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!

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.

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.

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

Lessons from the SF Giants, 2012 World Series Champions

I don't use a whole lot of sports metaphors.  Heck, I like sports (especially baseball and soccer), but I find they're overused when it comes to HR, especially in team building.  Most teams in organizations don't have a defined individual competitor like sports teams do, and their metrics are much harder to pin down.

But in thinking about the dominating performance of the San Francisco Giants during the post-season, culminating in their 4-0 World Series shellacking of Detroit (sorry, Tigers fans), several themes emerged which I think are illustrative.  This post won't be about research and it may not immediately seem like it's about recruitment or assessment, but we can extrapolate back from these points to see the implications for selection.

First, workforce planning:  it's not always the case (and I know ardent baseball fans will come up with examples) but in the majority of games, certain positions--pitchers--are more important than the others.  That's not to say that you can win games without getting runs, but you can come darn close.  It's an important reminder that certain positions in an organization/team simply have more leverage and deserve more attention.  Bruce Bochy, the Giants' manager, recognized that, leading us to...

Point two: bench strength.  It's important to have broad skills across the team, but particularly in your key positions.  It speaks volumes about the depth of talent Bochy and the other coaches developed on the Giants that they lost their best closer (Wilson) early on and their former star (Lincecum) never hit his stride as a starter (but more on that in a second), yet they had several talented pitchers they could rely on to step up in these roles.  Imagine the flexibility this gives a manager, not only to replace unexpected vacancies but the hand you get to choose from on any given day.

Third: flexibility.  Aside from the aforementioned unexpected replacements (not to mention one of their sluggers being lost to a positive drug test), Bochy had to be ready to use people in different ways.  When he recognized that a certain catcher worked better with a certain pitcher, he moved the normal catcher (and batting champion, Posey) to first base.  When their former ace (Lincecum) couldn't perform as a starter, Bochy found a new role for him as reliever.

Fourth: trust.  Bochy kept at least one particular individual (Pence) in the lineup even though he wasn't consistent.  Why?  Because of his impact on the other players.  Bochy was willing to give him some time, and his patience was rewarded with some clutch playing later on--as well as a key motivational impact on the rest of the team, which leads us to...

Point five: fluid leadership roles.  Bochy wasn't the only one giving pre-game motivational speeches.  In fact the speech most credited with turning the Giants around was delivered by the aforementioned Hunter Pence.  Players revved each other up and helped own their team spirit rather than being told to have it.  A good manager allows this to happen, doesn't micro-manage, and doesn't have their ego bruised.  In fact good leaders will tell you they're happy when they blend into the background of a successful team.

Last but not least: patience.  For baseball teams, like all teams, there are rarely simple, quick solutions--this is especially the case in complex organizations with overlapping layers of management, politics, shifting priorities, etc.  Sustained success takes years of consistent management with a clear vision.  It's been said, but bear's repeating: hiring the best is not good enough.  Repeat that five times.  It's one of the reasons why assessments don't perfectly correlate with performance, and why a narrow view of selection won't cut it.

So, back to staffing.  What are the take home lessons?

1) Certain positions are more important to fill consistently right than others.  Does your organization know which ones these are?  Is your organization spending its resources acccordingly?

2) Bench strength isn't just important for sports teams.  Can your organization withstand the loss of a few key players (no pun intended)?  How many people can step up when needed and how quickly will you run out of talent?

3) How flexible is your organization when it comes to putting people in the right place?  Are you focused on position statements or on team and organizational success?

4) How much time do you give someone to start performing, and how quick is your organization to judge someone poorly?  This has implications not only for things like utility analysis but for organizational culture (and in turn, recruitment...it's a big cycle).

5) When it comes to judging your recruitment and assessment efforts, how integrated is this view with a broader perspective on team and organizational culture?  Your organization may be broken into silos but that doesn't mean your perspective has to be.

I promise: limited sports metaphors in the future.  But when the cleat fits...

A fascinating example of an organization making hiring job #1

Recently the employee handbook of Valve, a software and video game development and distribution company (famous for things like Half-Life and it's Steam service) was leaked and frankly it's one of the most interesting things I've read in a long time.  It's available several places, including here as of this writing.

Why so interesting? Several reasons...

1) It doesn't look or read like a typical employee handbook.  It's very informal, devoid of legalese, balances positivity and expectations, and is graphically very attractive.  Not exactly signs of your typical handbook.  As an example, the document starts with this statement on the cover:

A fearless adventure in knowing what to do when no one’s there telling you what to do.

(They do keep their formal policies on their Intranet (e.g., about benefits).)

2) It's a very interesting example of how a flat organization describes itself.  They don't appear to have much of a management hierarchy so much of the handbook is devoted to explaining how employees are supposed to select assignments, etc.

3) The document itself is editable on their Intranet.  Yes, you read that right, the employee handbook is a collaborative document.

Last but definitely not least,

4) This is a great example of how an organization can emphasize that hiring is the most important activity employees engage in.  The document is replete with examples.  Consider the following passages from the handbook:

p. 6: "hiring is the single most important thing you will ever do at Valve"

p. 14: "We have made significant strides toward bringing more predictability, measurement, and analysis to recruiting. A process that many assume must be treated only as a “soft” art because it has to do with humans, personalities, language, and nuance, actually has ample room for a healthy dose of science."

p. 17: "The thing we work hardest at is hiring good people"

here's my favorite:

p. 44: "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!"

p. 45: "Missing out on hiring that great person is likely the most expensive kind of mistake we can make...a poor hiring decision can cause lots of damage, and can sometimes go unchecked for too long."

They also talk about how they hire:

p. 47: "When unchecked, people have a tendency to hire others who are lower-powered than themselves...We should hire people more capable than ourselves, not less."

pp. 47-48: "[In some circumstances] hiring someone who is at least capable seems (in the short term) to be smarter than not hiring anyone at all. But that’s actually a huge mistake. We can always bring on temporary/contract help to get us through tough spots, but we should never lower the hiring bar."

There are so many examples it's almost more of a introduction to hiring rather than to the company!

Also, in case you're interested, here's their "work at valve" page, which supports the culture as described in the handbook.


This "leak" has gotten a lot of press, and likely has done a lot to increase its attractiveness as an employer--another reason why this is such a fascinating example.

So I ask you: how much of your organization's handbook discusses the importance of hiring?  Do they make it clear it's a shared responsibility of every employee?  Is there a passion for hiring right?

Bad hires in hindsight

Lately I've been thinking about hires I've seen that went bad. What seemed like the right selection at the time turned into a huge disappointment, or worse--a total nightmare. This is particularly the case when selecting for supervisors and managers.

Looking back at those decisions, what happened? So far I've identified several classic cases:

1) Smallville Syndrome. While the individual may have had success in a smaller role, they were completely unfit to take on the bigger scope of the new job. The strategies that worked before are no longer adequate in the new position. This is similar to thinking your strongest specialist will make the best supervisor, but it can happen even with people that are currently in a similar role.

2) The Loch Ness Monster Effect. On the surface, everything seems fine with the applicant. But lurking below is a monster, just waiting to rear its head. Once in the right position, you will see a side of them you weren't anticipating--and it won't be good.

3) Gumby Complex. A supreme lack of flexibility leads the individual to spurn suggestions to do things differently or be open to new ideas. This often results in a toxic combination of alienating their bosses as well as their subordinates.

4) Prima donna-itis. A hard-charging and competitive individual contributor who consistently performs at the top of their group can yield big returns. But this typically isn't what you're looking for in a supervisor or manager. Instead what can happen is they build their own island where subordinates either conform or get kicked out.

5) Iwannajob condition. The individual wants a job--any job. And they don't care what they do as long as it pays. Except they do. And sooner or later they will realize this, start disengaging, and you've lost valuable training, relationships, and resources.

Turning these around, we see some ideas for improving the selection process:

1) Dig, dig, dig. Resist the urge to hire quickly. Do your homework and gather as much information as you can about potential hires--particularly ones going into leadership positions. Have the courage to not hire anyone if you don't like your candidate pool.

2) Pay attention to the minor details. Something may seem like a minor personality quirk that is overshadowed by the person's strengths. But that quirk may end up making their strengths irrelevant if their new environment causes the quirk to grow into a full-blown condition. Think about how a personality trait might exhibit itself in a new environment.

3) Focus on the job at hand. It's trendy to focus on someone's performance history. And many times this can predict performance in a new job. But when the new position requires new competencies--or a whole new level of them--what happened in the past may not be so instructive. Use a variety of strong assessment devices tied to the position, not the applicants.

4) Consider personality inventories. Yes, they can be challenging to adopt, administer, and interpret. But a lot of organizations use them successfully to help get underneath the shiny exterior. Just be very careful when selecting the particular tool to use.

5) When hiring for a supervisor or manager position, spend 80% of your time looking at personality and communication style, 20% on technical competencies. People want to be led, motivated, and engaged, not micromanaged by someone who feels like they can do the job better than you can.

6) Try to find out why the person wants the job. This isn't easy, and generally won't be had by simply asking, "So...why do you want this job?" You can start with that question, but follow it up with a bunch more that get at whether the person has really thought about their fit and what they hope to accomplish in the position.

This is of course just a sample of what can go wrong and some quick suggestions. As those of you that have been doing this a while know, hiring the right person is usually not quick and easy--particularly for leadership positions. But boy is the effort spent up front worth it. Just ask anyone who's ever had a bad boss.

How important is assessment, really?

Prepare for a little blasphemy.

Over the last few months my job--and focus--has changed dramatically. Historically I've been a "testing" guy. Question about job analysis? Item writing? I'm there.

Then, a few years ago, I started managing a team that did a more than assessment--a lot more. In fact, even though assessment is in their job description, the team spends most of their time counseling supervisors on performance management. Of course some of this is because the testing workload is down, but it's also a function of demand for advice in this area.

In July we found out our department's budget was being cut; to the tune of about 10%. We adjusted and tightened our belts, but in the end it wasn't enough and we had to plan for layoffs. I was recruited to be one of the coordinators of said layoff, and thus began the dramatic work shift.

That's all a really long way of saying that my focus lately has not been on recruitment and hiring. I've been thinking a lot more about what keeps people going in difficult times. Sure, the KSAOs they bring to the table are important, but other things raise in importance during times of uncertainty and lack of control.

Which got me to thinking: how important IS assessment really? Even at our best, we can predict only about a third of individual job performance. What's going on with that other 2/3rds?

You're probably familiar with models of job performance, so I won't bore you. Suffice to say that a lot goes into job performance. So that person you hired that aced your assessments? Not guaranteed to be super star. If they end up being supervised by an incompetent manager, their inner greatness may never reach the surface. If they have a death in the family, you better believe their focus is not going to be on work for a while and job performance may not be at maximum.

Let's think about job performance as a pie. Top-notch assessment can predict about a third of that pie. What else is in that pie--and more importantly, how big are the slices? Things like:

- motivation
- supervision style
- role clarity
- co-worker support
- mood
- resources
- performance feedback
- stress

(I tried with no luck to track down a comprehensive path model, maybe one of you can point one out)

Now we can't control all of these things (although as HR professionals we certainly can consult on a lot of them--clear duty statements, supervisor training and accountability, engagement surveys, etc.), but what we CAN do is take the rigor we bring to the study of assessment and apply it to other aspects related to job performance. If you look at HR research outside of assessment I think you'll find that the level of analysis is, shall we say, sometimes lacking.

Don't get me wrong: assessment will always be important. The legal rationale is IMHO the least compelling. Instead, there is proven, substantial, utility in implementing best practices for employee assessment.

But lately I can't help but thinking: Are we spending too much time thinking about--and studying--how we bring people in to an organization, and not enough time thinking about what happens once they get there?

One last time: It's all subjective

While reading news about a court decision recently I was struck again by how the U.S. Court system continues to make a false and largely unhelpful distinction between "objective" and "subjective" assessment processes, and they're certainly not the only ones. Presumably this is meant to highlight how some are based on judgment while others are free from it.

One last time: it's all subjective.

I challenge you to come up with a single aspect of the personnel assessment process that is not based on judgment. Not only that, "degree of judgment" is not a useful metric in determining the validity of a selection process--for many reasons including but not limited to whose judgment is being used.

Here is a sample of assessment components that are based on judgment:

- how to conceptualize the job(s) to be filled

- how to study the job(s)

- how to recruit for the job(s)

- which subject matter experts to use

- how to select the KSAs to measure

- how to measure those KSAs

- how items are created or products are selected

- how to set a pass point, if used

- how to administer the assessments

- how to score the assessments

- how to combine assessments

- how to make a final selection decision

- what type of feedback to give the candidates

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire process is made up, like all complex decisions, of smaller decisions that can impact the selection process (what software do I use to analyze the data? Is this one KSA or two?).

So what WOULD be helpful in describing how an assessment process is developed and administered? I can think of a few yardsticks:

1. Extent to which processes and decisions are based on evidence. To what extent is the assessment and selection process based on methods that have been shown scientifically to have significant utility?

2. Degree of structure. To what extent are the assessment methods pre-determined? How flexible are the processes during the assessment?

3. Multi-dimensionality. How many KSAs are being measured? Is it sufficient to predict performance?

4. Measurement method. How many assessment methods are being used? Do they make sense given the targeted KSAs?

5. Transparency. Is the entire process understandable and documented?

I'm not inventing the wheel here. I'm not even reinventing it. I'm pointing out how most cars have four of them. It's obvious stuff. But it's amazing to me that some continue to perpetuate artificial distinctions that fail to point out the truly important differences between sound selection and junk.

How can assessment help in a downturn?

Exam workload is down at my job. Not "pack up your bags and go home" down, but we're running significantly fewer exams than we were 5-6 years ago. And I doubt we're the only organization in this situation.

Some employers are hiring. But many organizations are still running very lean, and the public sector in particular continues to face budget cuts and layoffs.

So if you have staff with skills in assessment that aren't being used to their full capacity (a dangerous recipe for several reasons, budgetary and morale-wise), what's an organization to do?

Well, personnel assessment is all about measuring people. So anything you do in your organization that involves measuring people hypothetically has a built-in staff with the competencies you need to get the job done.

Let's look at some examples of how assessment can help organizations during a downturn:

1) Help determine who to let go (if possible). If the organization is able to use competency levels to determine who to keep, this is obviously the preferred route over, say, letting go those with the most (or least) seniority. The tests should measure KSAs relevant for the critical work the organization needs done now--and in the future.

2) Help internal employees objectively assess their skill levels--both those being let go as well those staying who wish to enhance their career mobility and stability. A well-designed and scored assessment should be able to give employees some insight into their strengths and areas for improvement.

3) Help organizations get a better sense of their talent. Sometimes called a "talent inventory", assessment can be used strategically to help organizational leadership conduct workforce planning and identify areas of skill discrepancies. This includes succession planning. What percentage of key leadership positions in your organization could be backfilled tomorrow--successfully? What skills do up-and-comers need to develop to help them get ready for the next step? Assessment can help answer that.

4) For those that are hiring, many hiring supervisors are still receiving large volumes of applications. This is where assessment shines--help them identify who are truly the most qualified for the position.

5) Use this opportunity to make sure your competency models and/or job analyses are complete and updated. Jobs change--are you still using a description from 10 years ago? Are you still hiring based on outdated duty statements?

Now let's think a bit more broadly, beyond traditional personnel assessment into some other areas where the skills your team has developed are just as relevant:

6) Engagement surveys. Getting a better sense of the attitudes and emotions of your workforce helps you do a variety of things, including avoiding turnover of high performers, targeting organizational sub-units that need improving, and identifying under-performing supervisors. It also--when done properly--gives your employees a sense of voice, which can be key in times of anxiety and uncertainty. Just make sure you do something with the results.

7) Organizational change initiatives. Assessments can be used for a variety of purposes during change initiatives, such as measuring the "pre" and "post" states, identifying key sources of resistance, keeping track of success measures, and accurately measuring outcomes.

8) New product implementation and user satisfaction surveys. Do you have key pieces of technology you've implemented recently? How is that working out for the users? Do the users have additional ideas for products or services that would help them get their jobs done and be innovative? I'm thinking of technology here, but you can see how we could go beyond that.

9) Team building. Most people in organizations depends on others to get their jobs done thoroughly. This can be invigorating or frustrating--do you have a good measure of team satisfaction? Are there assessments that can help team members interact more effectively? You betcha.

10) Program evaluation. Whether formative, summative, theory-based, or some other type, assessment can help identify needs, clarify paths, and determine whether money and time invested is giving the organization the outcomes it hand in mind. It can also help them uncover unanticipated consequences.

11) Entrance and exit surveys. When resources are scarce, it's even more important to maximize the return on the investment we make in hiring and make sure those entering the organization have the resources they need. On the other end, capturing good data from those leaving the organization can help identify key areas of weakness or provide insight for hiring the next time.

I'm sure I missed a few. But you get the idea. Any time you have a slow down in a part of the organization, use it as an opportunity to expand the scope of your HR strategy. Test your ability to be flexible and innovative. Whatever you do, don't waste your resources.

Shameless plug: The 2011 IPAC conference

And now for something completely different. A man with a marketing video.

It's getting toward the end of May, so if you haven't made up your mind about attending this year's premier event for practitioners of assessment and selection methods, you might want to do it soon.

Details: July 17-20, Washington, D.C. Dupont Hotel. So many great presentations I can't even begin to summarize. Check out the details here.

If that doesn't convince you, I doubt amateurish marketing tactics will work, but since you're still reading and I have you captive...

IPAC Conference 2011 on Prezi

Evidence-based I/O: Where are we? More importantly, who?

The March 2011 issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology contains two excellent focal articles. One, which I plan on writing about in the future, is about how the field needs to spend more time studying the experience of working rather than treating workers as objects. It's one of the best, most thought-provoking articles I've read in this journal.

But today I'll focus on the first article, which is about the evidence-based practice (or lack thereof) of I/O psychology, by Briner and Rousseau (B&R). This topic is obviously near and dear to me given this blog so I had a lot of reactions during my read of it. I'll share some of those with you today.

B&R argue that the practice of I/O psychology is not strongly evidence based--at least not in the sense that other professions (e.g., medicine) are becoming. This may surprise you given the history behind I/O psychology and its strong grounding in sound research methods. But we're not talking about the quality of research (although as some of the commentaries point out, this is a relevant question), rather how well we're doing putting research findings into practice.

The authors point out that there are many "snake-oil" peddlers out there who claim to have evidence for what they do. That the concept of evidence based is not used or well known in I/O circles. Even more fundamentally, we have no data on what percentage of I/O practices are based on solid scientific evidence. They point out that part of the problem is that the latest research findings and research summaries aren't accessible--a point I obviously agree with given the purpose of this blog. They even provide a tool (systematic reviews) that they suggest could help us get there.

Yet it's one particular point, referenced by both focal and commentary authors but not treated in depth, that I'd like to focus (okay, rant) on. I'll use a quote from B&R to get us started: "It is not always obvious to practitioners, certainly not the least experienced or less reflective, how exactly to apply the principles identified in such research." This comes as close as any to, IMHO, the real issue: who uses I/O research in organizations.

Before I go too much further, I'd like to do something that I don't believe any of the authors did: acknowledge my bias in approaching this topic. I'm someone who has an advanced degree in I/O (a Masters, which paraphrasing the focal authors puts me slightly above the village idiot), but who works in the trenches assisting supervisors and managers alongside many who have little if any formal education in either I/O or HR. This obviously impacts the issues I see as important and my take on them. 'Nuff said.

Now, back to my point. I believe the authors in this issue fail to recognize a very important point: that although I/O research is used by I/O consultants and academics, and to a lesser extent by mid-level managers, there's a large group who is going unnoticed: HR practitioners. It is these individuals who I would argue in most organizations are the primary "users"--whether they know it or not. These are the folks who supervisors count on to provide expertise related to a wide variety of HR/IO issues, including recruitment and selection. Yes, many organizations use consultants who have formal training in I/O, but I think we can all agree that in terms of the number of day-to-day decisions that get made related to HR, we're primarily talking about supervisors and HR practitioners. And only after recognizing this point do answers to the question "how do we make I/O practice more evidence-based?" become more clear.

Let me throw out a couple questions just to stimulate you a bit more:

1) Why is this one of only a handful of "publications" devoted to making research more accessible to HR practitioners? (and heck, I don't even know how many of you are practitioners in the first place!) And why is it left up to "independents" such as myself, rather than professors? (Dennis, you are a blessed exception)

2) Why does SHRM, with its enormous resources and user base, focus on things like HR strategy and leadership, while failing to focus on evidence based practice? (and while I'm ranting, Sir Richard Branson as keynoter? really?)

3) Why is SIOP seemingly only now beginning to make attempts to make research more accessible (e.g., with its randomly updated blog and thankfully soon-to-be published Science You Can Use series)?

I would argue it's all because we do a horrible job of focusing on the true users of I/O research. We engage in high-level debates about criterion-related validity but fail to gather even basic information like who is responsible for making each type of HR decision.

And unlike evidence-based medicine, we have a particular responsibility to ensure that HR/IO decisions are made using the best science. Because the consumers of the research aren't all individuals with advanced training (e.g., doctors). They're supervisors who are under the gun to make an effective, and ass-covering, decision. They're HR analysts who ended up there not because they love the topic but because they were looking for a promotion.

So if the goal is to increase the number of people-related decisions in the workplace that are based on the best evidence, in addition to tackling the issues identified in this issue (such as publication bias and accessibility), we need to do a much better job of understanding our customer base and tailoring our efforts toward them. After all, I/O psychologists generally do not control organizational practices.

So here, in no particular order, are my own recommendations for helping ensure the "best" (defined here are based on science, not things like, oh, I dunno, organizational politics) people decisions get made:

1. Make basic research more accessible--and by this I mean affordable. And by this I mean free. Or cheap. Fifteen dollars for a research article? Really? How many of those are you selling, exactly, publishers? Somebody, I don't know who know, needs to get on this.

2. Start addressing the elephant in the room: that many of those providing guidance to supervisors (i.e., internal HR), not to mention supervisors themselves, are doing so based on absolutely zero research. Who are these people? How are they trained? What do they know? We know very little, because we don't study them (with some exceptions). Imagine if evidence-based medicine tried to progress without understanding anything about doctors.

3. In a similar vein, spend more time understanding those who are ultimately responsible for people decisions and have to live with them: supervisors. Particularly first-line ones. Why--and more importantly how--do they make decisions related to particular HR issues? To what extent is speed the single most important decision criterion?

4. Identify the "high value" people decisions (e.g., selection, harassment prevention) and their current practice. Use this to figure out where the biggest gap is and where we should be channeling resources. Without a baseline it's hard to figure out where we should be focusing.

5. For Pete's sake, let's start putting our "blessing" on certain practices. SIOP, don't be afraid to endorse things. By remaining "objective", you're de facto taking the stance of, "hey, figure it out yourself, or hire a high-priced consultant." There's a thought behind products earning an "energy star."

6. Let's have an industry-approved training curriculum and certification. Why does SHRM offer the PHR and SPHR...and that's pretty much it? We need training programs for practitioners that are created and reviewed by people steeped in the research but able to translate.

7. Let's identify "best of" practices as well as "worst of." Why are most awards for individual researchers? Why not organizations that demonstrate particularly effective practices? Why not have a professional equivalent of the Razzies for just the opposite? ("and now...the award for worst interview question of 2011 goes to...")

Okay, I think that's the end of my rant. Let me be clear, the proposition that people decisions should be based on the best available science is hard to argue with. I applaud all of the authors for thinking deeply about this topic. I just think we need to get in the trenches a little more. Because if we don't, the trend that's already apparent (toward automation/speed and away from thoughtful, research-based decisions) will accelerate. Leaving lots of people trained in I/O but few who understand--and are interested in--their services.

Side note: this article did point out a couple books I'm considering adding to my library, including Locke's handbook on organizational behavior (probably still too much for the average consumer in this age of Twitter, but on the right road), and Locke, et al.'s book on evaluating HR programs.

"Grit": An example of will do

Personnel psychologists often make a distinction between factors that indicate a person can do a particular task and those that indicate they will do. Usually "can do" facets include things like cognitive and physical abilities--baseline traits that a person must possess to even be able to perform the task. "Will do" facets are related to motivation and interest and get at whether the person is likely to perform the task, regardless of ability.

In the March 2011 issue of Fast Company, Dan and Chip Heath (Switch) write about the concept of "true grit" and its importance for successful performance. They point to the recent movie remake of True Grit. While many might assume the title refers to the crusty gunslinger (Rooster Cogburn), it actually refers to Mattie, a teenage girl who hires Cogburn to avenge her father's death.

The Heaths describe several examples where organizational leaders and innovators refused to give up in the face of failure or long odds and go on to impressive success. They even cite research conducted several years ago by Angela Duckworth and her colleagues who found that scores on a measure of grit predicted retention in West Point (a prestigious U.S. military academy).

What they don't point out is that the retention finding was specific to a summer training program and scores on the measure of grit were not superior to other predictors when the criterion was first-year cadet GPA or performance ratings. In addition, the percentage of variance accounted for across the studies was around 4% and the measure correlated highly with a measure of conscientiousness. However, grit demonstrated incremental validity beyond IQ and conscientiousness and it's still a fascinating study that you can read here.

To be sure, "will do" factors are often overlooked when talking about selection. Often we focus exclusively on ability factors, either because we're unsure how to measure motivational factors or we're afraid to. But that doesn't mean they're not important. We know in some situations (e.g., jobs with low entry and ability requirements) noncognitive measures can out-predict ability measures.

This article also raised two other issue for me. First, laypeople often conceptualize KSAPs as dichotomous: you're either smart or you're not, you either have integrity or you don't. The reality is practically anything you can think of measuring lies on a continuum--so we talk of degrees of personality characteristics, or levels of ability. With respect to the topic of this post the situation is the same: there are shades of grit.

The second issue has to do with having too much of a good thing. One can be too smart for a job; it's not that you can't do it, it's that you'll likely get bored after a short period of time. Similarly, one can have "too much" (or be too far on either end) of a personality continuum. Take grit. Imagine someone who was so determined that not only do they persist in the face of obstacles, they refuse to give up, even when presented with overwhelming odds. Now they're bordering on obsessional and/or delusional.

So what does this all mean? Back to basics:

1) Know the job and its requirements
2) Pick critical, necessary-at-entry KSAPs to measure
3) Select and/or develop high quality measures
4) Know your applicant pool and the likely range of scores you will obtain
5) Recognize that the relationship between tests and job performance is probably not linear (particularly when your concept of job performance is multifaceted)

And finally, back to true grit. The best thing we can do as assessment professionals is demonstrate it ourselves by not taking the easy way out and not folding in front of obstacles such as the desire for speed over quality, or ignorance. No guns required.

Why aren't more supervisors held accountable for their hiring mistakes?

Before I begin this rant...err...post, let's create a fantasy world.

No, not the kind with elves and magic (maybe in a future post).

The kind where organizations run efficiently, consistently, and rationally (see I told you it was going to be a fantasy).

So we'll set it up with two assumptions:

1) Job performance is defined for every individual in the organization in clear, meaningful ways.

2) All employees are held accountable for their critical decisions.

Okay, have this fantasy world in your mind? Great. Now that we have that out of the way, I ask you: Why aren't more supervisors in this world held accountable for their hiring decisions?

Think about it. What would you do with a supervisor who repeatedly:

- Made bad decisions about what technology to purchase/implement

- Made ineffective choices regarding how to divvy up team assignments

- Spent time inefficiently and chose to focus on low-priority projects

- Conducted meetings that were too long and had little payoff

Presumably write them up or get rid of them. All of these decisions have to do with the use of resources. Yet I could make a strong argument that the most important resource decision supervisors make is about who to bring into the organization.

So honestly, why aren't more supervisors held accountable? I have several theories:

1) The hires are blamed, not the supervisor. In some cases this makes sense. But when a hiring supervisor demonstrates a pattern of getting it wrong, someone needs to be looking at the decision-makers.

2) The connection between the decision and the consequences is distant. It's easier when a decision has immediate consequences, but when the employee has been around for 2 months, it's a lot easier to focus on their mistakes rather than how they got there to begin with.

3) It's harder to hold supervisors accountable. I think most organizations simply have a harder time quantifying or otherwise seeing supervisory performance in objective ways. Even when performance is measured, too often it focuses on how they manage their employees rather than their selection decisions.

4) People have a hard time giving negative feedback, especially to supervisors. It's hard enough to tell someone they're not meeting specific production goals; it's even harder to pinpoint exactly what the supervisor is doing wrong when hiring people--and then communicate that.

5) It's political. Organizations are typically even more committed to supervisors than rank-and-file because the decision of who to put there likely involved folks higher up in the organization. Thus, to admit a mistake in the supervisor is to admit a mistake in who hired them. Not to mention that supervisors are part of the very management structure that has issues in the first place.

6) It's not clearly measured as part of the job of a supervisor. Okay, I realize this is somewhat against the rules of our fantasy world, but I suspect this is often a big problem. Supervisors are usually measured against things like "leadership" or "administrative ability", not "the percentage of new hires who receive excellent performance ratings after 6 months."

So what can we do about this? Well I think some of the answers present themselves when we see what some of the problems might be above. Clearly document that hiring success will be considered a key performance metric for supervisors. Provide them training on the topic and feedback. Have consequences for those who keep getting it wrong (which may simply be taking the decision largely out of their hands).

Should HR be more involved? Almost certainly. It is after all HR's duty to maximize human performance in an organization. We're supposed to be the experts on this stuff--if we can't articulate the issue and suggest alternatives, why would we expect line management to?

Finally, let me end on something else to think about: Does your organization praise supervisors who repeatedly make good hiring decisions? We know from basic psychology that positive reinforcement is more likely to result in repeat behavior than punishment or negative reinforcement. But which do we normally use?

Now back to reality...

IPAC Call for Proposals Open

The Call for Proposals for the 2011 IPAC Conference is now open until January 31st. The Program Committee is seeking proposals for symposia, panel discussions, paper presentations, tutorials, and pre-conference workshops.

The conference will be held July 17-20 in Washington, D.C. at the Dupont Hotel and promises to match previous events in terms of quality and networking opportunities.

You can find the Call here, and more details about the conference here.

How to hire an attorney

What's the best way for an organization to hire an attorney with little job experience? What should they look for? LSAT scores? Law school grades? Interviewing ability? A multi-year project that issued its final report in 2008 gives us some guidance. And while the study focused on ways law schools should select among applicants, it's also instructive for the hiring process. (By the way, individuals looking for personal representation may find the following interesting as well.)

Recall that the formalization of the "accomplishment record" approach occurred in 1984 with a publication by Leaetta Hough. She showed, using a sample of attorneys, that scores using this behavioral consistency technique correlated with job performance but not with aptitude tests or grades, and showed smaller ethnic and gender differences.

But in my (limited) experience, many hiring processes for attorneys have consisted of a resume/application, writing sample, and interview. Is that the best way to predict how well someone will perform on the job?

Assessment research would strongly point to cognitive ability tests being high predictors of performance for cognitively complex jobs. This is at least part of the logic of hurdles like the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), a very cognitively-loaded assessment. When you're at the point of hire, however, LSAT scores are relatively pointless. Applicants have--at the very least--been through law school, and may have previous experience (such as an internship) you can use to determine their qualifications.

So what we appear to have at the point of hire is a mish-mash of assessment tools, relying heavily on un-proven filters (e.g., resume review) followed by a measure of questionable value (the writing sample) and the interview, which in many cases isn't conducted in a structured way that would maximize validity.

So what should we do to improve the selection of attorneys (besides using better interviews)? Some research done by a psychology professor and law school dean at UC Berkeley may offer some answers.

The investigators took a multi-phase approach to the study. The first part resulted in 26 factors of lawyer effectiveness--things like analysis and reasoning, writing, and integrity/honesty. In the second phase they identified several off-the-shelf assessments they wanted to investigate for usefulness, and they developed three new assessments--a situational judgment test (SJT), a biodata measure (BIO), and other measures, including optimism and a measure of emotional intelligence (facial recognition). In the final phase, they administered the assessments online to over 1,000 current and former law students and looked at the relationship between predictors and job performance (N for that part of about 700, using self, peer, and supervisor ratings).

Okay, so enough with the preamble--what did they find?

1) LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA (UGPA) predicted only a few of the 26 performance factors, mainly ones that overlapped with LSAT factors such as analysis and reasoning, and rarely higher than r=.1. Results using first-year law school GPA (1L GPA) were similar.

2) The scores from the BIO, SJT, and several scales of the Hogan Personality Inventory predicted many more dimensions of job performance compared to LSAT scores, UGPA, and 1L GPA.

3) The correlations between BIO and SJT and job performance were substantially higher-- in the .2-3 range compared to LSAT, UGPA, and 1L GPA. The BIO measure was particularly effective in predicting a large number of performance dimensions using multiple rating sources.

3) In general, there were no race and gender subdifferences on the new predictors.

These results strongly suggest that when it comes to hiring attorneys with limited work experience, organizations would be well advised to use professionally developed assessments, such as biodata measures, situational judgment tests, and personality inventories, rather than rely exclusively on "quick and dirty" measures such as grades and LSAT scores. Yet another proof of the rule that the more time spent developing a measure, the better the results.


On a final note, several years back I did a small exploratory study looking at the correlation between law school quality and job performance. I found two small to moderate results: law school quality was positively correlated with job knowledge, but negatively correlated with "relationships with people."

References:
Here is the project homepage.
You can see an executive summary of the final report here.
A listing of the reports and biographies is here.
The final report is here.

What we can learn from the baseball draft

Longtime Major League Baseball commentator Peter Gammons was recently interviewed on National Public Radio. What does baseball have to do with recruitment and selection? Quite a bit, actually, but in this case the conversation was even more relevant because he was discussing the accuracy of the baseball draft.

I think you will agree with me after reading/listening to his observations that the draft has several lessons for all kinds of employers:

- More information is better. As scouts have been able to gather and crunch more data about prospects, the accuracy of predicting how a pick will fare in the big leagues has increased. We know from assessment research that more measures are better (up to a point) in predicting performance.

- The type of information matters. Scouts used to focus on relatively narrow measures such as running speed. Today they consider a whole host of factors. Similarly, modern assessment professionals consider a wide range of measures appropriate to the job.

- Personality matters. While lots of data about skills is important in prediction, personality/psychological factors also play a big role in determining success. Personality has also been one of the hottest topics in employment testing over the last 20-30 years.

- It's rare for a single candidate to shine head and shoulders over the rest. Making a final selection is usually a challenge.

- Assessment is imperfect. Even with all the information in the world, a host of other factors influence whether someone will be successful, including which team the person is on, their role, and how they interact with other teammates. This also means "low scoring" candidates can--and do--turn into superstars (Albert Pujols of the St. Louis Cardinals was a 13th-round draft pick).

- Ability to learn is important. We know from assessment research that cognitive ability shows the highest correlation with subsequent job performance (esp. for complex jobs), and many have suggested that it is the learning ability component of cognitive ability that matters most.

- Good recruitment and assessment requires resources. Organizations that take talent management seriously are willing to put their money where their mouth is and devote resources to sourcers, recruiters, and thorough assessment procedures.

By the way, 2009's first overall draft pick, Stephen Strasburg, had an excellent debut last night for the Washington Nationals, striking out 14.

April 2010 TIP and latest EEO Insight

The April 2010 issue of The Industrial/Organizational Psychologist (TIP) is now available here. Let's check out some of what's inside:

- Several great, touching dedications to the late great Frank Landy. I found Rick Jacobs' eulogy particularly moving. My first real job out of graduate school was working for Frank doing research for expert witness testimony. Fabulous experience, amazing individual.

- Joel Wiesen proposes a novel approach to promotional selection in fire department settings.

- A great little article about moving from an I/O position to an HR generalist one. Very timely given all the changes HR departments are experiencing.

- The current status of legal protection for sexual minorities in the workplace

- A great article about the Bridgeport, CT case and why both the media and the city got things wrong.

- A fascinating breakdown of the major activities of I/O consultants v. internal practitioners v. academics. Check out Table 3.


In addition, there's a new issue of EEO Insight with some great content, and one article in particular I'd like to point out: A comprehensive look at how to successfully develop diversity initiatives and testing programs post-Ricci, including the essential elements of a Croson study (see Table 2) and the "strong basis in evidence" standard as applied to several practical examples (Table 3). It's a keeper and starts on page 27.

Some other articles to check out include:

- Strategies for defending and framing the issue of adverse impact in selection

- How to avoid adverse impact when choosing a test

Some blogs to follow + FB group

Here are three blogs you have missed:

Shaker Consulting Group (makers of the Virtual Job Tryout) has a new blog out written by my friend Joe Murphy. Recent posts covered the ERE conference, the importance of data-based decision making (can't agree with that enough!), and the recruiting value proposition.

Another is I/O at work, sponsored by HR Catalyst. They do a great job summarizing recent research across a wide spectrum of topics. Recent posts covered evidence-based management, the importance of positive feedback, and what job ads say about organizational culture.

Finally, those of you that subscribe to my shared items know I'm a fan of the blog from Recruitment Directory, an Australian consulting firm. Recent topics include checking out your job site on the iPad, website security, and the Australian HR Tech Report.

On a different note, if Facebook is a big part of your life, you may want to join the HR Tests fanpage. It's a great way to get your news in your feed, learn who else reads HR Tests, and have the ability to comment, without waiting for moderation, on any post.