender difference in preferred career: specifically, female medical students valued "opportunities to provide comprehensive care" when choosing a specialty much more than men. This is consistent with other work that has showed women to be more "relationship-oriented" than men when it comes to choosing a career.

Portraying an organization's culture through properties of a recruitment website

In this study of 278 undergraduate students, Kroustalis and Meade found that inclusion of pictures on a website that were intended to portray a certain organizational culture did so--but only for certain cultural characteristics. Specifically, pictures that implied a culture of either innovation or diversity had the intended effect--but pictures representing a team orientation did not. Interestingly, "employee testimonials" designed to emphasize these cultural aspects failed to do so for any of the three aspects studied. Finally, individuals who perceived a greater fit between themselves and the organization (in terms of the three cultural aspects) reported being more attracted to the organization.

Recruiting solutions for adverse impact: Race differences in organizational attraction

Last but definitely not least, Lyon and Newman gathered data from nearly 600 university students on their reactions to 40 hypothetical job postings...and came away with some very interesting results. For example:

- Conscientious individuals were more likely to apply to postings that explicitly stated a preference for conscientious applicants.

- Conscientious individuals were more likely to apply to postings that described the company as results-oriented.

- Black applicants with higher cognitive ability were more likely to respond to ads seeking conscientious individuals while White applicants with higher cognitive ability were less likely to do so.

- When a company was described as innovative, Black applicants high on conscientiousness were more likely to apply; this was not the case for White applicants.

New MSPB Report Released

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board has released a new report entitled, "Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005."

The report results are based on responses of nearly 37,000 federal employees who responded to an online survey. There's a lot of goodness in here, not just for federal employers. Like what, you ask? Let's take a look...

Recruiting/Selection

- 76% of respondents recommended the Government as a place to work. This seems like a pretty good number, and it's a huge leap from 2000 when it was 52%.

- Specific organization recommendations varied depending on where folks were in the chain of command--higher ups were much more likely to recommend working for their agency. For example, around 84% at the Executive level recommended it, while about 64% of nonsupervisors did.

- The agency percentage also varied widely by organization. NASA was at the top with a 83% recommendation rate while Education was at the bottom with only 50%.

- By a wide margin, the #1 obstacle faced by supervisors and managers when hiring was a shortage of qualified applicants (38%). The report authors wisely point out that this could be an actual talent shortage but could also point to problems with the speed of the hiring process and/or the quality of selection tools used.

- Of the six areas asked about (including appraisals, discipline, etc.) "advancement" received the lowest marks for "extent to which you believe you have been treated fairly" (37%). This dubious distinction is identical to previous surveys and does not bode well for either recruitment or retention.

Retention

- About 25% of respondents indicated they were likely to leave their agency in the next year. This isn't surprising given the feds are anticipating 60% of their workforce will be eligible to retire over the next 10 years.

- Why are people leaving? The top reason was a virtual tie between "Opportunity to earn more money" and "Increased opportunities for advancement." This is the same result as previous years (although a bit more pronounced this time around).

- In terms of getting people to stay, there were big differences between retirement eligible and non-retirement eligible respondents. The latter were much more likely to stay for "Opportunity to better use skills and abilities", "Opportunity to earn more money", "Desire to make more of a difference", and "Increased opportunities for advancement."

Final thoughts

There's a lot more in this report, including some great data on training methods, discrimination, recognition, and motivation, the last of which you have to see (check out page 48; hint: money ain't everything).

On a side note, I was saddened to see that OPM, which does such good work, had some of the lowest ratings--again--on questions like "My agency produces high quality products and services" (granted there were a lot of low scores on that one), "The workforce has job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals" and "I would recommend my agency as a place to work." Job security at OPM was the second-lowest among all agencies surveyed and the percent that will likely leave the agency in the next 12 months was tied for second-highest.

Anybody from OPM care to comment? I bet I could increase your applicant pool if you'd open a West coast office...

New issue of IJSA--vol. 15, #1

The March journal madness continues with the latest issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment.

There's quite a lot in this issue (and plenty for you personality testing junkies), so let's take a look at some of the articles...

The main section

1. Hulsheger and colleagues report a meta-analysis of the operational validity of cognitive ability (general mental ability, g, whatever ya wanna call it) in Germany. After analyzing data from 54 articles and reports, the authors report a population correlation of .467 with training success and .534 with job performance. Interestingly (and counter to other research I've seen), they found the relationship was higher for low-complexity jobs.

2. Next, a study of situational judgment tests (SJTs) by O'Connell and colleagues. Using data from seven U.S. manufacturing companies (total N of around 1,000), the authors had findings in three areas. First,they found a mean Black-White difference on the SJT of .38 and a gender difference of -.27 (favoring females). Second, for task performance they found that the SJT added incremental validity to a cognitive ability test or a personality test, but not if both were already being used. Last, for contextual performance, they found the SJT added validity only if a cognitive ability test was being used as the sole instrument. Good stuff, and kudos as always to Dr. Michael McDaniel for making this (and other articles) available through his website.

3. Next up, a very interesting concurrent study of 154 customer service employees from DeGroot and Kluemper. Why very interesting? Because they looked at the impact of "vocal attractiveness." Results? Vocal attractiveness correlated with both situational interview scores and job performance. AND, two Big 5 factors (agreeableness and conscientiousness) predicted performance more strongly for people with more attractive voices. Interesting! I knew all those vocal lessons would pay off.

Let's see...what else looks good...

4. How about another concurrent study of person-organization (P-O) fit? McCulloch and Turban looked at the incremental validity of a measure of P-O fit, defined as the match between managers' description of the work culture with incumbent work preferences. Results? The measure added significant incremental variance over a cognitive ability measure in terms of predicting turnover (important given the historically high levels for these jobs) but was not related to job performance. A great illustration (along with #2 above) of the importance of the criteria being studied.

5. A study of Hartman's Color Code Personality Profile by Ault and Barney. If you don't know much about this test (I didn't), it classifies people into four colors--Red (motive: power), Blue (intimacy), White (peace), and Yellow (fun). Anyhoo, the authors state this is the first psychometric research on the highly popular instrument (don't even get me started), and found "high" test-retest reliability and support for the instrument measuring "some" personality traits. They note, however, that the instrument has high error variance and suggest caution when using it at the individual level. This is one of those studies you'll want to have in your back pocket when someone comes up to you and says, "Hey, I read about this cool personality test on my flight. Let's use that from now on."

Speaking of personality testing...

This issue has a special section on personality. Let's see what we've got:

6. A study that looks into response distortion on personality tests. Berry, Page, and Sackett found support among a sample of 261 managers for enhanced prediction of job performance when self-deceptive enhancements (SDE) were accounted for, but not impression management (IM) scores. Why is this important? Because most research on "faking" personality tests has looked at IM--intentionally inflating your scores to score better on the test. SDE, on the other hand, happens when you honestly believe you are greater than you are. I think I need this article.

7. The brain stimulation continues with a meta-analysis by Connolly, Kavanagh, and Viswesvaran. The authors were looking at the relationship between self-ratings and observer-ratings of Big 5 personality dimensions. Results? Correlations in the .5-.6 range, suggesting each contributes substantial unique variance. Oh yes, and duration of acquaintance had a large moderating effect, but source of observer ratings did not. I may need this one too.

8. Last but not least (yeah, I skipped a couple, but I know your e-mail Inbox is filling up as we speak), Smithikrai found, in a sample of 2,518 Thais employed in seven different occupations, that the Big 5 factor of neuroticism was significantly negatively correlated with job success across the board, while extraversion and conscientiousness showed significant positive correlations. Conscientiousness was the only trait to predict success across occupations (sounds familiar!).

That's all folks! Enjoy your weekends!

Hewitt study quantifies value of high performers

In a recent press release, Hewitt Associates (a large HRO and consulting firm) reported results of a study that underlines the importance of attracting and retaining top talent.

Here's the key line from the press release:

Results showed that the flow of pivotal employees--defined as employees in the top quartile of their peers in pay progression--into and out of an organization is a strong predictor of changes in Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI) and shareholder value.

Here's the CliffsNotes version: After analyzing data from more than 1,000 employers and 20 million employees, Hewitt found that for the average Fortune 500 company a 10-point increase in their "Talent Quotient" (TQ) adds approximately $70-160m to its bottom line over the next "few" years.

Sounds similar to some previous research you've seen, right? Like...oh...McKinsey or Watson Wyatt, or heck you might as well go back to Brogden.

So what exactly does this study tell us? Well, first we need to understand what a "Talent Quotient" is.

According to Hewitt, there are two forms of TQ:

"TQ Attract" is the proportion of pivotal employees joining an organization to the total number of new hires in a given period. So essentially the percentage of your new hires that turn out to be stars.

"TQ Retain" is the proportion of pivotal employees leaving an organization to the total number of employees leaving in that period. So pretty much the percentage of folks leaving that you don't want leaving.

Hewitt uses both of these concepts and links them statistically (along with employee satisfaction) to firm performance. I'm thinking this is another way of slicing utility analysis, and to the extent that it links sound HR practices to the bottom line, I'm all for it. As long as folks don't forget that fighting the "War for Talent" may lead to myopia.

FYI, Samir Raza and Mark Ubelhart of Hewitt discuss TQ in Chapter 3 of Workforce Wake-up Call. Wayne Cascio's book Costing Human Resources is a great source for information on demonstrating the value of HR.

Manpower and the changing temp landscape

Good article in the latest Economist about employment-services giant Manpower.

The article covers a lot of ground, including company history, acquisitions, and changes in strategic focus.

Highlights:

- Only 13% of Manpower's revenue comes from America. France is the company's biggest market and source of about 1/3 of its revenues.

- Traditional temp work now accounts for 70% of its profits, down from 96% in 1999. CEO Jeff Joerres expects this to drop to 50% within five years.

- As providing temps has become a low-margin business, Manpower has expanded into placing permanent employees and training/coaching (dovetailing with its purchase of Right Management in 2004). A newer development is training employed individuals who are hoping for a promotion.

- The article references a 2006 survey of 32,000 employers in 26 countries Manpower conducted where it found 29% of respondents said they would have hired more professional staff if candidates had had the necessary skills. That figure was 45% for U.S. employers.

- Finally, this juicy and spot-on quote:

"...once people have been hired, the attrition rate can be expensively high--particularly for the most talented. This owes as much to the lack of training and career development opportunities as to salaries...the leading Indian firms, such as Infosys, have been addressing the skills gap and high turnover rates by establishing in-house universities."

p.s.: Just a thought: I wonder if they've ever considered changing their name. Manpower reminds me of the old Ace Hardware tune ("Ace is the place with the helpful hardware man") or the Culligan motto ("Hey! Culligan man!"). Mmm....discrimination...

7 tips for retaining high performers

Good, brief, article on hr.blr.com about steps you can take to retain your high performers. I would argue that in addition to increasing retention, these practices help your organization increase its reputation, and thus attractiveness to potential recruits.

So what are some of the suggestions?

- Most of the time things aren't "life or death", so don't stress out. (Note: people working in the medical profession or on a battlefield please disregard)

- Create a comfortable environment that fosters creativity (hmm, sounds familiar for some reason)

- Involve people. I agree as long as this doesn't include three meetings a day.

- Show that you value work-life balance.

- Subsidize training opportunities. I am a big believer in this lever; it's a leap of faith to assume your next employer will be as generous.

- Create a fun, relaxed environment. Again, this is easier said than done in some situations, and you don't want to create a noisy, distracting environment. I say focus on the small stuff (e.g., brief joking around), avoid "fun committees" like the plague.

- Host regular social events. In my experience this typically leads to collective groans. If the group is already fairly cohesive, this can help to encourage that. But if your group isn't getting along, I don't think a social event is going to magically transform them into a lean, mean, productive team.

If I may, I'd like to add...

- Listen to your workers, and then do something about their concerns/suggestions, even if it's "we hear you, thank you, but we've decided to go a different direction because of X."

- Select supervisors because they have some modicum of people skills, not just because they're the technical expert. Surveys repeatedly show that poor supervision is high on the list for disgruntled employees.

- Related point: make sure your supervisors know how to supervise. This means training, and not just any 'ol training--intense, lengthy workshops with examples and role plays.

- Recognize good performance. Surveys also reveal that folks often feel undervalued. This doesn't have to take the form of a formal recognition program; in fact most of the time all people want is the occasional pat on the back for a job well done.

- And the corollary: do something about poor performers. Letting folks get away with doing less work for the same pay tells high performers that you're spineless, or worse--that you see no difference among your workers.

These may all seem like no-brainers, but I continue to be surprised at how many organizations fail to put these practices into place.