Mobile assessment comes of age + research update

The idea of administering employment tests on mobile devices is not new.  But serious research into it is in its infancy.  This is to be expected for at least two reasons: (1) historically it has taken a while with new technologies to have enough data to analyze (although this is changing), and (2) it takes a while for researchers to get through the arcaneness of publishing (this, to my knowledge, isn't changing, but please prove me wrong).

Readers interested in the topic have benefited from articles elsewhere, but we're finally at a point where good research is being published on this topic.  Case in point: the June issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment.

The first article on this topic in this issue, by Arthur, Doverspike, Munoz, Taylor, & Carr, studied data from over 3.5 million applicants who completed unproctored internet-based tests (UIT) over a 14-month period.  And while the percentage that completed them on mobile devices was small (2%), it still yielded data on nearly 70,000 applicants.

Results?  Some in line with research you may have seen before, but some may surprise you:

- Mobile devices were (slightly) more likely to be used by women, African-Americans and Hispanics, and younger applicants.  (Think about that for a minute!)

- Scores on a personality inventory were similar across platforms.

- Scores on a cognitive ability test were lower for those using mobile devices.  Without access to the entire article, I can only speculate on proffered reasons, but it's interesting to think about whether this is a reflection of the applicants or the platform.

- Tests of measurement invariance found equivalence across platforms (which basically means the same thing(s) appeared to be measured).

So overall, in terms of using UITs, I think this is promising in terms of including a mobile component.


The next article, by Morelli, Mahan, and Illingworth, also looked at measurement variance of mobile versus non-mobile (i.e., PC-delivered) internet-based tests, with respect to four types of assessment: cognitive ability, biodata, a multimedia work simulation, and a text-based situational judgment test.  Data was gathered from nearly 600,000 test-takers in the hospitality industry who were applying for maintenance and customer-facing jobs in 2011 and 2012 (note the different job types).  Nearly 25,000 of these applicants took the assessment on mobile devices.

Results?  The two types of administrations appeared be equivalent in terms of what they were measuring.  However, interestingly, mobile test-takers did worse on the SJT portion.  The authors reasonably hypothesize this may be due to the nature of the SJT and the amount of attention it may have required compared to the other test types.  (btw this article appears to be based on Morelli's dissertation, which can be found here--it's a treasure trove of information on the topic)

Again, overall these are promising results for establishing the measurement equivalence of mobile assessments.  What does this all mean?  It suggests that unproctored tests delivered using mobile devices are measuring the same things as tests delivered using more traditional internet-based methods.  It also looks like fakability or inflation may be a non-issue (compared to traditional UIT).  This preliminary research means researchers and practitioners should be more confident that mobile assessments can be used meaningfully.

I agree with others that this is only the beginning.  In our mobile and app-reliant world, we're only scratching the surface not only in terms of research but in terms of what can be done to measure competencies in new--and frankly more interesting--ways.  Not to mention all the interesting (and important) associated research questions:

- Do natively developed apps differ in measurement properties--and potential--compared to more traditional assessments simply delivered over mobile?

- How does assessment delivery model interact with job type?  (e.g., may be more appropriate for some, may be better than traditional methods for others)

- What competencies should test developers be looking for when hiring?  (e.g., should they be hiring game developers?)

- What do popular apps, such as Facebook (usage) and Candy Crush (score), measure--if anything?

- Oh, and how about: does mobile assessment impact criterion-related validity?


Lest you think I've forgotten the rest of this excellent issue...

- Maclver, et al. introduce the concept of user validity, which uses test-taker perceptions to focus on ways we can improve assessments, score interpretation, and the provision of test feedback.

- Bing, et al. provide more evidence that contextualizing personality inventory items (i.e., wording the items so they more closely match the purpose/situation) improves the prediction of job performance--beyond noncontexual measures of the same traits.

- On the other hand, Holtrop, et al. take things a step further and look at different methods of contextualization.  Interestingly, this study of 139 pharmacy assistants found a decrease in validity compared to a "generic" personality inventory!

- This study by Ioannis Nikolaou in Greece of social networking websites (SNWs) that found job seekers still using job boards more than SNWs, that SNWs may be particularly effective for passive candidates (!), and that HR professionals found LinkedIn to be more effective than Facebook.

- An important study of applicant withdrawal behavior by Brock Baskin, et al., that found withdrawal tied primarily to obstructions (e.g., distance to test facility) rather than minority differences in perception.

- A study of Black-White differences on a measure of emotional intelligence by Whitman, et al., that found (N=334) Blacks had higher face validity perceptions of the measure, but Whites performed significantly better.

- Last, a study by Vecchione that compared the fakability of implicit personality measures to explicit personality measures.  Implicit measures are somewhat "hidden" in that they measure attitudes or characteristics using perceptual speed or other tools to discover your typical thought patterns; you may be familiar with project implicit, which has gotten some media coverage.  Explicit measures are, as the name implies, more obvious items--in this case, about personality aspects.  In this study of a relatively small number of security guards and semiskilled workers, the researchers found the implicit measure to be superior in terms of fakability resistance.  (I wonder how the test-takers felt?)


That's it for this excellent issue of IJSA, but in the last few months we also got some more great research care of the March issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology:

- An important (but small N) within-subjects study by Judge, et al. of the stability of personality at work.  They found that while traits exhibited stability across time, there were also deviations that were explained by work experiences such as interpersonal conflict, which has interesting implications for work behavior as well as measurement.  In addition, the authors found that individuals high in neuroticism exhibited more variation in traits over time compared to those who were more emotionally stable.  You can find an in press version here; it's worth a read, particularly the section beginning on page 47 on practical implications.

- Smith-Crowe, et al. present a set of guidelines for researchers and practitioners looking to draw conclusions from tests of interrater agreement that may assume conditions that are rarely true.

- Another interesting one: Wille & De Fruyt investigate the reciprocal relationship between personality and work.  The researchers found that while personality shapes occupational experiences, the relationship works in both directions and work can become an important source of identity.

- Here's one for you assessment center fans: this study by Speer, et al. adds to the picture through findings that ratings taken from exercises with dissimilar demands actually had higher criterion-related validity than ratings taken from similar exercises!

- Last but not least, presenting research findings in a way that is understandable to non-researchers poses an ongoing--and important--challenge.  Brooks et al. present results of their study that found non-traditional effect size indicators (e.g., a common language effect size indicator) were perceived as more understandable and useful when communicating results of an intervention.  Those of you that have trained or consulted for any length of time know how important it is to turn correlations into dollars or time (or both)!

That's it for now!

Facial analysis for selection: An old idea using new technology?

Selecting people based on physical appearance is as old as humankind.  Mates were selected based in part on physical features.  People were hired because they were stronger.

This seems like an odd approach to selection for many jobs today because physical characteristics are largely unrelated to the competencies required to perform the job, although there are exceptions (e.g., firefighters).  But employers have always been motivated to select based on who would succeed (and/or make them money), and many have been interested in the use of gross physical characteristics to help them decide: who's taller, whose head is shaped better (phrenology), etc.  The general name for this topic is physiognomy.

Of course nowadays we have much more sophisticated ways of measuring competencies that are much more related to job success, including things like online simulations of judgment.  But this doesn't mean that people have stopped being interested in physical characteristics and how they might be related to job performance.  This is due, in part I think, to the powerful hold that visual stimuli has on us as well as the importance of things like nonverbal communication.  We may be a lot more advanced in some ways, but parts of our brain are very old.

The interest in judgment based on physical appearance has been heightened by the introduction of different technologies, and perhaps no better example of this lies with facial feature analysis.  With the advent of facial recognition technology and its widespread adoption in major cities around the globe, in law enforcement, and large sporting events, a very old idea is once again surfacing: drawing inferences from relatively* stable physical characteristics--specifically, facial features.  In fact this technology is being used for some very interesting applications.  And I'm not sure I want to know what Facebook is planning on doing with this technology.

With all this renewed interest, it was only a matter of time until we circled back to personnel selection, and sure enough a new website called FaceReflect is set to open to the public this year and claims to be able to infer personality traits from facial features, already drawing a spotlight.  But have we made great advances in the last several thousand years or is this just hype?  Let's look deeper.

What we do know is that certain physical characteristics reliably result in judgment differences.  Attractiveness is a great example: we know that individuals considered to be more attractive are judged more positively, and this includes evaluative situations like personnel selection.  It even occurs with avatars instead of real people.  And the opposite is true: for example it has been shown that applicants with facial stigmas are viewed less favorably.

Another related line of research has been around emotional intelligence, with assessments such as the MSCEIT including a component of emotional recognition.

More to the point, there's research suggesting that more fine-tuned facial features such as facial width may be linked to job success in certain circumstances.  Why?  The hypothesis seems to be two-fold: certain genes and biological mechanisms associated with facial features (e.g., testosterone) are associated with other characteristics, such as assertiveness or aggression.  This could mean that men with certain facial features (such as high facial width-to-height ratio) are more likely to exhibit these behaviors, or--and this is a key point--they are perceived that way. (By the way, there is similar research showing that voice pitch is also correlated with company success in certain circumstances)

Back to FaceReflect.  This company claims that by analyzing certain facial features, they can reliably draw inferences about personality characteristics such as generosity, decision making, and confidence.

What seems to be true is that people reliably draw inferences about characteristics based on facial features.  But here's the key question: are these inferences correct?  That's where things start to break down.

The problem is there simply isn't much research showing that judgments about job-relevant characteristics based on facial features are accurate--in fact we have research that at best the accuracy is low, and at worst shows the opposite.  To some extent you could argue this doesn't matter--what matters is whether people are reliably coming to the same conclusion.  But this assumes that what drives performance is purely other peoples' perceptions, and this is obviously missing quite a lot of the equation.

In addition, even if it were true that peoples' perceptions were accurate, it would apply only to a limited number of characteristics--i.e., those that could logically be linked to biological development through a mechanism such as testosterone.  What about something like cognitive ability, obviously a well-studied predictor of performance for many jobs?  The research linking testosterone and intelligence is complicated, some indicating the reverse relationship (e.g., less testosterone leading to higher cognitive ability), and some showing no relationship between facial features and intelligence in adults--and again, this is primarily men that have been studied.  (While estrogen also impacts facial characteristics, its impact has been less studied)

Finally, the scant research we do have indicates the link between facial features and performance is true only in certain circumstances, such as organizations that are not complex.  This is increasingly not true of modern organizations.  Circling back to the beginning of this article, you could liken this to selection based on strength becoming less and less relevant.

One of the main people behind FaceReflect has been met with skepticism before.  Not to mention that the entire field of physiognomy (or the newer term "personology") is regarded with skepticism.  But that hasn't stopped interest in the idea, including from the psychological community.

Apparently this technology is being used by AT&T for assessment at the executive levels, which I gotta say makes me nervous.  There are simply much more accurate and well-supported methods for assessing managerial potential (e.g., assessment centers).  But I suspect the current obsession with biometrics is going to lead to more interest in this area, not less.

At the end of the day, I stand by my general rule: there are no shortcuts in personnel selection (yet**).  To get the best results, you must determine job requirements and you must take the time required to get an accurate measurement of the KSAOs that link to those requirements.  It's easy to be seduced by claims that seem attractive but unfortunately lack robust research support, after all we're all susceptible to magical thinking, and there is a tendency to think that technology can do everything.  But when it comes to selection, I vote less magic, more logic.

* Think about how plastic surgery or damage to the face might impact this approach.

** As I've said many times before, we have the technology to create a system whereby a database could be created with high-quality assessment scores of many individuals that would be available for employers to match to their true job requirements.  The likelihood--or wisdom--of this idea is debatable.

Workday unveils recruiting platform

Note: I posted this a while back but had to take it down because it was pre-release. Now that its available I'm re-posting it.

This post is going to be a bit different from my normal ones.  I'm not going to talk about research, but instead focus on technology.  Long time readers know HR technology is another passion of mine, and as recruitment/assessment professionals I think it behooves us to know "what's out there."

Recently in my day job we've been looking at automated HR systems, primarily to replace our manual time and attendance process, but it's impossible to not consider other applications once you start looking.  For the uninitiated, these systems go by various names like HCM (Human Capital Management), HRMS (Human Resource Management System) or HRIS (Human Resource Information System).

In my opinion, now is a very exciting time to be looking at automated HR systems.  Why?  Because unlike years past, when using these systems was about as pleasant as reading FMLA regulations, recent applications have taken a decidedly more "consumer" approach, borrowing heavily from popular websites like Amazon and Facebook.

One of the companies that has been the most trailblazing in this regard is Workday.  Workday was founded in 2005 by the former CEO of PeopleSoft along with its former Chief Strategist following Oracle's hostile takeover.  Workday provides cloud-based SaaS software for a variety of functions, primarily around finance, HR, and analytics.  One of Workday's big differentiators is it uses a single line of code, meaning every customer is using the same version all the time (again, just like a website).  Those of you that are used to being on Release x.2 while others are on x.6, and planning on how to upgrade, know what a big deal this is.

(If you're thinking "cloud-based whatnow?" this basically this means delivering software over the web rather than relying on locally hosted systems; obvious benefits include a potential massive reduction in local IT support, particularly attractive I think for the public sector)

For me, considering a large IT project implementation, I've seen enough to know that the user experience is essential.  Obviously the product has to work as advertised, but if users (including HR) don't like using the system--usually because it's unintuitive or overly complicated--chances of ultimate success are slim.  At best people will tolerate it.  I certainly don't want my name attached to that project.

That leads me to why companies like Workday are adding so much value to HR software.  Because their interface looks like this:

Not like this:

Up until now, Workday's HR offerings have focused on things like benefits, time tracking, and internal talent management.  Their recruiting module, announced back in 2012 and eagerly anticipated, has just been rolled (GA, or general availability, to Workday customers).  Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to see a pretty-much-finished version, and here are my observations:

1.  It's clean.  As evidenced by the screenshot above, Workday prides itself on a clean UI, and the recruiting module is no exception.  I don't have any shots to share with you because, well, I couldn't find any.  But there's plenty of white space, the eye knows where to go, and you won't get overwhelmed by sub-menu upon sub-menu.  Candidates are displayed using a "baseball card"-like interface, with key stats like years of job experience, skills, social feeds, and attachments.

2.  It's mobile- and social-friendly.  These were clear marching orders to the developers, and it shows.  Workday's mobile app is great, and SNWs like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter are consistently integrated.  One feature they consistently stressed (for good reason) is how easy it is for candidates to upload their info from their LinkedIn account, saving a ton of time.

3.  At this time it's basically an ATS (applicant tracking system).  This isn't a bad thing, but don't expect qualified candidates to magically jump out of your monitor.  It's a very clean way to manage applicants for requisitions, and it's integrated into their core HR.  For many long-time users of other ATS products, this is a big deal.  Additional features, such as being able to quickly change candidate status and do mass emails, will also be popular.  Finally, you can easily search your candidate pool by competency, location, etc., similar to the employee search function in their HCM product.

4.  It will be particularly useful for organizations with dedicated recruiters.  I commented in the demo that in many organizations (including my own), we don't have dedicated recruiters; rather recruiting happens locally, driven by the hiring supervisor and their staff.  So anything these systems can do to engage and reward proper behavior (dare I say gamification here?) will pay huge dividends, and I think this is a development opportunity.  On the other hand, organizations with full-time recruiters will immediately "get it".

5.  It's a work in progress.  The career portal of the system wasn't up and running yet, although I was assured it would be by GA.  To me this is a huge missing piece, and I look forward to seeing how they integrate this with the back end.  There were also clearly plans for future features like assessments (e.g., video interviewing), job board aggregation, and CRM.  Definitely features to watch.

So at the end of the day, it wouldn't solve all our problems, but it offers an enormous potential for us, as HR, to get a better handle on what our hiring supervisors are doing.  Not only will this help with compliance, it will allow us to gather information to make more strategic decisions about resources.  The built-in business intelligence functions have the potential to transform our practices. You can get more details here: http://www.workday.com/applications/human_capital_management/recruiting.php

Now lest I leave you thinking that I'm a Workday shill, its not the only game out there, there are plenty of competitors, including newer players like Ultimate as well as more established ones like Oracle, both having lots of satisfied customers.  But Workday is--at this point--one of our finalists and has been on a crazy growth spurt over the last few years.

Want to know more about this technology?  I've found CedarCrestone's annual report to be extremely helpful, as well as HRE's technology articles.  The HR tech industry is huge (see my earlier post about one of the conferences) and you can very easily spend your entire career in this space.

I can honestly say it's technology like this that has the potential to evolve much of HR from unpredictable and frustrating to exciting and engaging.  I'm ready.>

March '14 IJSA

In my last research update just a couple days ago, I mentioned that the new issue of IJSA should be coming out soon.

I think they heard me because it came out literally the next day.

So let's take a look:

- This study adds to our (relatively little) knowledge of sensitivity reviews of test items and finds much room for improvement

- More evidence that the utility of UIT isn't eliminated by cheating, this time with a speeded ability test

- Applicant motivation may be impacted by the intended scoring mechanism (e.g., objective vs. ratings).

- The validity of work experience in predicting performance is much debated*, but this study found support for it among salespersons, with personality also playing a moderating role.

- A study of the moderating effect of "good impression" responding on personality inventories

- This review provides a great addition to our knowledge of in-baskets (a related presentation can be found through IPAC)

- Another excellent addition, this time a study of faux pas on social networking websites in the context of employer assessment

- According to this study, assessors may adjust their decision strategy for immigrants (non-native language speakers)

- Letters of recommendation, in this study of nonmedical medical school graduate students, provided helpful information in predicting degree attainment

- Interactive multimedia simulations are here to stay, and this study adds to our confidence that these types of assessments can work well

Until next time!

* Don't forget to check out the U.S. MSPB's latest research study on T&Es!

Research update

Okay, past time for another research update, so let's catch up!

Let's start with the Journal of Applied Social Psychology (Dec-Feb):

- Cultural intelligence plays a key role in multicultural teams

- Theory of Planned Behavior can be used to explain intent to submit video resumes

- More on weight-based discrimination, including additional evidence that this occurs more among women (free right now!)

- Does the physical attractiveness bias hold in same-sex evaluative situations?  Not so much, although it may depend on someone's social comparison orientation

- "Dark side" traits play a role in predicting career preference

- Evidence that efficacy beliefs play a significant role not only in individual performance, but in team performance


Next up, the January issue of JAP:

- The concept of differential validity among ethnic groups in cognitive ability testing has been much debated, and this study adds to the discussion by suggesting that the effects are largely artifactual due to range restriction.

- Or are they?  This study on the same topic found that range restriction could not account for observed differential validity findings.  So the debate continues...

- A suggestion for how to increase the salience of dimension ratings in assessment centers

- Ambition and emotional stability appear related to adaptive performance, particularly for managers


Spring Personnel Psych (free right now!)

- First, a fascinating study of P-E fit across various cultures.  Turns out relational fit may be more important in collectivistic and high power distance cultures (e.g., East Asia), whereas rational fit may be more important in individualistic and lower power distance cultures (e.g., the U.S.).

- Next, a study of recruitment messaging for job involving international travel.

- Last but definitely not least, a narrative and quantitative extensive review of the structured interview


Not quite done: One from Psychological Science on statistical power in testing mediation, and just in case you needed more evidence, the Nov/Dec issue of HRM has several research articles supporting the importance of line manager behavior and HRM practices on things like employee engagement.

The Spring issue of IJSA should be out soon, so see ya soon!

MQs: An idea whose time has passed?

For better or worse, I've spent nearly my entire career working under merit systems.  For the uninitiated, these systems were created many years ago to combat employment decisions based on favoritism, familial relation, or other similarly non-job related factors.  For example, California's civil service system was originally created in 1913 (and strengthened in 1934) to combat the "spoils" system, whereby hiring and promotion was too often based on political affiliation and patronage.

Part of most merit systems is the idea of minimum qualifications, or MQs.  Ideally, MQs are true minimum amount of experience and/or education (along with any licenses/certifications) required for a job.  They set the requirement to participate in civil service exams, and scale up depending on the level (or "classification").  For an entry-level attorney, for example, one would need to have a Bar license.  For a journey-level attorney, you might be required to have several years of experience before being allowed to examine and be appointed.  The idea is that MQs force hiring and promotion decisions to be based on job-related qualifications rather than who you know or what political party you belong to.  Makes sense, right?

But recently, I've had the opportunity to be involved in a task force looking at minimum qualifications and it spurred a lot of discussion and thought.  I'd like to spend just a moment digging into the concept a bit more and asking: are they still the right approach?

This task force was formed because of a recent control agency decision that places increased importance on applicants meeting MQs and reduces the ability of employees to obtain positions by simply transferring from one classification to another based on similarity in level, salary, etc.  Because this will result in fewer options for employees--and hiring supervisors--the discussion around this decision has been rigorous, and at times heated, but without a doubt intellectually stimulating.

As part of my participation in this task force, I reached out to my colleagues in IPAC for their thoughts, and got a ton of thoughtful responses.  While there were arguments for and against MQs, the overall sense seemed to be that they are a necessary evil.  Perhaps most importantly, though, I was reminded how important they are and thus the amount of attention that should be paid while establishing them.

So where does this lead me?  To play my hand, over time I've become less and less of a fan of MQs, and my participation on this task force has cemented some of the reasons why, however well intentioned:

- They are overly rigid and inflexible.  If an MQ states you must have 2 years as an Underwater Basketweaver, it doesn't matter than you have 1 year and 11 months and you just attended the Basketweaver Olympics, sorry, you don't qualify to test for the next level.

- They are often difficult to apply, resulting in inconsistencies.  What exactly is a four-year degree in "Accounting"?  What is "clerical" work?  If someone worked overtime, does that count as additional experience?  How shall we consider education from other countries?  And what about fake degrees and candidates who, shall  we say, elaborate their experience?

- They serve as barriers to talented individuals.  This results in fewer opportunities for people as well as a smaller talent pool for supervisors to draw from (ironically actually cannibalizing the very concept of the merit system).

- They serve as barriers to groups that have a history of discrimination, such as women and ethnic minorities.  Take a look at any census study of education, for example, and look at the graduation rates of different groups.  Implication?  Any job requiring a college degree has discrimination built into the selection process.

- Most were likely not developed as rigorously as they should have been.  Like any other selection mechanism, MQs are subject to laws and rules (e.g., the Civil Rights Act and the Uniform Guidelines in the U.S.) that require them to be based on job analytic information and set based on data, not hunches or guesses.

- Without a process to update them quickly, they rapidly become outdated, becoming less and less relevant.  Many classification in the California state system, for example, haven't been effectively updated in thirty years (or longer).  This becomes particularly painful in jobs like IT, where educational paths and terminology change constantly.

- They require an enormous amount of resources to administer.  At some point someone, somewhere, needs to validate that the applicant has the qualifications required to take the exam.  You can imagine what this looks like for an exam involving hundreds (sometimes thousands) of applicants--and the costs associated with this work.

- From an assessment perspective, MQs are a very blunt instrument--and not a particularly good one at that.  As we know, experience and education are poor predictors of job performance.  Experience predicts best at low levels but quickly becomes irrelevant.  Education typically shows very small correlations with performance.  As anyone that has experience hiring knows, a college degree doth not an outstanding employee make.  So basically what you're doing is front-loading your "select out" decisions with a tool that has very low validity.  Sound good?

- The ultimate result of all this is employers with MQs systems are often unable to attract, hire, and promote the most qualified candidates, while spending an enormous amount of time and energy administering a system that does little to identify top talent.  This becomes particularly problematic for public sector employers as defined benefit plans are reduced or eliminated and salaries fail to keep pace, resulting in these organizations becoming less and less attractive.

Recognizing these limitations, some merit systems (the State of Washington comes to mind) have recently moved away from MQs, instead evolving into things like desirable or preferred qualifications.  This presumably still outlines the approximate experience and education that should prepare someone for the position, but relies on other types of assessments to determine someone's true qualifications, abilities, and competitiveness.  I like this idea in concept as long as an effective system is put in place to deal with the likely resulting increase in applications to sift through.

The private sector, of course, does not operate under merit system rules, and have had to deal with the challenges--as well as reaping the benefits--associated with of a lack of rigid MQs.  They do this through increased use of technology and, frankly, significantly more expenditure on HR to support the recruitment and assessment function (particularly larger employers).  Of course some private sector employers adhere to strict MQs as a matter of course, and they would do well to think about the challenges I outlined above.

So where does this leave us?  Do MQs still serve a valuable perhaps?  Perhaps.  They hypothetically prevent more patronage, although anyone that has worked in a merit system can tell you this still happens.  Perhaps the strongest argument is that as more employers move to online training and experience measures (another example of an assessment device with little validity but quick, and cheap), MQs serve as a check, presumably helping to ensure that at least some of the folks that end up on employment lists are qualified.

But I would argue that any system that still employs MQs is basically fooling itself, doing little to control favoritism and ultimately contributing to the inability of hiring supervisors to get the best person--which is what a system of merit is ultimately about.  Particularly with what we know about the effectiveness of a properly administered system of internet testing, MQs are an antiquity, serving as a barrier to more job-related assessments and simply not worth the time we spend on them.  If we don't reform these systems in some way to modernize the selection process, we will wake up some day and wonder why fewer and fewer people are applying for jobs in the public sector, and why the candidate pools seem less and less qualified.  That day may already be here and we just haven't realized it.

Top 10 Assessment and Recruitment Research of 2013

So I'm gonna try something a little different this year.  I'm going to present the research from 2013 that I think has the best chance of fundamentally changing research directions, has the biggest implication for practice, or is just plain interesting.

So without further ado, and in no particular order, here are my choices for the Best Assessment and Recruitment Research of 2013:

1) Murphy, et al. call into question one of the fundamental assumptions of test development: that judgments of subject matter experts have a direct relationship to test utility.

2) Kim, et al. demonstrate a real value of age diversity in work groups: better emotional regulation.

3) Ghumman and Barnes with a simple but elegant study that demonstrated how important sleep is in preventing a persistent thorn: prejudicial assessments by raters.

4) Konradt, et al. showed that perceptions of fairness matter in web-based assessments too.

5) Personality research continued to dominate in 2013, and one of the best studies was by Shaffer and Postlewaite.  In it, they demonstrate that conscientiousness is best used as a predictor of performance in highly routinized jobs.

6) Mrazek et al. focused on a topic near and dear to my heart: mindfulness.  They showed that training in mindfulness increased GRE scores.  The implication for employment testing is clear, we just need more research in that direction.

7) Early in the year, Bobko and Roth gave us one of those "I better print this out" articles, showing that assessment methods historically assumed to result in lower levels of adverse impact, like biodata and work samples, may be more prone to d than we thought.  Side note: this article is still free in its entirety!

8) Kuhn, et al. presented the results of an elegantly simple experiment illustrating that the impact of a minor resume embellishment depended on the pre-existing perception of the applicant.

9) Discrimination, sadly, knows no demographic boundaries.  In this study, Conley found that non-Whites described White women as attractive, blonde, ditsy, shallow, privileged, sexually available, and appearance focused.

10) In a study of M.B.A. program admission judgments that has implications for employment selection, Simonsohn and Gino found that as the day progressed, fewer applicants were rated as highly recommended if several were recommended earlier in the day.

There were, of course, many other well-done and interesting studies in 2013, but these were some of my favorites.  Here's to a productive, stimulating, and successful 2014!

Research update

Well, it's that time of year again.  No, not the holidays.  No, not winter (or summer, depending on where you are!).  Research update time!  And I think you will agree with me that there is a lot of interesting research being reported, on traditional topics as well as emerging ones.

First, the November issue of JOB:

- Do transformational leaders increase creative performance and the display of OCBs?  Well, that may depend on how much trait affectivity they had to begin with. A reminder to not make blanket statements like "X type of leadership causes Y type of behavior."

- There is seemingly endless debate about the utility of personality inventories.  This study reminds us--again--that in assessment research there are few simple answers.  The authors describe how a particular combination of personality measures correlated with task performance among professional employees, but not non-professionals.  (yes, I said task performance)


Next, the Winter issue of Personnel Psychology (free right now!), much of which is devoted to corporate social responsibility (CSR):

- Do perceptions of CSR drive job pursuit intentions?  It may depend on the applicant's previous justice experiences and their moral identity.

- Oh, and it may also depend on the extent to which applicants desire to have an impact through their work.

- There is a debate in the assessment center literature about whether competency dimensions are being measured or if it's purely a function of the assessment type.  This study suggests that previous research has been hamstrung by a methodological artifact and that measured properly, assessment centers do in fact assess dimensions.


Let's switch to the November issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology:

- Engagement is all the rage, having seemingly displaced the age-old concept of job satisfaction (we'll see).  This study reminds us that personality plays an important role in predicting engagement (so by extension our ability to increase engagement may be bounded).

- Here's another good one and it's related to internal motivations.  The authors developed an instrument that helps organizations measure the "perception of the extant motivational climate."  What does that mean?  As I understand it, it's essentially whether most people are judging their performance against their peers or their own internal standards.  It seems the latter may result in better results, such as less burnout.

- On to something more closely tied to assessment: letters of recommendation (LORs).  There's surprisingly little research on these, but this study adds to our knowledge by suggesting that gender and racial bias can occur in their review, but requiring a more thorough review of them may reduce this (I don't know how likely this is for the average supervisor).

- Finally, a study looking at the evaluation of job applicants who voluntarily interrupted their college attendance.  Unfortunately this does not appear to have been perceived as a good thing, and the researchers found a gender bias such that women with interrupted attendance had the lowest evaluations.


Next, the November issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, where the second focal article focus on eradicating employment discrimination.  This article looks pretty juicy.  I haven't received this one yet in the mail, so I may have more to say after digesting it.  There are, as always, several commentaries following the focal article, on topics including background checks, childhood differences, and social networks.


Okay, let's tackle the 800-pound gorilla: the December issue of IJSA:

- Are true scores and construct scores the same?  According to this Monte Carlo study, it seems how the scales were constructed makes a difference.

- Can non-native accents impact the evaluation of job applicants?  Sure seems that way according to this study.  But the effect was mediated by similarity, interpersonal attraction, and understandability.

- Here's a fascinating one.  A study of applicants for border rangers in the Norwegian Armed Forces showed that psychological hardiness--particularly commitment--predicted completion of a rigorous physical activity above and beyond physical fitness, nutrition, and sensation seeking.

- Psst....recruiters...make sure when you're selling your organization you stay positive.

- Spatial ability.  It's a classic KSA that's been studied for a long time, for various reasons including its tie to military assessments and the finding that measures can result in sex differences.  But not so fast, spatial ability is not a unitary concept.

- Another study of assessment centers, this time in Russia and using a consensus scoring model.

- And let's round it out with one that should rock some worlds: the authors presents results that suggest that subject matter expert judgment of ability/competency importance bore little relation to test validity!  Okay, I'm really curious about what the authors say about the implications, so if anyone reads this one, let us know!


Last but not least, the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology:

- Another on personality testing, this one underlining the important distinction between broad and narrow traits.  This is another article I'm very curious about.

- Here's on one leadership: specifically, on the impact of different power distance values between leader and subordinates on team effectiveness

- And another on nonnative speakers!  This one found discriminatory judgments made against nonnative speakers applying for middle management positions as well as venture funding.  Interestingly, it appears to be fully mediated by perceptions of political skill--a topic that is hot right now.

- Okay, let's leave on a big note.  This meta-analysis found an improvement in performance prediction of 50% when a mechanical combination of assessment data was used rather than a holistic (judgment-based) method.  BOOM!  Think about that the next time a hiring supervisor derides your spreadsheet.

Until next time!

Will robots replace assessment professionals?

Technology and assessment have had a close relationship for years.  From the earliest days of computers, we were using them to calculate statistics, store items, and put applicants into spreadsheets.

Over time as computers advanced, we used them for more advanced tasks, such as multiple regression, applicant tracking, and computer-based testing.

With the advent of the Internet, a whole new area of opportunity opened for us: web-based recruitment and testing.  People began "showing off for the world" by creating personal webpages, commenting on articles, writing blogs, and living their lives through online social networks.  We developed Internet testing, allowing applicants to examine more conveniently.  And new forms of assessment opened up, such as advanced simulations.

We now find ourselves evolving yet again to take advantage of another significant technology advance: the social web.  As millions and billions of people began living their lives publicly on the web, they began developing a web identity and leaving footprints all over the place.  It was only a matter of time before recruiters (historically some of the first in HR to embrace technology) figured out how to harvest this information.  

One of the hottest trends now in HR technology is scouring the web to seek out digital footprints and making this information readily available to recruiters.  It's the latest iteration of Big Data applied to HR, and it's a creative way to make Internet recruiting more efficient.  Companies like Identified, TalentBin, Gild, and Entelo offer solutions that purport to lay qualified applicants at your doorstop, without all the hassle of spending hours manually searching the web.  They claim an additional benefit of targeting passive job seekers, who are obviously more challenging to attract.

But just exactly how big of an evolutionary step is this?  How big of a solution will this be?  Will this next evolutionary step result in us working ourselves out of a job?

I don't think so.  And let me explain why.

Fundamentally, assessment is about measuring--in a valid, reliable way--competencies key for successful performance in a field, job and/or organization.  Assessment can be performed using a number of different methods, the biggest ones being:

- Ability testing.  Measuring things like critical thinking, reading comprehension, and physical agility.  These tests seek the boundaries of individuals, the maximum they are capable of demonstrating related to a variety of constructs.  When properly developed and used, these tests have been shown to be highly predictive of performance, although some can result in adverse impact.

- Interviews.  One of the oldest forms of assessment and still probably the most popular.  Like ability tests, interview questions can seek "maximum" performance (i.e., knowledge-based), but they can also be used to probe creativity (i.e., situational) as well as gain a better understanding of someone's background and accomplishments (i.e., behavioral).  Interviews have also been shown to be valid predictors of performance, although they rely heavily on potentially unrelated competencies such as memory and verbal skills.

- Knowledge testing.  SAT or GRE anyone?  Multiple-choice tests have been around a long time, and with newer technologies like computer adaptive testing, don't show any signs of going away any time soon.  While these used to be quite common in employment testing, they have fallen out of favor in many places, which is odd given that they too have been shown to be successful predictors of performance (I suspect it is due to their "unsexy" nature and the fact that they require a significant amount of time to prepare)

- Personality inventories.  While these haven't been used nearly as much as the others above, there is an enormous interest in measuring personality characteristics related to job performance.  While they sometimes suffer from a lack of face validity (although contextualizing them seems to help), they have been shown to be useful, and typically demonstrate low adverse impact.

- Applications.  Also extremely popular, and the most relevant for this topic.  The assumption here is that qualifications and (like behavioral questions) past accomplishments predict future performance.  There is potential truth here, but as we know relying on applications (and resumes) is fraught with risks, from irrelevant content to outright lies.


An important thing that all of these assessment types have in common is that they are employer-generated.  One of the fundamental changes society has seen in the last ten years is an enormous shift to user-generated content at the grass roots level.  Anyone can have a blog, regardless of qualifications, and many of questionable veracity are read more than those written by people who actually know what they're talking about.  Content has become, if it wasn't already, king/queen.

But therein lies the fundamental challenge for aggregating digital footprints/content for use in assessment.  Relying on user-generated content, whether from social networks, blogs, comments, or other sources, is predicated on the assumption that qualified candidates are leaving digital versions of themselves.  In places that you have access to.  And that it is accurate.  And predicts performance.  This may work decently in certain industries, like IT, where it may be nearly universal--and expected--that professionals live their lives publicly on the web.  But for many people in many different professions, they may have neither the time nor the inclination to reveal their qualifications online.  In contrast, you can always test someone's ability, and a significant advantage of ability testing is it gives candidates an opportunity to demonstrate what they can do even if they haven't had the chance to do it yet.

I should note that using this information for recruitment is a different--but related--animal.  In this context, concerns about replacing tried-and-true assessment methods are moot.  However, we should carry the same concerns about content generation, both frequency and veracity.

As I've said before, taking technology to its logical endpoint would result in a massive database of everyone on the planet and their competency levels.  This database would empower users to generate and control their content, but allow organizations the widest possible field of qualified candidates.  At this point I'm aware of only one thing that comes close, and honestly I don't see anything approaching this scope anytime soon, particularly with more and more concerns over digital privacy.

Which leaves us...where exactly?  Will robots replace assessment professionals?  Not anytime soon.  At least not if we want hiring to work.  But we should be active observers of these trends, looking both for opportunities as well as pitfalls.  We shouldn't fear technology, but rather the way it's used.  Any important endeavor that requires human analysis should use technology as an assistive tool, not a sexy replacement.

I also want to give props to these companies for taking advantage of user-generated content.  It's a much more efficient way of assessing (i.e., it doesn't require applicants to in some sense double their efforts by completing a separate assessment).  And it's not surprising that these companies have sprouted up, given the trend in HR to automate user-initiated activities that lend themselves to automation, such as leave requests, benefit changes, and training.  But importantly, the science of whether digital footprints predict real-world job performance is in its infancy.  With something as important--operationally as well as legally--as hiring, we have to be careful that our addiction to technology doesn't outstrip our evidence that it works.

2013 HR Tech Conference: #giantexpo #echochamber #wrongfocus?

I just finished attending the 2013 HR Technology conference in Las Vegas, something I've wanted to do for many years.

It was at a great venue (Mandalay Bay), well organized, and full of industry experts.  And vendors.  Lots and lots and lots and lots of vendors in an enormous expo hall.  I'm pretty sure the city I was born in could have fit in there.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.  For anyone interested in recruiting products or HCM suites, this is the place to go to get educated.  Or sold to.  Ok, a little of both.

What about assessment, you ask?  Well, Hogan had a presence...I saw PAN there...but the floor was dominated by the big HCM vendors like SucessFactors/SAP, Oracle, and Workday (shown at the top, who had a great booth btw).

While sitting in a milieu of thought leaders like Don Tapscott, above on the jumbotron (one of the highlights--check out this video he talked about in the context of ease of collaboration driving social change), industry experts, and product VPs naturally results in some learning through osmosis, I came away feeling, to misquote Flynn Rider, "kinda like the color brown."  It took me a while to figure out why I felt that way, but it came from a place of personal disconnect.

See, much like putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that it's still a pig, you have to put gas in that fancy new car.  What the hell am I talking about?  Lemme 'splain.  Getting the right people into your organization is critically important.  You have to have the right ingredients to make that fancy cake.  You have to get the right people on the bus.  You have to have coal to make diamonds.  Pick your fav metaphor.

But that highly skilled, friendly, conscientious person you just hired ain't gonna go very far--certainly not as far as they could--without a focus on what happens after they start.  And it's here that I didn't see nearly as much tech innovation as we need.

Creating recruiting and employee tracking tools for HR pros is great.  We need those tools.  Particularly ones that don't make you go cross-eyed trying to figure out the GUI.  But here's the thing:  HR is a support function.  We exist to catalyze other functions.  Our product is a higher performing organization, and we get that through working with our business units.  This doesn't mean HR's not important or strategic, that's just reality.  So tech products should, at the end of the day, really be about program supervisors and managers. They don't have to be USED by them (although that would be ideal), but the goal should be to make their lives easier.

But you would think attending this conference that attracting the right people and getting their information into your HCM was the be-all and end-all of HR management.  Is recruitment and hiring the most important step of HR?  Quite possibly.  But it sure as heck ain't the only issue on my mind as an HR manager.

Let me share with you some of the biggest people challenges I've seen on a daily basis in organizations:

- getting employees to come to work (seriously)

- getting employees to do their jobs

- reducing bureaucracy so it doesn't take five years to hire or fire someone

- getting employees to work as a team and squashing negative gossip

- getting supervisors to pay attention to their people and, ya know, document it every once in a while

- getting HR staff passionate about HR

- getting HR and line supervisors to work TOGETHER to solve people problems

How much focus did I see at the conference on the above? Very, very, very little.  Maybe I was looking in the wrong places.  Maybe I was dazzled by the big sponsors.  Tell me I'm wrong.

Heck, maybe technology can't solve these problems.  Maybe these are examples of things that take face-to-face communication and won't be solved by "analytics" (by the way, if you attend this conference it is law that you use this phrase in at least every other sentence).

But I suspect there's a lot more innovation to be had here.  Ways of connecting HR and supervisors.  Getting HR jazzed about what they do.  Keeping employees engaged, or at least as much as we can.  THAT'S what I want to see.  That's what I hope to see in the coming years.  I fervently hope that we move away from talking about a talent shortage and focus more on making sure our houses are in order.     

Am I being unfair?  Most likely.  Were there products there that focused on things beyond recruitment, CRM, and core HR?  Sure, including a cool one that facilitates volunteerism.  But they felt like an afterthought.  Maybe the market gets what it demands, but I suspect it's just what's sexy.  Recruitment is sexy.  Progressive discipline?  Not so much.  But which one takes up more of our time?  Just like you don't want to hire too many pigs, you better buy some gas for that car or you won't get very far down the road.  That's what I need--more fuel.

So that's it, that's my perspective.  Next time I promise it'll be back to focusing on recruitment and selection.

By the way, a lot of people at this conference really need to have their hashtags and @ signs taken away, I think they're addicted.  At the very least they need to watch the Jimmy Fallon/Justin Timberlake vid.

Research update: September, 2013

Okay, it's mega research update time!

First off, the September IJSA; lots of good stuff, including:

- a constructed response multimedia test for entry-level police resulted in minor ethnic group differences

- panel interviews once again prove their superiority (also: more on interview reliability)

- further analysis of the Hogan Personality Inventory with a Spanish sample

- how to applicants form impressions of person-organization fit?  This study suggests contextual factors may be more important than interview content

- circumplex traits (combinations of personality factors) may predict counterproductive work behaviors better than simple FFM scores

- speaking of CWBs, conditional reasoning tests may not be the best predictor of them

- last but not least, what looks to be a good overview of competency modeling


Next up, the September JAP:

- an interesting, large study of the impact of candidate reactions on test scores, organizational perception, and criterion-related validity

- a study of the dynamics of the job search process and the impact of efficacy and focus

- highlighting certain factors during an interview may reduce discrimination toward pregnant applicants


Next, the Autumn 2013 Personnel Psychology:

- first, an important study of self-efficacy that suggests it is a product of past performance and not necessarily a predictor of future performance (free right now!)

- second, a study indirectly on selection that suggests that age diversity in work groups leads to more emotion regulation


Let's move on to the September JASP:

- okay, this may be a bit of a stretch, but if you're considering interviewing for a position as a dentist or a lawyer, make sure you suit up

- knowledge of service encounters predicts service effectiveness (and is related to conscientiousness)

- can use of biodata instruments result in adverse impact?  This study suggests so, but also suggests that removal of problematic items has no impact on validity


Starting to wrap up, let's move to the October JOB:

- perceptions of the fairness of promotion practices is one of those "bubbling beneath the surface" issues in most organizations.  This study found that perceptions are impacted by having been promoted in the past, organizational commitment, and ego defensiveness.  Good stuff.

- do more creative sales agents produce higher sales?  Perhaps only when there is a high quality of leader-member exchange.

- is validity generalization overgeneralized? (say that five times fast)  These folks seem to think so.


In the home stretch, from the September Psychological Science:

- older employees may have lower average cognitive performance, but it's more consistent

- spatial ability has a valuable role to play in the development of creativity, and can predict things like patents and publications


Second to last, for you stats geeks out there, a study that suggests that t-tests can be used reliably with small samples, thank you very much


Finally, something that has nothing to do with selection but is a nominee for the 2013 HR Tests Coolest Study Award, and something we all are very familiar with: time bandits (no, not the movie).

Hiring interviews: You're probably doing them wrong

I'll have a research update for you as soon as I get enough content, but today I wanted to give you a preview of a talk I'll be giving in San Francisco on September 23rd titled "Hiring interviews: You're probably doing them wrong.  A motivational talk."  The topic was inspired somewhat by Google's semi-recent announcement regarding their internal research on the issue.

The sad truth is that even though interviews are one of the most popular forms of personnel assessment, they are often done wrong.  Not necessarily through any ill intent, but because of two main factors:

(a) they're harder to develop than many people think

and

(b) most people think they're great interviewers


On the first point, interviews are deceptively simple.  Many people assume that if they can talk to other people, they can interview someone.

Wrong and wrong.

Interviewing isn't talking to people.  Well, okay, I suppose literally it is.  But interviewing really is about MEASURING people.

If I asked you to use a set of measuring spoons to give me 1 tsp of sugar, you would have no problem, right?

But what if I asked you to use a Halloway P36 spectrometer* to measure photon radiation?  You might need some help.  It's all about what you're measuring.


On the second point, research has well established that people are generally very bad at accurately reporting their skill levels--across a wide variety of disciplines.

To make matters worse, research has also established that interviewers tend to get addicted to bad interviews: when things turn out poorly, they tend to blame outside factors rather than the interview format.

But there is good news.

Specifically, we know how to do interviews the right way.  Namely by structuring them.  What does this mean?  There are several key features.  Here are a few:

1.  Use high quality question formats.  This means behavioral, hypotheticals, knowledge-based, and background questions.  Not puzzle questions or gimme questions.

2.  Be consistent.  Each candidate should be asked the same questions in the same order (with limited variations for follow-up if needed).

3.  Use a detailed rating scale.  When there is no criteria to compare answers to, scoring tends to be inconsistent, reducing the utility of the whole process.

4.  Base the questions on an analysis of the job.  I probably should have made this #1.  Everything you do in your selection process, including interviews, should be driven by the key knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics required for good job performance.

5.  Train the interviewers.  Because of the wide variety of biases that plague interviewers, it's critical that they be aware of these tendencies and guard against them.


These are just some of the ways we can avoid bad interviews.  Of course another strategy to increase your success is to look beyond interviews at things like tests that more accurately mirror the job (i.e., performance tests).  But even following these guidelines can radically improve your results.

In other words, there is hope.

* I made this up.  If this is a real instrument I'm better than I thought!

Recruitageddon

 

Recently at a certain employer, let's call it the Department of Inertia (DOI), a mandate was passed down from on high to "do more recruiting."  The ensuing chaos that ensued, from HR to line manager, is worth discussing.

First, some background.  DOI had historically generally used the "post and pray" approach to recruiting.  Meaning they put job ads on their careers page and assumed (hoped?) that qualified candidates would come running.

In general there was very little formal establishment of relationships with schools or professional groups.  Branding was minimal and uniform.  Unique attractants weren't highlighted.  Advertisements were about as exciting as reruns of Gilligan's Island.  Wait, less exciting than that, Gilligan had a rockin' hat.

If a bad candidate pool resulted, the assumption was bad timing.

One day, the Executive Office passed down a mandate that all recruitments must henceforth include...ya know... recruiting.  Specifically a "recruitment plan."  (I know, earth-shattering, right?)

Here's what happened after that, not necessarily in this order:

- Program shared services staff freaked out.  What's a recruitment plan?  What does that mean?  Can we see one? Can you make one for us?

- Line supervisors freaked out.  What's this about recruiting?  Aren't we already advertising?  Who can do that for me?

- HR was deluged with calls seeking clarification. Since no clear instruction had been given, they scrambled to provide consultation.

- The one half-time recruiter in HR (budget cuts, ya know) quickly became overwhelmed.  Because most of the other analysts were transactional or focused on performance management, recruitment expertise was lacking.  (Don't even get me started about resource balancing between selection and discipline)

- Slowly, ever so slowly, a strategy coalesced to provide short- and long-term advice to programs on how to best recruit, particularly for hard-to-fill positions.  Discussions, long overdue, about things like LinkedIn, craigslist, and Dice, were had.

- Everyone breathed a sigh of relief and, much to everyone's shock, the world did not end.


Lessons?

- Recruiting never dies*.  I don't care if there's a depression and the unemployment rate is 20%.  Branding is always important.  Attractive but accurate job ads are always important.  Your careers page is always important.

- HR consultants should have recruiting as a core competency.  If your customer gets you on the phone, you should be able to speak half-intelligently about LinkedIn.

- Times change.  One year the focus may be budget cutbacks, but the next things may turn around and suddenly you're hiring again.  HR and shared services providers need to be flexible and agile, and not assume the future will look like the present.  In fact, absent a time machine, I can pretty much guarantee you it won't.

- Supervisors should have to demonstrate they've given recruiting half a second of thought.  I don't care if they think they know who they want.  Ingrain high-quality recruiting and assessing into your organizational culture and hold people accountable for ensuring it.

- Recruitment should be a core focus of any executive office.  Talent is the one thing standing between you and sustainable success.  To the extent that you care about your organization succeeding.

- Negative is stronger than positive.  Left to their own devices, hiring supervisors naturally gravitate toward avoiding poor performers rather than attracting great ones.  HR plays a key role in sustaining the focus on finding the diamonds in the rough.

- If you're going to mandate "more recruitment", give folks a little direction on what you mean, how success will be measured, and when you expect results.


Those of you in HR leadership positions know that not overreacting and keeping a cool head are key competencies for success as a manager.  Sudden changes in the direction of organizational HR practices are no exception.  It may hit a little closer to home, but that makes your calm and logical approach all that much more important.  Rise to the occasion.


* This may have made a better title for this post.  Although I almost went with recruitapocalypse, which now sounds like a dinosaur.

Good leaders leave big talent footprints

When my dad passed away a few years ago, I was proud to see how many of his previous co-workers came.  Several of them mentioned how he personally chose and mentored them and what an impact he had on them. These were people that worked for him 10, 20, 30 years ago.

At the time, I remember marveling at the impact that one person can have on others.  And how important leadership is, both personally and organizationally.


Leadership is one of the oldest topics in organizational behavior, yet remains as popular today as ever.  Why?  Many reasons:

. Leaders are important.  They have an enormous impact on those they influence or control, and this remains the case even in today's more decentralized organizational approaches.

. Leadership is hard.  To be successful, most leaders need to display an amazing array of behavior, such as flexibility, analytical strength, assertiveness, listening ability, creativity, patience, drive, and vision.

. Many leaders are bad.  I consistently see rates of around 25-50% for successful leaders.  Which isn't too surprising when you think about the previous point--how many people are capable of exhibiting and balancing all of this behavior?

. Successful leadership can be hard to measure.  Surveys are of course one way to measure, but they have inherent problems such as response rate. Productivity is a good one as well, but that can be defined in many ways and is also influenced by a wide variety of environmental factors.

. Leaders can be hard to identify, because of the aforementioned factors.  A simple interview won't cut it when it comes to assessing for a leadership role.  Even assessment centers are only so effective when it comes to predicting performance.

All this had me thinking...what happens in an organization or work unit when you have an effective leader?  Specifically, what is the impact to those around them?  Even more specifically, what has been their "talent footprint"?

If you're a good leader, what type of lasting impact do you have on the people around you?  

I have some ideas, and If you think about bosses you've had that were exemplary, chances are you'll recognize some of these indicators:

- Good leaders personally recruit and hire the best.  They have a clear vision of what competencies are required for a position and they have a clear-headed approach to seeking out, attracting, and rigorously assessing to ensure a good match.  When you ask your best performers who recruited and hired them, nine times out of ten they'll identify one of your best leaders.

- Good leaders promote their subordinates.  They support their team members, mentor them, and prepare them for promotional opportunities.  They make it clear that if you succeed, you have a career path in the organization.

- Or help subordinates promote elsewhere.  In situations where a promotional position doesn't exist at the time, good leaders help star employees seek fame and fortune elsewhere--and wish them well.  On the flipside, bad leaders see star performance transfer elsewhere for no increase in pay or responsibility.

- Good leaders get boomerangs.  Because they support and mentor their employees--even helping them get promotions elsewhere when necessary--they're more likely to be a return destination by said employees in the future.

- Good leaders are followed when they move.  They are so well thought-of that high performers are willing to follow them to new positions, units, or organizations even though it means big changes and possibly no pay increase.

- Good leaders attract internal star performers.  When you ask your high performers where they want to work, they indicate units overseen by good leaders.

So assuming you're with me on this, how do you measure these factors when hiring for a leadership position?  That's where things get a little tricky.

For internal candidates, you should be able to gather history through observation and discussion.  In fact--frankly--you should be able to quickly identify these individuals if you're paying attention.

For external candidates, there are at least a couple ways:

1) Ask them.  Yep, you can integrate this into your interview process.  Ask questions such as, "Which high performers in your organization have you personally recruited and hired?"  "Which have you personally promoted?"  "Which have returned to work for you after working somewhere else?"

2) Integrate this into your reference checking process.  Find out who the high performers are that worked under your applicant and ask them questions that get at the points above.  This has the additional benefit of potentially identifying applicants you weren't even considering!


There is at least one important caveat to all this: it's unlikely good leaders will leave this footprint in a short amount of time.  And if a good leader is entering into a bad environment or one that needs to be turned around, it will likely take years for the impact to be felt.

So like all assessment methods, this approach will work best in certain situations, like executive-level selection.  But it's something to add to your tool belt as an assessment professional.

And something to think about in your group, organization, and--for those of you that lead--your daily work life.

Are we overlooking the obvious? Use part-time positions to supercharge your recruiting

We spend a lot of time trying to come up with creative approaches to reach qualified candidates:

In-your-face advertising.

Search engine optimization.

Social media.

Gamification.

Good for us.  We should always be looking at ways of streamlining human resource matching.

But like assessment (interview questions should be high fidelity? WAH?), sometimes we leave some good stuff behind when we blaze into the future.

Exhibit A: Work schedules.  In my experience (primarily public sector), this is one of the last bastions of stubbornness for many hiring supervisors.  They'll consider more modern solutions like telecommuting and BYOD before reducing a full-time position to part-time.  There's something burned into their brains that their employees MUST be there 8-5.

And yet...and yet...this small decision may be having the single largest negative impact on their recruiting success.  Why?  Because of the large number of qualified candidates they're missing out on.

Whenever we do recruiting surveys, work/life balance is at or near the top, particularly for cognitively demanding jobs (e.g., attorney).  What does this phrase mean to people?  From the conversations I've had with folks, 99% of the time they mean fewer working hours.  And it's not just job-hunters.  In fact, at least one study found that 20% of full-time workers would prefer to be part-time.  Another study found that 47% of mothers prefer part-time work.

There's even evidence that organizations get more bang for their buck with part-time employees.  And it's not just a single study.  Here's another one.

Why?  Could be employees are thankful for the arrangement and are more engaged.  Could be they feel guilty (or protective) and work hard to keep their schedule.

Not to mention the fact that many people continue working even after they've left the physical work site (whether they should be or not), the fact that productivity and safety practices in many jobs is temporally uneven and may drop off curvilinearly with longer hours, and you really start to blur the lines of "paying for time".  In fact, absent jobs that are directly tied to hours worked (e.g., production, reception), for many jobs paying people for the number of hours they work is positively...archaic.  Scott Adams captured the insanity perfectly.

Oh, and did I mention that the same evidence regarding performance suggests employees with reduced work schedules may have higher job satisfaction?  And that it may increase your ability to retain skilled workers?  And if you can't compete on salary, compete on something people probably care about more--having enough time to live and enjoy their non-work lives.  Think about what it will do to your reputation as a destination employer!

Obviously this strategy isn't going to work in every situation.  But it's something that should always be considered when competing for talent.  And for those out there that still cling to notions of mandatory 40-hour weeks, consider opening your minds.  You, your organization, and your employees will be better for it.