Job applicants aren't stupid. They know you're looking for certain keywords when you review their resume or application. And simply switching to ATS hasn't changed the game, just the way it's played .
You may think that you're screening in the candidates with the most targeted qualifications. But are you really? Or are you just letting in those that are the best at playing the game?
Video, whether for resumes or jobs, is getting more and more and more play these days.
As more and more video sites popped up, it was only a matter of time until a more vertically integrated service model came along, and it has in the guise of Brightcove.com .
Brightcove has two major functions : helping publishers of video, and helping with video search. That's pretty nifty in its own right.
But they have larger aspirations about being a key partner in the distribution of video across the spectrum. Video-on-demand has been a buzzword for a long time, but we may actually be getting there, we just need the hardware .
What has this got to do with recruitment and assessment? Plenty. Imagine:
- The ability for candidates to download recruitment material, including realistic job previews, to their TV.
- The ability for candidates to easily upload video resumes to organizations.
- The ability to stream material, like practice tests, to individuals that have applied for specific jobs.
And this is just the beginning, and just from my not-so-creative brain. Video is not going away and it's up to organizations to figure out how to take advantage of these technologies to connect with and attract talented individuals.
Microsoft has been pushing its Live Search engine recently, including an amusing ad I saw in today's paper not-so-subtly referring to Google several times, e.g.:
"It takes more than a complicated mathematical equation"
"Nothing spurs innovation like a little competition between companies that have been known to hire some pretty sharp people."
So which is better? Hard to say, and with search engines evolving so much into other areas (e.g., map views, video, etc.) it may depend on what type of information you're trying to find.
But just for fun I ran a search on "personnel assessment" on both engines. Here's what Google returned:
1. Hr-guide.com
2. IPMAAC
3. Wonderlic
4. A British professional organization
5. A British testing firm
6. A Canadian government site
7. Same as #6, different part of site
8. A school in The Netherlands
9. A U.S. consulting firm
10. A Russian consulting firm
How international! Let's see what Live Search comes up with:
1. IPMAAC
2. A British consulting firm
3. A HVAC training organization
4. A U.S. consulting firm
5. Another U.S. consulting firm
6. A Russian consulting firm
7. The State of Oklahoma's personnel shop
8. A U.S. consulting firm
9. A U.S. consulting firm
10. A British consulting firm
So which is better? Depends what you're looking for. At this point at least, Google's top matches have more to do with information and less with consulting firms.
This can and does change over time, so I'll do this again in the future and see how they match up.
(BTW, if you don't already know, Google has another search engine in the works, or at least in the testing phase. Check out Searchmash ).
Talk to me long enough about personnel assessment and selection and one of the things I'm bound to say is that we, as a profession, don't do a very good job recognizing good selection practices.
Yes, organizations like IPMA-HR do a good job of recognizing organizations that do particularly innovative things, but in general we don't recognize ongoing excellent practices such as rigorous and frequent job analysis, carefully crafted exams, and ensuring ROI for our customers. Centralized HR shops (in my experience) do an even worse job of recognizing line or agency practices that meet the grade. We fail miserably in using one of the most powerful behavior modification tools available to us: positive reinforcement .
One place to look for inspiration is job boards. Retirementjobs.com has established a program to certify employers as "Age Friendly" . All employers advertising positions with Retirementjobs.com will be asked to participate.
So what is it? According to the website, it's "an initiative to identify employers that maintain policies, practices and programs consistent with employment of people age 50 and older based solely on their proficiency, qualifications and contribution, and on terms and conditions comparable to younger individuals. Further, Certification indicates an employer’s recognition of the unique value of age 50+ workers as well as their commitment to take affirmative action in providing meaningful employment, development opportunities and competitive pay and benefits."
What might this look like for personnel selection? Some ideas:
- Recognition of applicant tracking systems that have been implemented that do a particularly good job of communicating with applicants, tracking diversity information, and gathering relevant metrics.
- Sustained quality job analysis efforts that produce documents that would pass muster with federal agencies.
- Employers with high applicant satisfaction ratings as determined by a standardized survey applied across the board.
- HR shops that consistently allow their employees to make presentations at conferences, publish papers, etc.
These could all be linked together into some type of "best practices" web ring. It would help candidates (both HR and non-HR) identify shops that know their stuff and would be an example for other employers.
We've seen some disjointed efforts in certifying individuals . Why not employers?
While anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. are visible and enforced often at significant cost to employers, in Mexico there have been examples of U.S. companies advertising jobs in a blatantly discriminatory manner.
Consider:
- An automotive supplier advertised for a "female ... aged 20 to 28 ... preferably single ... with excellent presentation."
- A Chicago law firm advertised for a real estate attorney -- a male one. According to a firm recruiter in Mexico, clients prefer male attorneys.
Although Mexico has anti-discrimination laws, they are rarely enforced, and lawsuits are long and expensive propositions. In addition, the scarcity of jobs serves to discourage complaints.
Reminds me of job advertisement featured in Cascio's book from Hong Kong:
"Obedient Young Secretary
Very obedient young woman required by American Director for position as Secretary/Personal Assistant. Must be attractive and eager to submit to authority, have good typing and filing skills and be free to travel. Knowledge of Mandarin an advantage. Most important, she should enjoy following orders without question and cheerfully accept directions. Send handwritten resume on unlined paper and recent photo to..."
Wonder which job analysis procedure they were using.
Rocket-Hire conducts an annual survey on the usage of web-based screening and assessment tools. We get a preview of this year's results in an article Dr. Charles Handler wrote for ERE.
Respondents:
136 "people professionals" who read ERE--a mixture of recruiters, HR execs, and hiring managers from a variety of companies.
Some interesting results:
1. There was a direct relationship between size of company and usage of applicant tracking systems with 56% of smaller companies using them but 100% of companies with more than 5,000 employees using them.
2. Compared with 2005, there was a drastic increase in the use of personality measures (65% usage) and a sizable jump for "measures of fit" (53%). I would be curious to see which instruments are being used.
3. 42% of respondents used some measure of cognitive ability--this seems very high to me and I'd be curious to see which organizations were more likely to use these.
4. Only 21% reported using simulations and 16% reported using biodata.
5. The job level least likely to involve on-line assessment was Executive/Vice President. (Just interviews, I'm assuming?)
6. The type of job most likely to involve on-line assessment was Managerial/Supervisory; Professional and Customer Service jobs were also frequently mentioned.
7. The types of job least likely to involve on-line asessment included Retail, Manufacturing/Labor, and Consulting/Advising. Seems like there's a lot of opportunity there.
8. Only 30% of assessment users collect metrics regarding the quality of these tools but those that do are MUCH more likely to see them as having a positive impact on their organization (89% vs. 50%).
9. "Qualifications" (experience, education, etc.) are by far the most popular screening/assessment tool under consideration for future use. Another reason why having good information out there about the use of T&E measures is so important.
10. The most common obstacles mentioned to the adoption of on-line screening and assessment had to do with lack of faith in ROI. Lots of opportunity here for assessment professionals to clearly articulate the value of valid selection tools and tie their usage to business goals.
Full results will be available mid-November and can be obtained by e-mailing Rocket-Hire at info@rocket-hire.com.
An article on Inc.com describes 10 tests (including cost from select vendors) that are, in their words, "extensively validated, highly respected."
The list includes several that I would also recommend folks consider, including the Watson-Glaser and Wonderlic for cognitive ability and the NEO, 16PF, HPI, and OPQ for personality. (By the way, if you're going to invent a test, make sure you consider the acronym; in fact you may want to come up with the acronym first)
But, as pointed out on EASI-HR blog you need to think carefully about the situation before running out and buying one. Do you have documentation showing the competency/KSA measured by the test is required for the job? What are you going to do about pass points? These are just some of the questions that need to be addressed.
By no means should that dissuade the use of tests. But like any other high-stakes purchasing decision, conduct a risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis before making the leap. And use resources like Buros test reviews to check out what the experts have to say.
Thanks to Google Co-op there's a new addition to this page.
It's called Selection Search and it's located on the right navigation bar.
What is it? It's a search engine that searches only quality sites that have information on personnel selection and assessment. Sites like IPMAAC, OPM, and SHRM.
Try it--I think you'll like it. And if you have suggestions for websites that should be included, let me know!
Like height or attractiveness, weight is one of the least-talked-about-but-most-common-judgments that get made about people that impact hiring decisions.
A recent article discussing the sixth circuit decision in EEOC v. Watkins points out that although the circuit courts are split on the idea of weight being protected under ADA, there are two practical tips every U.S. employer should follow:
1. Remember that even if being overweight or obese isn't protected under the ADA (e.g., because the plaintiff is unable to show it has a physiological cause), being PERCEIVED as disabled is. And we know that this is the most commonly claimed violation under ADA.
2. Being overweight or obese may be related to another underlying physical condition, so don't assume simply because someone is heavy that you don't have to accommodate them or you are free to discriminate against them.
And I would like to add one of my own:
3. Don't forget about other laws, such as state discrimination laws. Some states (e.g., California) have laws that are broader (for the applicant) than the ADA.
Lessons? Don't make assumptions about what people can and can't do. If you have doubts, ask: "Are you able to perform the essential functions of this job with or without reasonable accommodation?" and ask it of ALL candidates. Or, have each candidate do some type of work sample exercise. And of course make sure the essential functions of the job have been identified and communicated to applicants.
Like all criterion used in making hiring decisions, your decision should come back to: Is it job-related?
Okay, so it's taken me so long to post about the new issue of TIP that you could legitimately claim that it isn't "new" anymore. And to you, I say: feh.
I will say this is one of the best issues I've seen in a while. Highlights include:
1. Great article by Wayne Cascio titled "The new human capital equation" where he weaves statistics about recruiting into a conversation about work life balance and becoming an employer of choice.
2. The always-interesting Frank Schmidt writes about--wait for it--meta-analysis and cognitive ability. He makes some great points, though, including the fear about discussing group differences, the danger in looking to courts to provide us with answers, and the inability to put research findings into practice.
3. A too brief piece by Robert Hogan on the relationship between character and personality.
4. A perspective on the Burlington Northern v. White case by legal guru Art Gutman.
5. The always interesting Good Science--Good Practice column by Marcus Dickson and Jamie Madigan with a great note from Ken Lahti about his study where they found that in high-volume selection situations (5,000 hires/year) the efficiency ROI gains from unproctored internet testing outweigh the ROI lost from omitting a proctored cognitive ability test. A thought provoking finding with direct application to large employers. Savings plus reduced adverse impact on the front end? Sounds good to me!
6. On a lighter note, retrospectives from two pioneers in the field--Bob Guion and Paul Sackett. Two gems from Guion: "Career choices are often more the result of circumstances than of careful planning" and "There are more ways, Horatio, to solve organizational problems than are dreamt of in your philosophies and theories." Makes me think of LA Story.
7. Last but not least, some results from the 2006 SIOP member survey. Things that stood out for me: SIOP needs to do a better job at being THE trusted authority in the area and being a strong advocate to policy makers. Just a couple thoughts out of the gate: e-newsletters, certification courses, test reviews, and more press releases.
Enjoy!
For anyone that's wanted to go to IPMAAC conference but doesn't have the dough, they just implemented a new policy (see section C-6) whereby presenters are given a break on fees. Should help a little for those of us that aren't independently wealthy.
Not content to rule search, Google is conducting an applied class in smart HR by adjusting their hiring practices to focus more on job-relatedness and candidate service.
Historically Google has put candidates through the wringer, with up to six interviews (not uncommon for high-tech) and long wait periods between interviews and the final word. They've also focused heavily on academic credentials--GPA and college degrees. Earlier this year, they brought in a new HR director who is shaking things up and helping the company hire more volume but retain quality.
After a survey of current employees and linkage to performance measures (read: criterion-related validity study), they've made some changes:
1 - Fewer interviews. Average has gone from 6.2 at the beginning of the year to 5.1 in June.
2 - Targeted interview feedback based on pre-defined factors.
3 - Multiple scores rating a candidate's KSAs.
4 - Biodata (e.g., "Have you ever turned a profit at your own non-tech side business?"). BTW, many of the survey questions were biodata as well, such as age they first used a computer, how many foreign languages they spoke, and how many patents they have. Would love to see those correlations! Wonder how they broke down the jobs...
5 - Personality (e.g., how assertive the person is)
6 - Work style (e.g., prefer to manage others or do work yourself?)
7 - Higher standards. Google is looking for overqualified people. (Take that, City of New London, CT )
The head of HR gets it: he says Google tries "to strike the right balance between letting candidates get to know Google, letting us get to know them, and moving quickly."
Thanks to EASI blog for the heads up.
Here's a case you may not be familiar with. Target is being sued in federal court for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and two California laws because their website is not accessible to the blind.
On September 6, the judge ruled that the class action suit could go forward and that the laws do apply to the website.
Target failed to set up its website so screen-reading software could vocalize text. The site also contains inaccessible images and graphical features that are not accessible.
I'm not an expert in website accessibility, but it does not sound like it is terribly difficult to implement this technology.
Is your website accessible? Are you unintentionally turning away qualified applicants with a disability?
UPDATE: Information about how to make your blog accessible to the blind can be found here . Tips for how to make websites more accessible can be found here . The most thorough resource on making websites accessible to people with disabilities can be found here .
Recently, Todd Rogers over at ERE wrote an article about the "cost" of assessment. The article isn't about ROI formulas or utility analysis, but focuses on turning off high quality candidates with bureaucracy and a mountain of application forms and requirements.
Yes, to the extent possible, assessment should be streamlined. And candidates should be given good reasons why they're being put through the paces. But let's not confuse content with process. Let's break things down:
1) Remember folks, EVERYTHING we do to narrow down the candidate pool is, legally, an "assessment." This includes minimum qualifications, phone interviews, resume reviews, etc. We're not just talking applications and written tests.
2) Good assessment takes time. We know from studying thousands of candidates that assessments that are put together well and gather significant information plain work better. Unstructured interviews and casual phone screens have NOT been shown to be reliable and they are definitely not as legally defensible as structured interviews or targeted skills testing. They will work every once in a while, just as phrenology might, but over the long haul are not the best tools in our toolbelt. Not only that, but for employers sifting through thousands of applicants they're not going to have individual conversations with all of them.
3) That said, there's no reason to put candidates through hell (other than because we're evil test developers). On-line testing, good ATS packages like Neogov , and clear job previews and requirements help things run smoothly.
4) A rigorous assessment process, in addition to likely being more valid and defensible, sends several messages to candidates: we've done our homework, we know what it takes to succeed in these jobs, and being hired here means something. Far from being a turnoff, people usually respect this and are likely to spread the word, probably to those passive candidates we're all after. You don't have to be Microsoft or Toyota to establish a reputation as a selective employer.
5) The more you allow someone to tell YOU about THEM, the greater the risk of falsification and spin. On-line profiles are fine and dandy, but caveat emptor.
6) An example is given in the article about a friend who routinely "beats" a drug test. This tells me the organization isn't doing their job in making sure the tests are valid--it says nothing about the usefulness of a good drug screening process.
Last, let's be careful with our terms. The phrase "psychological test" is used to refer to anything from a traditional interview to the MMPI , but most people in the assessment field would think of the latter, which is a very different type of selection mechanism and involves different legal considerations . Finally, very few people go through anything approaching "psychoanalysis" as part of a hiring process, so in general let's avoid that term unless we're talking about individual interviews for public safety positions or the like (and even then it makes most folks think of Freud).
I'll be the first to agree that lengthy forms doth not good assessment make. But rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, let's focus on defining the competencies we need, reaching out to the most qualified, marketing ourselves properly, and putting together a solid selection system. In the end, that will have the biggest payoff for both the organization and the job seeker.
Comes now Blue Chip Expert , which according to Business 2.0 , is "A MySpace for Job Seekers." The site focuses on free agents or contract workers, particularly "high end" such as software engineers and creative directors. When an employer successfully hires through Blue Chip, the site gets a (not insignificant) cut but also gives everyone in the referral chain a piece of the pie. So if I'm in the database and I get Mo Rocca to enter his data, and XYZ Company hires Mo, I get a portion of the contract.
Strikes me kinda like a pyramid scheme. No, scheme's not the right word. Pyramid plan. No, wait. Structured social networking career pathing. That's it.
All kidding aside, this is a great example of niche recruiting efforts mixed with Web 2.0. This is the future of things, and it remains to be seen how the current big players (Monster, etc.) respond.
The October 7 issue of The Economist included a special report on "the battle for brainpower." You can read the front article here .
The article, as you would expect from The Economist, focuses on international aspects of talent search. Some gems I gathered:
- A recent Corporate Executive Board (CEB) survey of international senior HR managers found that 62% worried about company-wide talent shortages.
- Hiring managers in another CEB survey reported that candidate quality has declined by 10% since 2004 while average time to fill has increased (to 51 days).
- While China has twice as many engineering graduates as the U.S. only 10% are "equipped to work for a Western multinational."
- Talented people, in many cases, need organizations less than organizations need them, particularly with the current job market and the shift in the means of production to computers and knowledge work.
- Candidates are taking advantage of websites like vault.com to research organizations and get the "real scoop." (Expect this trend to continue and for smart organizations to take advantage of this trend by offering more authentic information of their own)
- Paying a premium for stars has a (not so hidden) benefit: it attracts other talented individuals.
- Boosting your current worker's employability goes a long way toward enhancing your reputation and becoming a magnet for talent.
On this last point, the articles repeatedly emphasize that your actions post-hire, such as training and performance management, are as important, if not more important, to sustaining an organization's long-term ability to attract, hire, and retain talent.
A good reminder that organizations are systems and smart recruitment and assessment considers the entire spectrum of HR management.
I was listening to a piece on NPR this afternoon that got me thinking about best practices in personnel selection and assessment.
The news story was about the apparent undue influence that drug manufacturer Eli Lilly had on the creation of what are called "practice guidelines" that are essentially best practices for the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions.
This started the wheels turning...why aren't there any guidelines for personnel selection?
Yes, I know about the Uniform Guidelines . But (1) they're very much out of date, (2) they're not concise, and (3) they're not written for the lay HR person. This may be somewhat unfair criticism, as they were not meant to be "personnel selection for dummies", but them's the facts.
Yes, I also know about SIOP Principles . But many of the criticisms leveled about the Uniform Guidelines can also be made in reference to this document: It's not easy to read and it doesn't serve as pracical guidance for your average HR person. Not was it meant to.
So where does that leave us? With a lot of books in the business section on how to hire, hiring the best, etc. etc. Most of these books are quite lengthy and cover way too much.
What I want is something people can (1) easily understand, and (2) point to as THE current, professionally agreed upon set of standards for planning, developing, and administering good assessment instruments. And there are two documents that come close to my vision.
The first is the Department of Labor's guide on testing and assessment . It's easy to read, very well organized, and relatively brief. And it accurately summarizes best practices and even manages to weave in a little research. Very nice.
The second is SIOP's FYI on testing . Also well organized, easy to read, but perhaps a bit lengthy.
Now neither of these documents is required reading. No one is going to check to see if you're testing in accordance with them. But we should be. We should be holding selection processes to a standard, and one that pretty much the entire profession agrees upon. We should put something out there that says: don't use a three point un-anchored rating scale when rating an interview response. Do a job analysis--don't argue, just do it--and here's how it needs to be done. And here's how you write a good multiple choice test.
Where is this document? Where is this help for the lone HR person trying to figure out if they're doing things the right way? And why haven't we put something together by now?
Everyone has ideas for things they'd like to do one day and they just haven't gotten around to it yet. For me, one area I'm interested in is the application of video game technology to recruitment and assessment.
This is not a new idea but it deserves much more attention that it receives. Why? Because (1) more than 45 million American households own video game machines, and (2) it's a technology with boundless potential for engaging students, teaching competencies, offering realistic job previews, and assessing job-related competencies.
The Federation of American Scientists just released a report on the value that video games can play in education which is discussed in this AP article .
As far as I know, the only organization doing serious work in this area is the Army (not coincidentally they also have a great recruiting website), who distributed a "first person shooter" video game (free, no less).
It's time we moved beyond static recruiting and situational videos and seriously start to explore how interactive computer simulations can assist with recruitment and assessment efforts. I'm all eyes/ears if anyone knows of other applied work in this area.
Been to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)'s website recently? They have a great resource called the Hiring Toolkit that is an example of how to do HR right. It's very easy to navigate but contains all the essential information. It takes advantage of technology to present information but doesn't stray from the fundamentals.
Bravo. Can't wait to see this website develop as more resources are added.
