Mini research update

Without further ado, a few research updates:

January 2017 Psychological Bulletin:

- Why is there better gender balance in some STEM fields than others?  Possible reasons these authors cite include masculine cultures, lack of early experience, and lower self-efficacy.

- There appears to be a strong relationship between emotional intelligence and other personality factors, particularly trait EI.


January 2017 Journal of Applied Psychology:

- Sackett & Lievens argue that a modular perspective on selection procedures --in other words, breaking selection procedures down into their design components such as response format -- allows for insights beyond a holistic view.  Read this quite fascinating article here.


Reminder: the Journal of Personnel Assessment and Decisions is free, available here.

Research update

Several research updates this time, including fascinating studies of how computers can assist with interview training, and how a brief writing exercise can lower stereotype threat for women:


International Journal of Selection and Assessment, December, 2016:

- International support for the cultural intelligence scale

- Looking to improve applicant interview performance? Maybe a computer can help.

- This study found that time lag and g-loading are important factors impacting re-testing results

- Status-seeking seems to be an important individual difference when looking at self-presentation behaviors, including exaggeration and faking in job search

- Development and validation of a 360-degree measure of leadership personality


Personnel Psychology, Winter 2016:

- Do CEOs significantly impact firm performance?  This study found evidence that they do.

- More evidence that the assumption that performance is normally distributed is questionable

- A more accurate correction for range restriction is presented, and an example analysis indicates the relationship between the Big 5 and job satisfaction may be greater than previously believed



Journal of Organizational Behavior, November, 2016 (which includes several articles devoted to the importance of theory in organizational sciences):

- Are self-focused or other-focused recruiting advertisements more effective?  This study suggests it depends not only on cultural differences but individual regulatory focus



Journal of Applied Psychology, October, 2016:

- A suggestion for improving meta-analytic structural equation modeling



Journal of Applied Psychology, November, 2016:

- A fascinating study of how having women compose a brief written description of their personal values can help ameliorate stereotype threat in competitive environments

How to create the ultimate hiring system

Unless your organization is primarily composed of robots (which is becoming more of a reality for some*), arguably the most important thing you need to get right is hiring.  To restate the obvious, without the right people, in the right places, at the right time, your organization hampers its ability to innovate, collaborate, deliver, and fulfill your mission.

So how do you ensure that your organization consistently makes great hires?  Before I get into the steps, let's talk a little bit about culture.  None of the steps below will reliably deliver results unless you first get serious about two things: (1) disciplined processes and procedures, and (2) a clear understanding of the roles of HR versus hiring supervisors.

In order to make great hires time and time again, you have to document your practices and put them in place across the organization.  Everyone needs to understand that this is the way things are done here, not simply an initiative.  Supervisors and HR need to be trained--and reinforced--for how successful they implement these steps.

Speaking of these players, both hiring supervisors and HR need to be very clear about what their roles are.  Hiring supervisors are expected to know the job they're hiring for and what it takes to succeed in it.  HR is expected to have expertise in job analysis, recruiting, assessment, onboarding, and other aspects of talent management.  This should be part of their job descriptions, and their performance should be in part based on how successful they are at serving in these roles.

Okay, with that out of the way, let's talk about the steps your organization needs to have in place to ensure repeatable success in hiring.

Step 1: Know your Organizational Reputation.  Before you even think about hiring for a specific job, you need to think about the reputation of your organization.  Is it a destination employer, or an employer of last resort?  What do people say about your workplace?  This is important because it drives the pipeline of talent.  If you're a destination, the pump is primed and "hard to recruit jobs" becomes less of an issue, making the steps below that much easier.  Find out what the word on the street is about your organization--how do your employees feel? Your customers? Prospective applicants?

Step 2. Analyze the job.  Yes, many jobs are becoming more fluid, but even narrowing the job to its occupational category helps.  Think about the most important tasks the person will perform on a day-to-day basis and what competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities are required to perform them.  Sites like O*NET are a huge resource so you don't reinvent the wheel.  Without knowing the job, hiring is a roll of the dice.

Step 3. Develop a recruitment/assessment strategy.  Ya gotta have a plan.  It doesn't have to be a 20-page missive, but you need to document what your plan is, otherwise you're unlikely to cover all the bases.  Honestly here's where a lot of hiring processes fall apart--people have the best intentions but they forget about certain key steps.  Hey, here's an idea: use the same document that you used to document the job in Step 2!  The way the key competencies will be linked to how you plan to recruit and assess for each of them.

Step 4. Use multiple and creative recruitment strategies.  The only time "post and pray" is acceptable (and even then I'd argue against it) is if you've nailed your reputation as described in Step 1.  Recruiting is sales, plain and simple--you're selling the job, the organization, and the people.  Use the web, but also think about physical interactions, including open houses.  Reach out to schools.  Develop realistic job previews.  Hire recruiters that have a marketing and sales background.  Don't be afraid to push the envelope if you need to stand out from the crowd.  Honestly, the sky is the limit.

Step 5. Use multiple high-quality assessments, internet and mobile whenever possible.  In-person interviews aren't going away any time soon (although many of those are migrating online), but they should be only one tool  in your belt--not the only tool.  Assessment starts with how you recruit, because you allow applicants to self-select in and out.  It continues with assessments embedded in the application process, whether that's a statement of qualifications, an online survey, or a set of online skills assessments.  And don't forget to make any "minimum qualifications" truly minimum--please don't rely on hard-and-fast "X years of experience" or "Y degree"--those should be suggestions.  The important thing isn't the type of assessment, it's that you're using several and they're tied to those important competencies you identified in Step 2.  In short, using a single assessment is like buying a house based on what it looks like from the outside.

Step 6: Don't forget about them once you make the offer.  Again, this is pretty obvious, but once you've made the offer, don't breath a sigh of relief and get back to your Inbox--your job isn't over yet, not by a long shot.  Your new employee needs to feel welcomed to the organization, have the tools they need, understand what the expectations are, and get continual feedback--in other words, feel like they made the right choice and have a successful future with you.


Get these simple steps right, make them part of your organizational DNA, and you will ensure that not only do you get hiring right--you'll get performance right.

* Stay tuned for my signature article of 2018, "How to hire the right robot for the job"

p.s. this post marks 10 years for my blog!  Thanks for reading!

Research update

Several recent journals to pore through:

July 2016 issue of Journal of Organizational Behavior

July 2016 issue of Journal Applied Psychology, including:

- Computer scoring of candidate essays

- Everything you've been told about assessment center ratings is confounded

and the biggie...

September 2016 issue of International Journal of Selection and Assessment, including:

- Faking on assessment measures

- Emotional intelligence and service jobs

- A self-report measure of psychopathy in the workplace

Welcome to Sacramento, IPAC'ers!

This year, IPAC's annual conference is here in my home of Sacramento from July 31 - August 3.  I'll be there Monday afternoon for a session titled "Fits and Starts: The Evolution of Testing for the State of California (Special Invited Session)", where I'll be interviewing my good friend, Adria Jenkins-Jones.  Here's the description:

In this lively discussion, the presenters will discuss the current state of employment testing for the state of California, including significant recent and upcoming changes to our examination software. Using an interview format, the presenters will discuss the massive changes envisioned for statewide testing, and how the California Department of Human Resources is attempting to collaborate with stakeholders to change the traditional paradigm, and significantly improve automation, while maintaining the commitment to merit. The presenters will engage in open dialogue and there will be time for audience members to ask questions about current and future directions of testing for the state.

Feel free to use the comments section below to post the sessions you plan on attending, or anything about your experience!

Hiring for goodwill (not Goodwill)

Those of us that write, teach, and consult on personnel assessment usually paint the process as a very rational process broken into several steps:

Step 1) Study the job to identify the critical tasks

Step 2) Identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities (or competencies) required day one to perform those tasks

Step 3) Create selection systems that accurately measure candidates' levels of #2

Step 4) Hire the person(s) who demonstrate the highest scores on #3

But as you know, hiring is rarely so logical.  In some cases this is due to organizations not having the expertise, or making the time, to follow the steps above.

But in other cases, there are simply other factors at play--factors that can't be ignored by the decision makers because they exert such a significant influence on the process.  And these factors are largely intangible, meaning they're more difficult to quantify and therefore not typically included explicitly in a standard assessment process.

For the purposes of discussion, I'm not talking about negative factors, such as illegal discrimination or selections based purely on politics.  Instead, let's think of potentially useful constructs.

For example:

1) Physical presence related to professionalism.  Let's be honest, looks matter when it comes to interviews.  In general, polished shoes beat flip flops.  Suits beat sweats.  No scent beats heavy cologne/perfume.  But this may not be given a formal rating during the process--for several reasons, including the difficulty of rating and the potential overlap with discriminatory considerations.  But again, that doesn't mean it's not a factor.

2) Honesty.  How many times have you been on an interview panel and perceived a candidate more positively because he/she was honest--about a weakness, for example, or about what they need to be successful in the position.  It matters, and one reason it matters is because so many candidates hide behind a veneer of perfection.  But are you giving them a formal rating on honesty?

3) Potential.  The applicant may not have demonstrated the KSAs that are key for the job, and thus may score poorly on assessments that measure past performance.  But that doesn't mean they aren't capable of learning those KSAs, and even exceeding the performance of those that have already mastered them.  Why?  Because individual performance is more than just the KSAs someone brings to the job--it's also about the organizational environment, onboarding, development opportunities, the supervisor, and other factors that often go unmeasured during the hiring process (e.g., personality).

4) Preexisting relationships.  It's quite common for organizations to seek out individuals who have existing relationships that can be capitalized on.  For example, someone may have relationships with potential customers, or may be able to access a market in a different way.  If an organization is trying to enhance its relationship with certain key stakeholders, they may seek out someone who already has established connections.  Sales professions immediately comes to mind, but other types, such as consultants or leadership positions, may also benefit greatly from these connections.

In many ways these factors can be thought of as individual goodwill, similar to the accounting principle.  In this context, an organization's brand is an example of an intangible asset that nonetheless has great value.  And in a similar way, individual goodwill is difficult to quantify.

So what is someone that cares deeply about hiring right to do about all this?

First of all, acknowledge that these factors play a role.  Any attempts to link your assessments to outcomes that don't take these factors into account is missing a huge potential explanatory factor.  You may draw conclusions regarding your assessments that are simply false because of the nature of the selection decision.

Second, attempt whenever possible to build these intangibles into the hiring process.  For example, preexisting relationships could be considered part of a communication competency.  If hiring for potential, break down what the core abilities are that you're considering for potential--chances are you can measure those.  There are both overt and covert measures of honesty and integrity--that work.

Third, as an assessment community, we should all recognize that these factors play a role.  When we research, teach, and consult on hiring, acknowledge these factors, and help others understand how to take them into consideration when designing a successful selection system.

In the end, it's a relatively simple prescription: let's make the intangible, tangible.

One way to reduce interviewer leniency/severity

A persistent challenge in interviews is that certain interviewers tend to be lenient (i.e., score candidates highly) while others are consistently more severe (i.e., score candidates lower).  This of course is not ideal as it introduces measurement bias as well as reduces the defensibly of the process.

One way to reduce these tendencies discussed by Hartwell and Campion in the June 2016 issue of Journal of Applied Psychology is to provide interviewers with what they call "normative feedback interventions."  Basically what this means is giving interviewers data on how they rate candidates over time compared to how other interviewers rated.  It can reveal to interviewers that they tend to rate candidates more harshly, or more easily, than others.

What Hartwell and Campion found in their study (of over 20,000 interviews using more than 100 interviewers) is that by providing this feedback to interviewers, it minimized interviewer differences and increased interview reliability--both obviously good things in terms of quality of the process.  Interestingly, it did not seem to impact the validity of the interviews, but it did impact which particular candidates were hired.

Up until now, one of the most often recommended practices for reducing rating errors has been pre-interview instructions and guidance regarding these errors.  What this study suggests is we can do even better by providing interviewers with objective data about their ratings over time.  Listening to someone talking about rating bias probably feels a lot different than actually seeing how you do compared to your peers!

Some easy tests to improve your hiring success

The interview is such a commonly used hiring assessment that it's hardly worth mentioning (although there is always room for improvement).

But what if you're already doing interviews and you want some easy to implement add-ons?  No problem.  Here are some ways to improve quality of hire for knowledge worker positions that don't take a long time, an automated solution, or a PhD to develop:

1. Pre-screening questionnaire.  Whether you use something quick and cheap like SurveyMonkey or your own proprietary assessment system, it's easy to create open- and closed-ended items that serve to screen out the uninterested, allow you to get some more detail from candidates, and even help you solve problems you've been struggling with!  Keep it relatively short so you don't dissuade the most in-demand candidates.


2. Targeted cover letter.  Don't just ask for a generic cover letter, ask applicants to describe in their letter how their background syncs with the core competencies you're looking for.  Remember: limit the length; two pages is generally sufficient.



3. Research project.  As part of the application process, as candidates to look into an issue that's relevant for the job.  How do they think the new overtime regulations will impact the industry?  What new technologies are on the horizon that will change the way this job is done?  Have them briefly write up their results, and/or ask about it during your interview.

4. Writing exercise.  There's no substitute for live demonstrations of writing ability.  Have them correct a document you've messed up, ask them to write a quick memo to a customer--just something related to the core duties of the job that you would expect them to be able to do day one.

5. Rule/procedure application.  Knowledge worker jobs are characterized by frequent application of laws, rules, and procedures to specific situations.  Either provide them with the rules ahead of time or give them the short version, then give them a specific fact pattern and have them come up with a solution or options.



6. Oral presentation.  Have you ever been on a hiring panel where there's an oral presentation?  If not, you're missing out.  Presentations are a great way to mix things up and see those different skillsets that a candidate brings.  Of course realize that you're adding a presentation to an interview, which I'm pretty sure are both in the top five of most stressful events.


Notice that you can mix and match theses approaches: have them do a rule/procedure application and then write a memo.  Have them do an oral presentation on a topic they researched ahead of time.  Of course, the tests you use should be based on the requirements of the job; start with entry level KSAs needed and let the assessments flow from that.  Beyond that, be creative!

First, get the people basics right

Competencies, talent, gamification... there's no doubt about it, we like us some buzzwords.  Like bright shiny objects, these ideas entice--and largely detract.

Sometimes new ideas and ways of thinking can lead to significant improvements in the way organizations manage their people. But here's the truth that no one seems to want to talk about: many organizations fail to get the basics right.  So while leaders may be leaping headlong into the nanofied virtual talent management sunset, the foundation of HR is lacking.

What are these basics of which I speak?

1. Adequately defining jobs--based on subject matter expert data.   Every single job should be defined and documented in terms of key tasks, requirements, and expectations.  The form this takes is less important than the quality of the data. This is the bedrock that helps you recruit, select, reward, and manage effectively.

2. Recruiting like you're selling, not like you're being forced to.   Writing attractive job ads is so easy, why aren't we swimming in them?  The same reason many organizations fail to accurately describe the job: laziness and lack of discipline.

3. Using valid hiring measures.  Speed of hire is important, but not even remotely as important as quality.   I can make you a sandwich really quickly if it's just bread.   Do you think Google gets millions of resumes each year because candidates are hoping for a quick hire?  Importantly, the higher in the organization, the more time should be spent on valid assessment.

4. Holding leaders accountable for being leaders. This really should be #1 except I was trying to go chronologically (and will fail miserably).  All too often, it's the line staff who are quickly called to the carpet when they make mistakes.   But holding leaders accountable for their behavior (hint: ask their subordinates) is exponentially more powerful.

5.  Listening to each other.  Many if not most good ideas for improving your organization are in the heads of your line staff.   Do you ask them regularly and implement their ideas?  Is listening skill considered critical for all employees?

6.  Saying thank you.  It's easy, it's cheap.   Do it more, and mean it.  

7.  Dealing firmly with poor performance.  This is top to bottom, from not being helpful on the phone to running productive meetings.  Again, the higher in the organization, the more important this is.

8.  Growing your people--forever.  Sure,  they may leave, but they'll leave sooner if you don't invest in them.  And like everything else on this list, it grows your reputation. 

9. Treating people with respect and fundamental human decency.   If you have this as a backbone, many other things simply follow.  There's a reason why one of the most popular business books recently is The No Asshole Rule.

None of this is incredibly difficult, it just takes the most precious resource of any organization: time.   And it takes commitment and discipline.  But these aren't initiatives.   They're part of an organization's DNA--or not.  They're how people respond when asked what it's like to work there.   And who is responsible for ensuring they happen ?  The people at the top. 

So before your organization jumps on to the latest buzzword bandwagon, make sure it's getting these basics right (by, I dunno, measuring them). Just promise me this, if you pick just one thing on this list:

Select.  Good.  Leaders.

Research update

A few new journal issues have come out lately:

Summer 2016 Personnel Psychology, including:

Transparency of Assessment Centers: Low Criterion-related Validity but Greater Opportunity to Perform?

May 2016 Journal of Applied Psychology, including:

Initial impressions: What they are, what they are not, and how they influence structured interview outcomes.

Racioethnicity, community makeup, and potential employees’ reactions to organizational diversity management approaches.

June 2016 International Journal of Selection and Assessment, including:

Applicant Reactions to Selection Events: Four studies into the role of attributional style and fairness perceptions

Behavioral Cues as Indicators of Deception in Structured Employment Interviews

The Role of Self-focused Attention and Negative Self-thought in Interview Anxiety: A test of two interventions

The Influence of Candidate Social Effectiveness on Assessment Center Performance Ratings: A field study

Discrimination due to Ethnicity and Gender: How susceptible are video-based job interviews?

A Comparison of General and Work-specific Personality Measures as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Perceived Nature and Incidence of Dysfunctional Assessment Center Features and Processes

Who is Being Judged Promotable: Good actors, high performers, highly committed or birds of a feather?

New journal issues

Two new journal issues to make you aware of:

International Journal of Selection and Assessment - March 2016

Unintended Consequences of Transparency During Personnel Selection: Benefitting some  candidates, but harming others?

Ethnic Differences in Perceptions of Cognitive Ability Tests: The explanatory role of self-serving attributions

Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression: Further evidence about incremental validity

For Love or for Money: Intrinsic and extrinsic value congruence in recruitment

Social Influences in Recruitment: When is word-of-mouth most effective?

Highlighting Tensions in Recruitment and Selection Research and Practice

Tests of Integrity, HEXACO Personality, and General Mental Ability, as Predictors of Integrity Ratings in the Royal Dutch Military Police

Training Affects Variability in Training Performance Both Within and Across Jobs

Examining Applicant Reactions to Different Media Types in Character-based Simulations for Employee Selection

When Will Interviewers Be Willing to Use High-structured Job Interviews? The role of personality


Journal of Applied Psychology - March 2016


How and why do interviewers try to make impressions on applicants? A qualitative study.

The long road to employment: Incivility experienced by job seekers.

The role of self-determined motivation in job search: A dynamic approach.

How a mobile game made me re-think the nature of jobs

I have a lot of games on my iPad.  They go on for several pages as you swipe left.

Some are quite good, but most are just good enough that I can't bring myself to delete them, but not good enough that I play them regularly.

Every once in a while though, one comes along where I find myself playing it whenever I get downtime, usually due to some clever reward scheme that borrows heavily from the concept of variable interval reinforcement.  (come to think of it, most of them do)  You Candy Crush players out there know what I'm talking about.

Quite unexpectedly, I came across one recently that's not only fun, but made me re-think my approach to jobs.  Frankly it was rather eye-opening.  I know this sounds odd, but stay with me.



It's a game called Pixel People. It's a "city building" game, drawn from the rich history of games like SimCity and Civilization.  There are many games, like Clash of Clans, that have an element of city building, but unlike most of them, Pixel People doesn't focus on fighting, but instead on building your city.

The graphics aren't anything to write home about, you can see an example below.  The word "pixel" isn't in the title by accident.



Fortunately, the game doesn't need high-resolution graphics to pull off addicting gameplay.  And part of what makes it addictive--actually, the biggest part--is how you create people to populate your city.

Every citizen starts off as a clone, tabula raza.  You individualize them by giving them professions.  And the way you give them professions is by combining other professions from different categories.

For example, you start off with a Mayor and a Mechanic.  The Mayor belongs to the "Administration" occupational category, the Mechanic to the "Technical" category.  It was right about this point that something tickled at the back of my mind and I was reminded of a typical job classification system (O*NET being a prime example).

The best part of the game is that in order to move forward and create new professions and buildings, you combine two different professions.  For example, if you combine the professions of Mayor with the profession of Mechanic, you get an Engineer.  By doing so you create not only an Engineer, but access to the Garage and Mine structures.  You continue combining professions to create new ones, create new buildings which offer new abilities, etc.

Here are some other profession creation combinations, of which there are currently 400:

Mechanic + Engineer = Mechanical Engineer (duh)
Director + Model = Actor
Doctor + Park Ranger = Vet
Farmer + Farmer = Botanist
Mechanic + Police Officer = Firefighter
Architect + Dreamer = Artist

As you can see, the game designers put some thought into how different professions relate to one another.  They're not perfect, but close enough to make you smile when you create a new profession.

So what does this have to do with assessment?  Thanks for hanging in there.  Well, the game mechanic got me thinking about how overly logical and rational most of our classification systems are, and how little we acknowledge the overlap and relationships between occupations.

Most of us in HR structure our worlds around the idea that jobs can be categorized and differentiated.  And in some cases, this makes perfect sense.  A doctor is not the same as a computer programmer.  Different educational requirements.  Many core competencies required for the position are different.

But I submit to you that in many cases, occupations have more overlap than we pretend.  They are related to one another in ways that we don't typically acknowledge.  And this has implications for recruiting, assessment, compensation, promotional paths--i.e., the core work involved in talent management.  For example:

Recruiting:  currently, the ideal model of recruiting is to identify through job analysis the core KSAs or competencies required, and craft your recruitment campaign to attract those that possess them.  KSAs can get very specific, resulting in recruiting efforts often focused on a pretty narrow desired profile.  If we acknowledge that many jobs in our organizations have more overlap than we normally pretend, it becomes obvious that recruitment campaigns can become broader in two major ways: (1) you start to focus more on recruiting for the organization, not specific jobs, and (2) you start recruiting for broader skillsets or competencies, like analytical skill and conscientiousness.  I don't think it's a coincidence that the last 40+ years of assessment research has repeatedly underlined the predictive power of these qualities.

Assessment:  like recruiting, assessment strategies typically target very specific KSAs--knowledge of a particular programming language, knowledge of a particular area of HR law, etc.  If we acknowledge the overlap and relationship between jobs, it changes our assessment strategy.  Like our recruitment strategy, we focus on broader targets such as communication ability and ability to work as part of a team.  I'm not suggesting we shouldn't focus on those things that are critical to job performance and necessary upon entry to the position, but rather that we not prioritize those above more general qualities of the individual.

Compensation:  most often, particularly in civil service systems, compensation is based on the job category someone belongs to and their tenure.  If we instead acknowledge the somewhat artificial nature of our classification structures, it shifts the focus to compensation being based on contribution to the organization.  I recognize pay-for-performance has had inconsistent success, but I suspect that has as much to do with what's being compensated as it does with the concept.

Thinking about recruitment, assessment, and compensation in this way broadens our horizons when it comes to other aspects of talent management, such as career mobility.  It becomes easier to see how transferable skills benefit the organization, increasing its ability to adjust to new conditions, including unexpected turnover.  Instead of staffing focused on narrow KSAs, we fill our organization with people whose strengths allow them to move relatively fluidly between jobs, which helps the individuals as well in their career development.

Am I suggesting that we ignore specific skillsets when recruiting?  Definitely not.  Obviously sometimes you need people with a very particular ability or knowledge.  What I am suggesting is we shift the balance toward a much more inclusive perspective when it comes to the qualities we seek.

What do you think?  Has your organization already acknowledged the overlap between jobs?  Do you already recruit and select based on a broader mindset than simply those KSAs required for a particular position?  Have the long hours spent in front of a tablet warped my perspective?



Footnote: long-time readers will have noticed that I'm not posting nearly as much as I used to, and for that I apologize.  I took a new job last summer and since then my blogging has suffered.  If you want to follow me, I recommend my Facebook page, which I update more often.  Thanks for hanging in there! This year marks the 10-year anniversary of HR Tests and I hope to do something special in celebration.

Where there's a will, there's a way: OPM shows how to do UIT the right way

On August 10 and 12, PTC-NC was privileged to have Dr. Patrick Sharpe from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) deliver a presentation about USA Hire, part of a suite of online platforms that has allowed OPM to revolutionize the way they deliver assessment services to their diverse customers.

The idea to ask Dr. Sharpe to present occurred to me when I read an article in the Washington Post on April 2 about USA Hire titled, "For federal-worker hopefuls, the civil service exam is making a comeback".   It provides an overview of what OPM has managed to accomplish with its partner, PDRI, in the area of unproctored internet testing (UIT).  Start there if you want to learn more because it includes some examples of the items--although significantly absent is an example of the excellent video avatar-based assessment used for things like situational judgment.

Dr. Sharpe did an excellent job painting the picture for the audience of how much work was involved in the project, and how important things like stakeholder communication and contract management were to ensuring the project was a success.  He then showed us a demo version of USA Hire, where he lead us through what it looks like from the applicant's perspective as they proceed through a series of competency-based assessments.  The item formats range from the traditional (e.g., reading comprehension multiple-choice) to the modern (avatar-based SJT) to the groundbreaking--at least for the public sector (forced-choice non-cognitive assessment).

Here are some of the key points I took away:

- The technology is just a part of successfully putting an UIT program together, you have to step back and look first at what you're trying to accomplish.  For example, are you interested in whole person assessment (as OPM is) or simply focusing on certain KSAs?

- USA Hire is the culmination of years of research and analysis, and traces its history back 20-30 years within the federal government.   Translation : don't jump into UIT without careful planning.

- Start with the basics when delivering UIT: make sure the customer has a solid job analysis foundation before jumping to the assessment platform

- Getting a larger, more influential, customer successfully implemented can cause others to jump on board

- Realize that, particularly in a decentralized testing environment, you may still end up with a hybrid of different testing approaches following the roll-out of UIT, and this includes T&Es.  But the best way to move the practice is to show what success looks like.

- Consider carefully whether you want to build, buy, or lease the technology.  There are benefits and drawbacks to each.

- Starting with a pilot can be a great way to test the system (no pun intended), and also demonstrate the potential to stakeholders.

- Collaboration between assessment professionals, HR specialists, and vendors is critical.

- Don't underestimate the importance of change management.  Fears (e.g., about losing control) come easily and have to be addressed head-on.

- Organizational and system readiness is very important.  Part of the reason this effort was successful is because hiring organizations were fed up with the extremely low utility (and perception) of point-based T&Es.

For someone passionate about assessment and technology, the presentation was educational and motivational.  I walked away, as did others, with a new-found optimism for what sufficient will, resources, and tenacity can accomplish.  It's seductive to focus on what can't be done in the public sector, so to hear and see what can be done reemphasizes the importance of leadership--both in HR and at the top of the organization.

Unproctored internet testing has been talked about for so long, but to see it in action, in a research-based way in the public sector, is truly inspirational.  Truly where there is a will, there is a way.

The secret to successful organizations: Let HR drive hiring

Why do organizations make bad hires?  Because they rely too much on supervisors to do the hiring.

Imagine this scenario.  You take your car into the shop because it's making a strange sound.  The mechanic fixes it, you pay, and you're about to leave.  But on your way out, the mechanic stops you.  She* notices that you're frustrated with your iPad because it's being sluggish.  She offers to fix it for you, reasoning that cars and iPads can't be all that different.

Would you take the mechanic up on her offer?

Of course not.  But handing over important decisions--arguably the most important decisions--to the wrong people is something organizations do every day.

Auto mechanics are trained to deal with a specific situation, and to do it successfully: fix cars.  Their education and experience prepares them to do so.

Similarly, supervisors are trained to do primarily one thing: supervise the day-to-day work.  They're usually promoted because they excelled at the line level (i.e., they understand the work) and they show aptitude for leadership (hopefully).  They are not, generally speaking, schooled or experienced with the professional side of personnel selection.

Am I suggesting supervisors NOT be involved?  Absolutely not.  Am I suggesting that all HR shops are staffed with experts in personnel assessment and measurement?  Nope.

What I am suggesting is organizations get serious about this issue and stop treating supervisors as if they are people measurement professionals.

In the modern workplace with information overload and time at a premium, it's tough enough to ensure that hiring and promotion decisions get made in a thoughtful fashion.  The problem is exacerbated by the fact that most supervisors overestimate their hiring ability.  After all, how hard can it be to interview someone?

Not hard, if you don't care about getting it right.  But getting it right requires careful thought and planning; hiring right is not something done at the last minute without regard to competencies that drive success in the specific position.  It's not something that looks exactly the same time.  It's tailored to the position, the culture, and the particular needs at the time.

Great hires happen systematically for one reason: a tight partnership between line supervisors and talented HR consultants.  The supervisor knows the job. They often know best what competencies are needed to perform the job successfully (although a good internal HR consultant will have a pretty good idea).  HR professionals are trained in the professional side of selection, recognizing the pitfalls and identifying those measures most likely to predict success.

"But our HR shop doesn't know what it's doing.  They don't have the expertise!" some might say.

Perhaps.  If so, you've just identified your second strategic problem.  And it should be fixed.  That's like having people in your budget office that are bad at math.

But consider this: you may be surprised to learn that many hiring supervisors welcome being removed as the primary driver of hiring.  Good supervisors recognize that this isn't their greatest strength, and they will be happy to have HR assist them in identifying the most qualified applicants.  Particularly in this age of online questionnaires and massive candidate lists for many jobs.

So who is responsible for ensuring this supervisor-HR partnership happens systematically and is built into the organizational culture?  The leaders at the top.  Director.  CEOs.  They're the ones minding the store, and they're ultimately responsible for organizational success.  They should be instituting policies, procedures, and cultural norms that emphasize how important and critical hiring is--so critical that it requires a team approach to get it right.

Anything else is simply not taking the success of the enterprise seriously.


* Did I throw you with a female mechanic?  Now might be a good time to take the implicit association test for gender and careers.

Mega research update

I hope you like research, because there's a lot of it coming your way...and many are free as of this posting!

Without further ado...


Let's start with the Journal of Applied Psychology, January 2015 issue:

- We see a lot of research involving large candidate groups, but much less for individuals.  In this meta-analysis of individual assessments, the authors found support for their usefulness, but it varied significantly across studies.  Highest validity was found for managerial jobs and assessments that included a cognitive ability test.

- Being in the wrong job can be frustrating for both the employee and the employers.  In this study, the authors show a relationship between poor vocational fit and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).

- Speaking of CWB, there may be more of them going on than you would think based on the assessment literature...

- And even more on CWB!  These authors found support for both self- and acquaintance-reported personality ratings, specifically conscientiousness and agreeableness, in predicting "workplace deviance".

- Unfortunately, gender bias still exists in selection.  In this meta-analysis, the authors found this to be particularly the case in male-dominated jobs.  On a positive note, they do suggest ways of mitigating this: provide clear evidence of the competence of applicants, encourage careful decision making, and use experienced raters.

- The over-/under-prediction of cognitive ability tests debate for different ethnic groups continues.  In this study, the authors find support of overprediction for African Americans, suggesting the tests are not predictively biased.



Next, the March issue of J.A.P.:

- More support for the predictive validity of emotional intelligence, but more importantly, how the concept overlaps with other constructs such as the Big 5 and self-efficacy.

- All situational judgment tests (SJTs) are not equal, and according to these authors in a large number of instances the context that is presumably important?  Not so much.

- Speaking of SJTs, these researchers suggest that putting the "situational" back in SJTs--i.e., assessing how the situation is analyzed rather than the response options--is a useful method.

- A fascinating update of effect size benchmarks that can be used for a variety of purposes.

- Trying to predict safety-related behavior?  This research suggests that personality traits, particularly agreeableness, can usefully predict this behavior.


Moving on to the March issue of IJSA (free right now!):

- Some guidelines on preparing norms for personality inventories.

- Evidence that different cultures have different procedural justice perceptions of different selection mechanisms

- Some important findings on the equivalence and stability of job performance ratings over time

- Development of a new measure of subjective career success

- More evidence that both technical knowledge and prosocial knowledge are important factors in predicting medical student clinical performance

- This study found that CWBs are under-reported and organizational commitment increases the likelihood that peers will report them

- Evidence that forced-choice and Likert-type scales used in personality inventories have similar measurement properties


On to the Spring issue of Personnel Psych (also free right now!):

- This meta-analysis on narcissism showed that it is related to leadership emergence (through extraversion) and leadership effectiveness in a curvilinear fashion.

- More evidence of the importance of political skill--particularly the aspects of networking ability, interpersonal influence, and apparent sincerity--in predicting a range of important outcomes, including task performance beyond GMA and the Big 5.  It would be interesting to see how this is related to emotional intelligence (yes this is a foreshadowing).


Turning to the March issue of Psych Bulletin:

- More on narcissism: this time, researchers found that men consistently report higher levels of narcissism compared to women, which is interesting when taken in combination with the study above.


In the December issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology:

- The first focal article calls out researchers for using incorrect assumptions about criterion reliabilities, thus impacting criterion validity values.  They make suggestions for how to improve meta-analyses moving forward.

- The second makes the important argument that utility analyses should consider measures of well-being when determining the effectiveness of interventions (such as an employment test).


Finally, in the January issue of JOB (also free right now):

- a proposal for improving the calculation and reporting of Cronbach's alpha

- a fascinating study showing that high conscientiousness may hinder performance during stressful situations

- in support of EI, this study found a link between emotion recognition ability and income (interestingly through political skill and interpersonal facilitation...remember the earlier study on political skill?).


That's all for now!

"Power posing" impacts interview performance

Many people have watched Amy Cuddy's riveting TED talk on how body language impacts thought processes.  Specifically, over 23.5 million people as of today have watched that particular video, millions more through YouTube and other outlets.

In the presentation she specifically talks about how "power posing"--standing in a way that denotes confidence (hands on hips)--impacts testosterone and cortisol levels and ultimately behavior.

In an upcoming issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Cuddy and her colleagues describe the results of an experiment where university students were told to adopt either a high-power (shown on left) or low-power (shown on right) posture:

They were instructed to stand in this pose for 5-6 minutes while preparing for a job interview speech.  They then delivered said speech, which was videotaped, to two evaluators/interviewers.  These evaluators subsequently rated the participants on (a) performance, and (b) hirability.  They also judged the participants on their verbal and nonverbal behavior.

Results (N=61)?  Those who prepared for their speech while in a high-power pose were rated significantly higher (p<.01) on both factors than those who prepared in a low-power pose.  And the results could not be explained by nonverbal behavior in the interview itself.  Per the authors, "Compared to low-power posers, high-power posers appeared to better maintain their composure, project more confidence, and present more captivating and enthusiastic speeches, which led to higher overall performance evaluations."

This suggest, in the words of the authors, "By nonverbally manipulating their own sense of power, the high-power posers were effectively imbued with the psychological and physiological advantages typically associated with high power, despite their low-power position relative to the evaluators."

So what does this mean?  I believe it has several important implications.  First, it indicates a potential source of "error", akin to test anxiety, that may impact assessment performance.  Second, it suggests a potential avenue that those plagued by test anxiety may pursue to increase their chances of success.  This includes those who experience stereotype threat.  Third, it may help explain why even a "perfect" measurement of job-related KSAs does not yield a perfect correlation with performance (I'm thinking of similar confounding effects like mood or physical appearance).

You can read what appears to be the submitted version here.  I recommend reading it as well as the excellent TED talk if this subject interests you.

Federal civil service reform is HR reform

Texas.  Georgia.  Washington.  Florida.  California.

What do these states have in common?  They are some of the states that have undertaken civil service reform in an attempt to modernize and streamline all those laws and rules associated with human resources.

The U.S. federal government is no stranger to reform efforts either.  In the latest issue of Government Executive magazine, there is an interesting article about the challenges associated with the current state of affairs in the U.S. federal civil service--the largest employer in the world.  Things like excessively long time-to-hire, outdated hiring rules, and onerous discipline systems.  There are efforts afoot (again) to fix this.

They could very easily have been talking about state or local civil service systems.  Or--in many places--HR in general.

Here are some selected quotes.  See if any of them sound familiar...

"...'if you don’t view your HR specialist as a consultant prior to posting the vacancy announcements, then you are going to get people who are not qualified for your job.'"

"USAJobs, the government’s online warehouse of job vacancies, is still difficult to navigate and lacks sophisticated search capabilities to help applicants find positions that meet their interests and qualifications."

“'What we’ve seen across managers,...they are almost sourcing a unicorn...They could be looking at too technical or specialized of a skill set, or they are looking for too many competencies or experiences creating this kind of applicant that we can’t actually find.'”

"When HR and program supervisors work closely throughout the hiring process, communicating at every stage, it increases the likelihood that the system works the way it should: fairly, as expeditiously as possible, and yielding the most qualified candidates for the job."

It's worth a read, and I bet many of you will find much that resonates.  None of the principles behind reform are particularly revolutionary, but for various reasons many organizations have difficulty getting it right.  There are no shortcuts to outstanding HR systems, and only those organizations that recognize the strategic and competitive value inherent in a talented, engaged workforce will put the required resources into ensuring that it's done right.

Next time: research update

2014 Research of the Year (+ research update)

Happy New Year!  As I've done in previous years, I present below the research articles I ran across in this area that I think were the most impactful and/or important of 2014.  But first, let's catch up on two issues:

First, the Winter issue of Personnel Psychology:

- Situational judgment tests have been shown to be useful for measuring interpersonal skills, but beware: levels of "angry hostility" moderate that relationship.  (Is there a happy hostility?)

- When hiring leaders, should you look for those that have a busy home life, or be wary of them?  In this fascinating study, the authors found that leader family-to-work conflict negatively impacts followers in that it can increase their burnout. However, family-to-work enrichment increased follower engagement through leader engagement.  So the answer is, as usual, not simple: home/family life can be a good thing for followers if it makes the leader more engaged; but if the home/family life is increasing burnout, the leader may pass that along to others.  So it would seem it all depends on how the individual is handling their life outside of work!

Let's look at the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology:

- Are men or women perceived as better leaders?  According to this meta-analysis, it depends on how you ask the question.  If you limit the question to other-ratings, women are rated significantly higher.  But if you look at self-ratings, men rate themselves significantly higher.  Which leads to the next question: is it a biological perception or a gender perception, and if the latter, what traits are the most important?

- An intriguing study of how applicant confidence interacts with and can be altered by the recruitment experience, in this case among recruits for the U.S. military.

- Next, a study of employment and job search efficacy.  Not surprisingly, within-person frequency of job search behavior correlated with job offers; interestingly, the relationship between perceived job search progress and efficacy beliefs were moderated by beliefs of internal attribution.

- Last but not least, more evidence of the importance of defining the criteria when predicting job performance.  In this meta-analysis, the researchers found more support for personality traits out-predicting cognitive ability in predicting counterproductive work behavior, that the two predictors are approximately equal in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors, and that cognitive ability outperforms personality when predicting task and overall performance.  So do you want high task performance, OCBs, or do you want to avoid CWB?  :)  (of course the situation is even more complicated depending on whether you're looking at individual, team, leader performance, over what period of time, etc.)


Okay, on to the awards!  Without further ado, here are my nominations for Research of the Year for 2014:

1) Important advancements in our understanding of weight-based discrimination at work: Vanhove & Gordon.

2) A study of applicants posting faux pas on their social networking sites: Roulin.

3) Two important looks at assessments delivered remotely via mobile devices: Arthur, Doverspike, Munoz, Taylor, & Carr, and Morelli, Mahan, & Illingworth.

4) Two fascinating looks at personality at work: Judge, Simon, Hurst, & Kelley; and Wille & De Fruyt

5) An excellent study of how effective staffing and training practices impact firm-level flexibility and adaptability: Kim & Ployhart.

6) An important study of the movement of impactful I/O researchers to business schools: Aguinis, Bradley, & Brodersen.

7) The relationship between conscientiousness and job performance is more accurately described as curvilinear: Carter, Dalal, Boyce, O'Connell, Kung & Delgado

Finally, honorable mention to two great developments in 2014:  the change of some publishers to making access to articles more affordable, and the announcement of an additional journal, the Journal of Personnel Assessment and Decisions.


I'm continually amazed at the quality of thought and research in our area and the passion and practicality you exhibit.  Here's to an amazing 2014 and more in 2015!

Why leadership in the public sector is harder to find--but more important

Occasionally I post about things that are related to recruitment and assessment, but not focused exclusively on them.  This is one of those times.

I have the following quote from Valve Software's New Employee Handbook (a fascinating document) posted on my office door:

"Hiring well is the most important thing in the universe.
Nothing else comes close. It’s more important than breathing.
So when you’re working on hiring—participating in
an interview loop or innovating in the general area of
recruiting—everything else you could be doing is stupid
and should be ignored!"

The older I get, the more I wonder whether I should cross out "hiring" and write in "leadership".  I just can't bring myself to do it because they're both so darn important.

But this post will be about leadership.  Specifically, leadership in the public (i.e., government) sector.  More specifically, lack of leadership and what to do about it.  I don't pretend that leaders in the private sector are uniformly outstanding, but public sector is what I'm most familiar with.

First things first: in some important ways, leadership in the public sector (PS) is different from the private sector.  Not night-and-day I grant you, but there are some relatively unique boundary conditions that apply, namely:

- Not only are PS leaders bound by normal organizational policies and procedures, they labor under an additional layer of laws and rules, whether federal, state, or local.  Unlike policies and procedures, they cannot be easily changed--in fact in many cases this requires moving heaven and earth.  As one (very important) example, typically there are laws/rules about how you can hire someone.  Many of these laws and rules were created 50+ years ago in reaction to spoils systems and haven't been seriously evaluated since.

- Many PS employees have civil service protections.  This isn't a bad thing, but it means moving employee that are bad fits (either over or out) is difficult.  This greatly inhibits your talent mobility strategy.

- In the PS, leadership is often treated as an afterthought, rather than the linchpin upon which organizational success relies.  The assumption seems to be that the organizational systems and processes are so strong that it almost doesn't matter who's in charge.  This means things like leadership development and training are half-hearted.

These conditions combine with several other factors to result in true leadership being relatively rare in the PS:

- Failure is invisible.  There is very little measurement of leadership success and very little transparency and accountability, absent a media storm.

- There are fewer people in management positions that have the important leadership competencies.  Things like listening ability, strategic planning ability, and emotional intelligence.  Instead they are usually chosen based on technical ability and without the benefit of rigorous assessment results.

- There is a lack of understanding of leadership.  This stems from the lack of attention paid to it as a serious discipline; without operational definitions of leadership, there is no measurement and no accountability.

- An unwillingness to treat leadership seriously.  For whatever reasons--politics, lack of motivation, entrenched cultures--leadership is relegated to second-class status when it comes to analyzing department/agency success.  Focus tends to rest on line-level employees, technology, and unions--and only on top-level leaders when there is a phenomenally bad outcome.

So why is leadership more important in the PS than the private sector?

- Governments regulate many aspects of our lives.  They're not making consumer products.  Leaders in PS organizations have purview over things like public safety, the environment, education, housing, and taxes.  Things you literally touch every day.

- There is less accountability, less transparency.  PS leaders often do not report to a board.  They don't have to produce annual reports that detail their successes and failures.  What they do is often mysterious, poorly defined, and rarely sees the light of day.

- PS leaders work for you.  Elected or not, their salary typically comes from taxpayers.  They ultimately report to the citizens.  This means you should care about what they're doing, and whether they are worthy stewards of your investment.

So what can be done?  Much like the answer to "how do we hire well?", the answers are known.  They're just not practiced very well:

1.  Publicly acknowledge the scope of the problem.  Like frogs in a pot, somehow we find ourselves in a situation where slowly over time the current situation is accepted as normal.  It's time to stop pretending that all PS Managers are leaders.  They're not.  And we must look in the mirror ourselves and acknowledge that we are likely part of the problem.

2.  Acknowledge the urgency to improve.  Stop pretending that leadership is a secondary concern.  Sub-par leadership has a negative impact on our lives every day.  Improving the quality of that leadership is one of the most critical things we can do as a society.

3.  Publicly commit to change, and actually follow through.  Specifically describe what you will change, and when, and provide regular status updates.

4.  Define leadership in measurable terms and behaviors.  Here's just a sample list of what real leaders  do (and not a particularly good one);

= continuously improve operations
= champion and reward innovation
= hold their people accountable for meeting SMART goals
= continually seek feedback and signs of their own success and failure
= create and sustain a culture that attracts high performers and dissuades poor fits
= make hiring and promoting the most qualified people THE most important part of their job

5.  Hire and promote those with leadership competencies, not the best technicians.  While knowledge of the work being performed is important, it is far from the most important competency.

6.  Make the topic of leadership a core activity for every management team.  Eliminate "information sharing" meetings and replace them with discussions on how to be better leaders.

7.  Set clear goals of leaders up front, and hold them accountable.  What does this mean?

= consequences for hiring poor fits
= consequences for poor morale on their team
= consequences for not setting and meeting SMART goals
= recognition for doing all of the above well

8.  Measure leadership success and make the results transparent.  Develop plans to address gaps and follow through.

9.  Instill a culture of boldness and innovation.  Banish fear, often borne of laboring under layers of red tape.  Encourage risk-taking, and learn from mistakes rather than punishing them.

10.  Relentlessly seek out and banish inefficiencies, especially related to the use of time.  Critically evaluate how email and meetings are used; establish rules regarding their use.

11.  Stop pretending that all of this applies only to first-line supervisors.  If anything, they're more important the higher you go in the organizational chart.

12.  When it comes to recruiting, stop focusing on low relative salaries, and capitalize on the enormous benefit of the PS an employer--namely the mission of public service.

13.  View leadership as a competency, not a position.  Leadership behaviors can be found everywhere in an organization--they should be recognized and promoted.


My intent here is not to be a downer, but to emphasize how much more focus needs to be placed on leadership in the public sector.  The current state of affairs is unacceptable.  And for those of us familiar with research and best practices in organizational behavior, it's painful.

So I apologize for the decidedly un-Thanksgivingy nature of this post.  But I am thankful for free speech and open minds.  Thanks for reading.

Just kidding...more research update!

Seriously?  Just yesterday I did my research update, ending with a note that the December 2014 issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment should be out soon.

Guess what?  It came out today.

So that means--you guessed it--another research update!  :)

- First, a test of Spearman's hypothesis, which states that the magnitude of White-Black mean differences on tests of cognitive ability vary with the test's g loading.  Using a large sample of GATB test-takers, these authors found support for Spearman's hypothesis, and that reducing g saturation lowered validity and increased prediction errors.

So does that mean practitioners have to choose between high-validity tests of ability or increasing the diversity of their candidate pool?  Not so fast.  Remember...there are other options.

- Next, international (Croatian) support for the Conditional Reasoning Test of Aggression, which can be used to predict counterproductive work behaviors.  I can see this increasingly being something employers are interested in.

- Applicants that do well on tests have favorable impressions of them, while those that do poorly don't like them.  Right?  Not necessarily.  These researchers found that above and beyond how people actually did on a test, certain individual differences predict applicant reactions, and suggest these be taken into account when designing assessments.

- Although personality testing continues to be one of the most popular topics, concerns remain about applicants "faking" their responses (i.e., trying to game the test by responding inaccurately but hopefully increase the chances of obtaining the job).  This study investigates the use of blatant extreme responding, consistently selecting the highest or lowest response option, to detect faking, and looked at how this behavior correlated with cognitive ability, other measures of faking, and demographic factors (level of job, race, and gender).

- Next, a study of assessment center practices in Indonesia.

- Do individuals high in neuroticism have higher or lower job performance?  Many would guess lower performance, but according to this research, the impact of neuroticism on job performance is moderated by job characteristics.  This supports the more nuanced view that the relationship between personality traits and performance is in many cases non-linear and depends on how performance is conceptualized.

- ...which leads oh so nicely into the next article!  In it, the authors studied air traffic controllers and found results consistent with previous studies--ability primarily predicted task performance while personality better predicted citizenship behavior.  Which raises an interesting question: which version of "performance" are you interested in?  My guess is for many employers the answer is both--which suggests of course using multiple methods when assessing candidates.

- Last but not least, an important study of using cognitive ability and personality to predict job performance in a three studies of Chilean organizations.  Results were consistent with studies conducted elsewhere, namely ability and personality significantly predicted performance.

Okay, I think that's it for now!