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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will robots replace assessment professionals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- getting employees to come to work (seriously)

- getting employees to do their jobs

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

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

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

- getting HR staff passionate about HR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research update

It's that time, February research update--and there are some really fascinating studies out there:

First the March 2013 issue of IJSA:

- Procedural fairness is an important aspect of organizational attraction, especially for rejected applicants.

- Does personality type impact perceptions of the selection process?  According to this study and their measures (Bohemian is a personality type?), sometimes.

- Do you use SEM to generate a SED and ultimately score bands? Then you will definitely want to read this piece, which suggests the traditional method is flawed.

- Emotional intelligence continues to be a hot topic.  In this study the authors describe the development of a SJT-based measure.

- Staying on the topic of personality, this study adds to the debate over the utility of constructs vs. facets in predicting performance--this time with conscientiousness predicting police officer performance.

- P-O fit is often used to explain why people apply for certain jobs.  In this study researchers found that values that applicants find attractive are particularly important (as opposed to neutral or aversive aspects).

- I've written about automated reference check systems before.  In fact I've written about the company that the first author of this study is from (SkillSurvey).  What is partially a demonstration of the value of their product also adds to our knowledge of reference checks by finding no demographic differences and the ability to predict involuntary (but not voluntary) turnover.

- How big of a deal is it when it is discovered that an applicant "embellished" on their resume?  Depends on how much you already liked them.

- In this study of applicants in Iran, the authors found that the usefulness of a web-based application system was more important than how easy it was to use.  So basically looks are important but not sufficient.


Next, the January issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology: 

- Construct validity has always been a sticky wicket.  The authors of this study take an interesting approach, using video-based testing to illustrate a method for supporting construct validity.

- This study explores the variance in assessment center ratings stemming from various sources, and the authors argue that existing literature has masked this variance.

-The authors of this study show how the application of a particular bootstrap method applied to meta-analyses increases accuracy.

- Speaking of meta-analysis, the authors of this study demonstrate that the differences between coefficient alpha and composite reliability in actual data sets is quite small.


On to the January issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, which as of the time of this post was available for free!

- Similar to findings in other areas, the impact of negative publicity is stronger than positive publicity on organizational attraction, according to the authors of this study.  The authors also found in these cases, organizations would do well to provide detailed recruiting ads to mitigate the impact.

- Age discrimination seems to be increasing in popularity as a research topic (which makes sense from a demographic perspective).  In this study, the authors found raters discriminated against older and younger applicants, with the former being the least likely to be hired.

- Here's an interesting one: in this study, people of color perceived White women to be, among other things, ditsy, shallow, privileged, and appearance focused.  Stereotypes know no color boundaries.


Let's take a look at the February 2013 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:

- First, a fascinating look at how generalizable the five-factor model of personality is across cultures.  Specifically, the authors looked at a largely illiterate, indigenous culture in Bolivia.  They failed to find support for the widely used model, and suggest that the structure of personality may differ across societies.

- Second, a study of sex and gender differences that points out the importance of considering the construct of gender (as opposed to the binary concept of sex) for a variety of behavioral and psychological indicators, including big five personality.


Let's move now to the February 2013 issue of Psychological Science, where:

- In this study, the authors found that age differences in cognitive functioning within cohorts were often as large as those between cohorts, which calls into question the cohort explanation for age differences.

- In a study that I think has implications for personnel assessment, the authors found that raters of M.B.A. applications that had already given several high recommendations were less likely to do so later in the day.  Another bias to watch out for!


Last but not least, there was an article recently in the New York Times about how important referrals are for some organizations and the increased importance this places on social networking sites.  There was a reference to a study done in August of 2012 on source of hire that I hadn't seen before, which found that not only were referrals more likely to be hired, they had longer tenure--which is consistent with other research I've seen.  Unfortunately, no word about performance differences.

That's all for now!

Is Google+ what we've been waiting for?

No doubt by now you've heard about Google+ ("Google plus"). It's essentially Google's latest stab at trying to topple Facebook as the global social networking leader. While Facebook holds a lot of promise in the way of recruiting, selection, and other core HR functions, its use has been sporadic due to a number of issues. Can Google+ give us the functionality we've always wanted--and stick around long enough to be a major player?

If you haven't heard of Google+ (or haven't read enough), you can get more information here or here or here or here. Or heck, just watch their intro video. By some estimates it already has around 10 million users, which is pretty amazing considering it only came out a few weeks ago, although it's not anywhere near Facebook which claims it has 750 million.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's first review why Facebook isn't the holy grail we once thought it could be.

At first blush, a public social networking site holds a heck of a lot of promise. It allows organizations to learn more about potential candidates, things beyond a test score. It allows people to network, potentially increasing the speed and efficiency of information sharing. And it allows applicants to learn more about organizations--faster and more informally than a career webpage.

This all sounds good in theory. And some organizations have made Facebook work for them, by using things like fan pages. But for many, the promise has never been fulfilled. Let's look at the main reasons why, and how Google+ may be the answer.

The main problem is that on Facebook, there's just one you. When you post something on Facebook, it goes to all your connections. Friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances--everyone, unless they've "hidden" you. (Yes, you can post to a smaller group but it's a pain and who actually does this?) This has several implications:

- You watch what you say. Do really want to say the same thing to your friends that would to your family? Do you really want to post that picture for everyone to see?

- It increases "lurkers", who simply read but never post, thus not being true participants in the online social interaction.

- This hyper-openness serves as a barrier to some users, who are simply uncomfortable sharing their life with people.

- You have friend request anxiety. You dread getting an email that your boss or someone you don't really know wants to be "friends" on Facebook. If you say no you feel like a jerk, if you say yes then you're openness goes down a notch. What fun is that?

Google+ deals with all this by allowing you to create something called "circles" where you add individuals to certain groups (e.g., friends, colleagues, family) which thereby allows you to post things to only those groups. It even allows you to view your own profile as if you were someone else (IMHO one of the most innovative features).

What are the implications of these circles? There are many:

1. People are more likely to create profiles. Along with the increased attention to security attracting new people, once it gets out that you can manage your social identity much better (and easier) with Google+, it's more likely that someone will create a profile to begin with.

2. Individuals will be more likely to accept invitations to connect from organizations and recruiters. Why? Because they'll be able to manage what information gets shared with those individuals.

3. The information employers have access to will be less--but of higher quality. Assuming people think before posting (yes I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt here), while there may be less information on a profile for an employer to view, it will be more relevant. Instead of posts about children or parties, it will be opinions or accomplishments--things that might actually be job related and much less likely to get employers into legal hot water.

4. It could help with referrals, as individuals will feel more comfortable sharing information about jobs--or their own interest in jobs--without fear of what their management might think.

5. It could give potential applicants a more realistic job preview. With the concern about tanking your job lessened, people will be more likely to be open about the good--and the bad--things about where they work.

You can envision how Google+ has broader applicability for organizations. It allows organizations to create employee-only groups. It allows employees to create informal social groups--or more formal interest groups. It adds another way for colleagues to share knowledge. And it helps create that intangible bond that connects co-workers in a way that meetings and off-sites never can.

So there is quite a bit of promise, but there are still many questions. Could Facebook add design elements to mimic aspects of Google+? Absolutely (and I strongly suspect they are in the process of doing just that). Could Google fail to attract enough followers to its new site to make it the killer app that Facebook is? Sure; in fact there's a good example of this in Orkut (although it is quite popular in Brazil and India). Are there examples of many social networking sites that have flared and fizzled? You bet (heard of MySpace?). And the juggernaut that is Facebook is not to be ignored.

But there are reasons to believe that this could be the real deal. Google spent a lot of time testing this thing out and appears to be listening intently to users on issues from design to privacy--something Facebook has been grilled about for as long as I can remember. And I didn't even touch on the other features of Google+, such as real-time group video chat.

The bottom line is when it comes to websites, most of us are followers. All it takes is your friends and colleagues to start posting somewhere else (heck, it's just another bookmark), and before you know it Facebook could start looking a lot like another casualty in the hyper-competitive web wars. Fortunately, organizations will be the better for it.

Tech tools: Brainshark and Greenshot

Brainshark and Greenshot. Sounds like a kids' cartoon about a pair of superheroes.

But no, this post is all about a pair of simple tools that you can use in a variety of ways to enhance your recruitment and selection efforts and just plain make your life easier.

Brainshark is a remarkably simple, and free, tool you can use to create slideshows or videos with audio in a matter of minutes. Did I mention it's free?

Simply upload your file, add audio (if it's a PowerPoint) using either your computer microphone or phone, name your slides, and you're good to go! You can see a simple example of a promotional spot I whipped up below--remember, my specialty is information filtering, not multimedia! Make sure to check out the "Contents" menu to the right of the fast-forward button.



This took maybe thirty minutes to develop and record, and I used my computer's built-in microphone, hence the less-than-stellar audio quality. But I think you get the idea and see some of the possibilities:

- realistic job preview
- job advertising
- instructions for applying

And so on. For $10 or $20 a month, respectively, you can upgrade to Brainshark Pro or Brainshark Pro Trainer, which includes options like private sharing, capturing leads, testing, and integration with LMS. Just pretty darn cool all around, I say.


The next tool is simpler but no less useful on a day-to-day basis. I know I'm not the only one out there who likes SnagIt. It's an easy way to take screenshots of parts of the screen and quickly add borders, arrows, or other accents. And it's very reasonably priced.

But I'm all about the free stuff whenever possible, which is why I was pleased to learn about Greenshot, a scaled-down tool that gives you pretty much what you'd get in SnagIt, if a little less snazzy. Simply load the software and whenever you press Print Screen, instead of taking a picture of the whole screen you can specify the region. I use this all the time for showing others what I'm talking about, presentations, and user guides. You can also capture just the window, or the whole screen.

One feature unique (to my knowledge) to Greenshot is "obfuscate", which allows you to blur parts of the picture (e.g., name, SSNs) you may wish to hide. See the screenshot below for an example where I obfuscated part of the blog post title:



The one feature that I'd still use SnagIt for is capturing a rolling webpage that includes the links. Very handy. But other than that, Greenshot would do ya just fine.

So there you have it, two simple tools that have the potential to add tremendous value to your life. Hope you enjoy.

Hat tip to my colleagues at CODESP for turning me on to Brainshark, and my friends at Biddle for Greenshot.

Unvarnished now Honestly.com, opens up, rates Meg and Carly

Unvarnished, the Web 2.0 answer to reference checks that I've written about before, has changed its name to the more web-friendly Honestly.com.

But that's not all. They also unveiled two other big changes:

1) $1.2m in seed funding to hire more engineers and to do more product development.

2) The site is now available to anyone with a Facebook account that is 21 years or older (due to the focus on professional achievements, not inappropriate content). Previously it was invitation only from existing users.


The other interesting development going on is they've weighed into politics. You can now see what previous co-workers are saying about California gubernatorial candidate (and former E-Bay CEO) Meg Whitman as well as senatorial candidate (and previous head of HP) Carly Fiorina.

So how are they doing? Last time I checked, Meg had an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, with ratings of 7, 6, 6, and 5 (out of 10) for Skill, Relationships, Productivity, and Integrity, respectively. Carly has an overall rating of 2.5 out of 5, with ratings on the dimensions of...all ones. That could be because she only has 3 raters so far compared to Meg's 20. No word yet on whether Jerry Brown (Whitman's opponent) and Barbara Boxer (Fiorina's opponent), both with long careers in public service, will have pages.

Don't (presumably irrelevant) political opinions taint the ratings? It's a strong possibility. But the reviews I've read were surprisingly balanced, which is what the site owners are seeing as a general pattern. Will it stay this way? Only time will tell. I suspect the ratings have much to do with the current user community.

Overall I'm a fan of the name change, although there was something refreshingly complex about Unvarnished. I can't see or hear the word "honestly" without thinking of Austin Powers. Mostly that's a good thing, and I think these changes will be too.

Ignore Facebook

Somewhere there is a team--or an individual--that has been tasked with figuring out "how to use this Facebook thing" to assist with recruitment and assessment. Management doesn't know what they want--they may not even know what Facebook is--but they're convinced the organization needs to use it.

For most organizations this is a complete waste of time.

Yeah, yeah, I know a study just came out from Nielsen showing that Americans spend nearly a quarter of their online time on social networking or blogs (an odd combination if you ask me), up 43% from a year ago, and I know Facebook recently announced they surprised 500 million users worldwide.

But just because something's popular doesn't mean it has direct application in all walks of life. Just because the Kindle is hot doesn't mean you should use it as a cutting board.

This is a classic mis-direction. It's like focusing on re-painting the guest room because brown is the new blue, while meanwhile the rest of your house falls apart.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about innovation in our field, and longtime readers know I'm no hater of online developments. But we should be spending our most valuable commodity (time) where it counts.

What we should be doing is learning from this shift in online behavior and applying those lessons to our existing efforts. What the heck does that mean? Well, let's look at what people are using sites like Facebook for:

1. Sharing their life. Perhaps surprisingly, a lot of people like sharing their lives publicly, and for many, status updates are the 2010 version of the family letter. Think about the extent to which you allow applicants to share themselves. Does your application process consist only of a resume upload, or do you allow them to upload cool things they've done? Do candidates have the ability to customize their job search based on their background, not your jobs?

2. Connecting with people. There at least three direct applications here: (1) think about the extent to which your career portal allows applicants to contact a real human being; (2) think about the possibility of starting an internal network (e.g., Yammer) to capture all that knowledge sharing, bench strength, and informal connection goodness; and (3) consider publishing employee profiles online so potential candidates know who they'd be working with.

3. Playing games. I've written several times over the years about the benefits of interactive and entertaining recruitment and assessment applications. Video and online games aren't just for nerds anymore (see Farmville, the Wii). Think about how you can make your career portal not only attractive and useful--but FUN. Or at the very least engaging.

Maybe the biggest lesson here: your reputation is out there more than ever. If you don't think your employees are updating/blogging/tweeting about their jobs, you're mistaken. And you may have the best sourcers and recruiters in the world, but if your reputation as an employer stinks, it's all over the web and you've just made their job 10x harder. Know how your employees feel. Work hard on improving their work life. Reward good performance and deal with lack thereof.

Don't let the hype about Facebook get to you. Take your time and identify what you really need to be focusing on to increase your talent pipeline.

Disagree? Think we should be spending more, not less, time with these technologies? Bring it. (ya know, with the comments feature)

Unvarnished Unwrapped

A few months ago I mentioned a website called Unvarnished, which was getting a lot of mixed press. The basic concept is (as they describe it) Yelp mixed with LinkedIn. You provide anonymous reviews of people you've worked with. Call it a social resume, call it a web-based reference, I call it fascinating. And something that anyone interested in recruitment and assessment should pay attention to.

I had a chance recently to test out the site, and then I met with the co-founder, Peter Kazanjy. I'm still not sure which direction this will go, but I think you'll agree after reading what follows that the concept merits our attention.

The Test Drive
First, the test drive, which started with an invitation through Facebook from Peter. After spending some time on the site, I'm more optimistic about Unvarnished in some respects, more cautious in others.

Why optimism? The site hits it out of the ballpark on two accounts: it's simple and fast (at least someone learns from Google). Simple and fast is good, because one of the biggest challenges will be building a large community and making reviews easy helps immensely.

Even better, the ratings are relevant. This isn't a popularity contest, it's an honest attempt to provide a useful description of someone's performance. While it's unlikely the rating scales were developed after reading a Personnel Psychology meta-analysis, I was pleased to discover that they pass the smell test and some even have benchmarks.

The ratings consist of an overall performance rating (5-point, anchors described), what job you are rating the person in, four 10-point scales that are described but not anchored (skill, relationships, productivity, integrity), and an open-ended strengths/areas for improvement box. That's it. It's like a super-basic reference check form that takes all of about a minute. You can see what this process looks like below.

Your Unvarnished homepage is fed by your network and generates suggestions for your review (PMYK--People You Might Know). You can review people at any time (even people who haven't claimed a profile) or request reviews using your Facebook contacts. The open comments section is limited to 500 characters to encourage people to review and move on.

The site was developed to be heavily reliant on algorithms. A reviewer's reputation is based in part on the pattern of reviews they have generated as well as how their reviews have been rated. Recommendations for reviews are backed by similar math. A smaller (but important) feature is a profanity filter, which may allay some concerns regarding people looking to settle a score.

Speaking of Facebook, one of my major concerns is it relies HEAVILY on Facebook (not unlike Quora). At least in its current iteration, your identity is verified through having a Facebook account, you invite people through your Facebook contacts, and invitations are posted to Facebook. This is both a potentially good thing (e.g., cuts down on spammers) as well as a bad thing (e.g., not everyone wants to use their Facebook profile in the service of another website). It also begs the question of what would happen if Facebook went belly up. Read on to see what Peter had to say about this.

The interview

I happened to be in San Francisco (interestingly enough to go the Exploratorium) and had an opportunity to talk with Peter about the product and his company. After talking to him for about 10 minutes, one thing became abundantly clear: this guy has thought a great deal about online reputation management. I'd love to get him and Bob Hogan together.

Background
The impetus for the site came from a couple directions. One was a previous job where he was continually surprised that competitors (e.g., a certain company we'll call Bicrosoft) would recruit away the lesser talented employees. Why? His theory is they lacked important information--namely the reputation people had within the organization. (One could argue that they should have done better reference checks, but we all know how easy/productive those can be)

On the other end of the spectrum, he saw excellence not being properly recognized and questioned whether upper management really knew what their talent looked like (a point not lost, btw, on purveyors of performance management software with their 9-box grids and helicopter views).

His ah-ha moment (or one of them) came when he realized that if social ratings can work for things like books and software, couldn't they work for people? If he could develop a site that aggregated high quality information about people's performance, talent decisions would be higher quality as well as more fair (it's hard to argue with that goal).

Peter also believes there is an important employer segment not being served by existing background/reference checking processes. Employers that hire hourly workers rely largely on criminal/credit checks. Those hiring for executive-level positions often rely on high cost search firms. But for employers hiring large number of employees in the middle, there isn't really a good option.

Such a site would have three primary users: those being reviewed, those providing reviews, and those using the information (e.g., employers checking out candidates and vice-versa). And quite commonly a single individual could be in all three roles at various times. The site would have to accommodate all three perspectives.

Concerns/criticism
So what about my concerns? When it comes to the reliance on Facebook, Peter pointed out that it's a good bet Facebook will be around for a while, but the site is not being built to rely solely upon it. It has--or will have--the ability to use contact information from sites like Gmail and LinkedIn. I still have a concern about forcing people through Facebook, so it will be interesting to see whether this impacts the ability to generate reviews.

Concern from others has focused on the potential for abuse. But Peter made several important points. First, this isn't like an online newspaper comment space--those are anonymous with no repercussions for inaccuracy. In Unvarnished your reputation would suffer and your reviews become less valid (assuming your reviews are themselves reviewed). Second, this information is largely out there (or potentially at least) in the form of places like Twitter. But it's not in a central location that can be easily managed, and it's not objective. By guarding invites and relying on anonymity, the goal is to make legitimate reviewers feel safe in leaving honest feedback (whether it's an A+ or a D-) without worrying about the interpersonal implications.

What about stickiness--why would someone want to keep coming back? They're working on several (re)engagement initiatives. One idea is to provide people with periodic updates letting them know when people in their network have been updated (let's hope it doesn't turn into those updates from LinkedIn that are easy deleted). They're also working on the ability to follow an individual based on your "gestures" (e.g., you've reviewed them).

Future directions
The team is considering adding several features. One is the ability for reviewers to better define their relationship--e.g., describing not only the organization they worked together in but their relationship. This would factor into behind-the-scenes algorithms but would not be published.

They're also discussing allowing people to identify themselves, but this raises all of the associated issues such as accuracy, thoroughness, and feeling a need for reciprocity.

Another is allowing access to premium features (e.g., at a cost) such as making trusted reviews more obvious, something that "super users" such as recruiters would likely be willing to pay for.

In terms of opening up access, they're in no big rush to expand access beyond Facebook invites. While this may hinder their growth, it helps keep the data quality high, and they're willing (smartly, I think) to make this trade off.

Conclusion
Currently the company is focused on acquiring the talent it needs to succeed (check out the way they recently advertised for new engineers). One of Peter's primary concerns is that the community evolve in the right direction. Right now it's somewhat of a "love fest" with lots of positive reviews. The site will gain in usefulness when reviews are a combination of pros and cons.

Given what we know about performance ratings, it will be interesting to see if the existing invitation and rating process is sufficient to generate that depth. It also remains to be seen whether some type of incentive will need to be given to generate reviewers.

My overriding concern continues to be the size and diversity of the user group (right now primarily filled with Silicon Valley IT folk). Accuracy, something other writers have been obsessed with, is less of a concern for me after kicking the tires and talking with Peter. But we'll see how the promise and concerns ebb and flow with the user base as well as changes to the service.

At the very least, I hope you'll agree with me that this website is a fascinating development and one we should watch. After all, you might want to use Unvarnished to provide feedback on someone. Or research a potential boss. Or research an applicant. Or...you may be the applicant.

March 2010 J.A.P.

The March 2010 issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology is out. Let's take a look:

Do women make better leaders? According to a study by Rosette and Tost, it varies with how success is attributed, the level of the position, perceptions of double-standards, and expectations. So the answer? A very solid "it depends."

Who should determine SJT scoring? Motowidlo and Beier suggest in their research study that situational judgment test (SJT) scoring keys based on input from subject matter experts (SMEs) contribute differentially to the prediction of job performance compared to keys based on general knowledge about trait effectiveness. What does this mean? That your ability to predict performance using SJTs depends in part on who is determining the scoring, and getting SME input may boost the effectiveness.

Do Americans work to live or live to work? Based on an analysis from Highhouse, et al., it's looking more and more like the former.

Need more evidence of the value of confirmatory testing? Naquin, et al. performed three experimental studies that demonstrated higher levels of lying when using email compared to pen and paper.

Do you like your leaders proactive? According to research conducted in China by Ning et al., you're not alone.

Finally, a slight correction to an article by Ilies et al. published last July on the relationship between personality and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Webinar on 21st Century Assessment

Went to a pretty darn good webinar yesterday put on by HCI and featuring Ken Lahti (PreVisor) and Charles Handler (Rocket-Hire). The topic was 21st century assessment.

Some of the topics covered included:

- increased functionality and usability of testing platforms

- increased sophistication of security methods

- off-the-shelf tests and "I/O psychologists in a box"

- integrating assessment with your overall talent strategy

And my two favorites:

- advanced simulations (such as those using video game technology)

- candidate data that follows them

The webinar is going to be re-broadcast several times today and tomorrow, if you have a chance check it out. You can also see a copy of the slides for free if you're an HCI member (which is free).

Free, short, and full of information--that's my kind of training.

R&A Software Failures Hurt Taxpayers, Too

We tend to think of successes and failures of applicant tracking systems and other recruitment- and assessment-related technologies as impacting businesses--much of what's written is about large organizations such as Microsoft and Google and what software they decide to adopt.

But public sector organizations are using these technologies as well. And when they fail, it hurts not only the organization but taxpayers as well.

Case in point: the state of Washington recently decided to abandon their efforts to implement SAP E-Recruiting after nearly three years and millions of dollars. The state will now go with a hosted solution which is estimated to be $700-800,000 a year cheaper (and hopefully much easier) to maintain.

Having been ringside for some of this, I can tell you the problem was not with motivation or energy, or even IT knowledge. I suspect that a lion's share of the problem was related to the complexity of the program. This would match reports I've read that a significant number of organizations are moving away from single-vendor HR solutions and going with simpler, targeted products. It's also possible that businesses find it easier to implement these programs because resources (particularly internal experts) are easier to move around and buy-off is easier to obtain.

I wish them luck on their next purchase, and hope they do due diligence in their research (you can often find others who have had problems). Some type of audit may help them determine exactly what went wrong and how to prevent it the next time around. It's not just a matter of time, energy, and expense on the part of the organization, these failures impact applicants, hiring supervisors, HR staff, and ultimately taxpayers.

Does going green matter to applicants?

A lot of people have recommended that organizations explicitly communicate an environmental (green) message to applicants in order to make the organization more attractive to applicants, particularly younger ones. But is this advice sound? Some new research suggests it may be.

In a recent article in the Journal of Business and Psychology, Behrend et al. had 183 participants view a printout of web pages that either did or didn't have a message expressing the organization's support of environmental causes.

First significant finding: the green web page was linked to more job pursuit intentions.

Second significant finding: the link was mediated by organizational reputation.

Third (and perhaps most important) finding: the link was not impacted by individual stance on the environment.

So there may just be something to the advice that greening up your career page can help you attract applicants. Assuming you want to attract more applicants.

Exploring the wild west of staffing

Last week I gave a presentation at the WRIPAC meeting in Burlingame, CA. The topic was "Using the Internet to effectively attract and screen the right applicants." Here are a few observations given my conversations with a very engaging group of participants:

1. There is immense interest in using the Internet for more than just posting jobs. But many folks are unsure how to start or what's out there. For individuals new to Web 2.0 concepts (e.g., social networking sites) there is a healthy--not necessarily unwarranted--skepticism.

2. Our worlds can shift relatively rapidly from "how do we get more applicants?" to "how do we get fewer applicants?" and then back again. As recruitment and assessment professionals we need to be able to pivot quickly and make sure our organizations are up to snuff in both realms.

3. In order to use the Internet effectively, most of us need to work with our IT staff. But this can be challenging given built-in resistances to change, security concerns, and assumptions. My advice was to push them as long as you have a good business case.

4. We have a lot of work to do on the most basic use of the Internet for recruitment and self-screening: our career portals. Many are cluttered and most likely have not been reviewed critically. More white space, more links, more pictures and video.

5. Most folks have some type of applicant tracking system, but many are unsure what its capabilities are and are not 100% sure how to use it to screen applicants. Oftentimes we rush to use built-in training and experience questionnaire functionality without first understanding the best way to use them. I just hope we move away from time-in-grade.

6. People seem to be moving away from the big job boards and towards cheaper--and usually more effective--alternatives, like craigslist or more targeted postings. People are also taking a harder look at whether their advertising dollars are really bringing in the candidates they need.

7. The balance of power has shifted in some ways from the employer to the applicant. They're not just responding to our (often uninspired) job postings, they're asking their friends, looking us up on glassdoor, connecting to people through LinkedIn, etc. As partial keepers of the organization's reputation, we need to be aware of all the different ways applicants research us.

8. These are exciting times. At several points in the presentation I mentioned that right now we are in the Wild West of staffing. Technology changes constantly, and along with them so do expectations placed upon us. We learn as we go. And it's challenging, but opportunities abound for those that are willing to take some risks.

Hang on, we're in for a heck of a ride.

April 2009 Issues of Merit

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) recently released their April 2009 Issues of Merit, with several interesting articles, including:

- Using Internet technology to recruit (public sector employers, are you on GovLoop?)

- Improving hires through multiple hurdles (e.g., accomplishment records)

- HR practices to increase employee engagement (supervisor selection, orientation, etc.)

- How to prepare a structured interview

Also, a very interesting note on the last page about OPM removing the time-in-grade requirement for promotions in competitive service!

The state of UIT

Many recruiters and assessment professionals believe that the future of employment testing lies with screening applicants over the Internet (rather than in person). And while there are substantial benefits associated with this method (e.g., convenience, speed), there are plenty of concerns as well (e.g., cheating, validity). Research in this area is in its infancy, which is why it is refreshing to see a full half of the March 2009 issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology is devoted to describing the state of unproctored internet testing (UIT).

What struck me most about when reading these articles is the variety and excitement surrounding this field but even more, the tremendous lack of consensus in the professional community has about important issues related to UIT.

The articles start off with an updated summary by Nancy Tippins, who with her colleagues provided a heavily cited summary in 2006. This focal article is followed by twelve response articles and a final summary by Tippins.

Here's a (very) brief summary of some of the important points raised by the authors:

1. Cheating happens. But let's not forget that proctored tests have always been susceptible to some degree of cheating (e.g., via test question memorization).

2. There are many ways to mitigate the risks associated with cheating. This includes retesting, identity verification, and response pattern analysis. But it's not clear how successful these measures are, or even how needed they are.

3. Although there are potential legal risks (e.g., lack of standardized administration), UITs have not been directly evaluated in court.

4. The choice of whether or not to use UIT is influenced by many factors, not the least of which is the organizational reality communicated by upper management.

5. Some applicants may be turned off by an organization that uses assessments so obviously prone to cheating. But this may be balanced by increased convenience, speed, and immediate feedback.

6. Although cheating and response distortion occurs, it's unclear to what extent it impacts validity.

As an interesting note, the most common types of tests delivered via UIT seem to be biodata, personality, situational judgment, and T&E and preference questionnaires. There are also those who are administering cognitive ability tests in this way, sometimes adaptive.

UIT is in many ways the Wild West of employment testing. It's exciting and innovative, but comes with risk and lots of unanswered questions.

Here's hoping our field quickly speeds up the research side because this ship has clearly sailed.

March '09 IJSA

The March '09 issue of the International Journal of Selection and Assessment is out, with a ton of great content. Check it out:

What's your organization's personality?

Does your career site motivate people who fit?

How does applicant personality interact with organizational personality?

More on faking non-cognitive assessments

Yes, we're still debating about group differences on cognitive tests

Oh, and if you're interested in statistics, check out this recent study on corrections for range restriction from PARE.

What tweeting says about you

Cynical or spot on? Either way, Brian Unger's piece on Twitter is darn funny.

Feedback can Rypple

Every once in a while I post about something that's not directly related to recruitment and selection. Particularly if it's about a cool new technology. And when that cool new technology is free, well heck...I can't help myself.

Which brings me to Rypple. Rypple is a website that allows anyone to request anonymous feedback from people they work with (or, frankly, anyone). It's similar to Checkster (which also has a free feedback system called "Talent Checkup" with limited functionality) but has a different focus. Whereas Checkster has tools for both employers and individuals, Rypple is focused on the individual. The interface is also a little different, a little more micro-bloggy.

Why do I think this is important? Because we know that positive reinforcement is the best way to encourage the same behavior, yet many employees feel under-appreciated and lack the information they need to improve their performance and gain insight. Supervisors and managers are often unavailable or distracted, forgetting how important feedback is. Tools like Rypple put the power (or responsibility) with the employee.

You can easily see how this could become part of not only performance management but things like leadership development and team success measurement.

One last note: they are in beta, so the site and services may change. You can read about some of the developments on their blog.

Hat tip

Get in the game

Longtime readers know that I've considered one of the holy grails in our field to be a way of combining the interactivity and engaging content of video game technology (VGT) with recruitment and assessment. Yes, part of this is because I enjoy the occasional Nuka-Cola and killing the occasional troll, but there is so much potential in the marriage of these two fields that we can't ignore it.

Up until now, the best efforts have gone one of two ways. The first is creating an entire first person video game for recruitment purposes--this is what the U.S. Army did. The second is using VGT but in a very basic and limited way--this is what the FAA is doing. But to my knowledge no one has created a web-based tool that showcases the basic functionality of VGT while also serving as an assessment tool. In fact many people may not even know what this might look like.

Well I ran across something the other day (hat tip) that gets us pretty darn close. It's actually an onboarding program designed by Vestas, a Danish energy company. It takes the form of a situational judgment test (SJT) that leads new employees through an orientation of what Vestas does and their approach to their business.

I think once you've watched, you'll agree with me that the potential is vast.


So why this type of technology over, say, existing SJT solutions such as those offered by companies like Ergometrics and Biddle? Those definitely still have a place, and live actors are obviously higher fidelity, but here are some advantages to think about:

1. You can do more, and show more, with VGT. Need to show someone hanging onto the bottom of a helicopter then jumping to a rooftop? Not a problem, no wires required. Need to show someone underwater? Scaling a mountaineous peak? Again, much easier (and cheaper).

2. No screen actors required. No more worrying about makeup or getting the right shot--you create what you want. Of course voice talent is still very important if you decide to use sound.

3. It's just plain more modern. For folks that grew up watching cartoons and playing video games, they will naturally gravitate more toward something that feels familiar. Text job descriptions that link to an ATS? Yawn.

4. It will make you stand out. Yes, I know the unemployment rate is high here in the U.S., but don't think that means the end of competing for the most qualified. Now's the time to plan how you're going to compete when the pendulum swings the other way again.

5. It will stand the test of time. People still watch old cartoons. Very few old shows are on. That video shot of the desktop computer in the background may look outdated sooner than you'd like.

but perhaps most importantly:

6. VGT holds the promise of a truly interactive experience, where candidates explore their future work environment, make decisions, and learn about the organization. This has the potential to be both a realistic job preview that helps candidates decide whether to apply, as well as a measurement tool that gauges how well the candidate meets job requirements. (Yes this sounds a bit like Second Life but need not be so complex)


So what do we need to do moving forward? Here are some things we need to make this work:

1. More education. What do projects like this need to succeed? How much do they cost? What are the challenges and potential roadblocks?

2. Outreach to the VGT industry including the big companies (Activision Blizzard, EA, etc.) as well as the smaller shops, industry groups, schools, etc. No doubt they have much to teach us--but we have a lot to share as well. (As an aside, Activision has a very attractive Careers page that showcases some of their work, but they dump applicants right into their ATS like most companies--failed opportunity to continue the brand experience with a game-like character sheet!)

3. What are the psychometric implications? Is this just another version of unproctored Internet testing, or is there more here? How does this relate to run-of-the-mill adaptive testing? Are there demographic differences in willingness or performance?

Now what may throw a big monkey wrench into this is cost. Video games are not cheap (WOW cost $63M to develop). But we're not talking multi-user, latest video card, and all that stuff. This could be much shorter, more cartoonish, and much simpler.

I think this is the most exciting thing happening in assessment; I hope there are enough developers out there that agree.