Why Use People Assessments and Psychometric Profiling for Recruitment?

There are many good reasons to use People Assessment and Psychometric Profiling

• Two of three new recruits will disappoint in the first year
• Two of three employees would rather work somewhere else
• Ninety-five of 100 applicants will "exaggerate" to get a job
• Most recruitment decisions are made in haste - during the first five minutes of an interview
• One of three businesses will be sued this year over an employment issue
• Turnover costs thousands of pounds for every departing employee
• Eighty percent of employee turnover is avoidable

AND...

You want employees who are dependable

In 2008, absenteeism cost employers in the UK £662 per employee, according to a report in Personnel Today by Hewitt Associates.  Although this rises by as much as 60% once indirect costs, such as lost productivity, overtime and recruitment, are included. Many companies are under-estimating their rate of absenteeism - and its financial impact - as less than two thirds of companies indicated that they properly record employee absenteeism.  In addition, sickness costs UK companies more than £1,000 per employee every year.  Often, poor attendance can be attributed to low motivation and job satisfaction.

You can be sued for illegal discrimination

In the absence of objective data, how can you demonstrate a recruitment/promotion decision was made objectively, without discrimination because of gender, race, religion or age?

Lying on CVs is on the increase

Research shows two-thirds of more than 3,000 CVs submitted by applicants contained inaccuracies. The most common types of discrepancies were gaps in employment to outright lies about academic and professional qualifications, undisclosed directorships and fraud committed against past employers. Employers are being warned to be on their guard as most people lie in their job applications.

Testing is acceptable, even expected

A recent survey found that 92% of job applicants accept testing as part of the job qualification process. Only 3% resent it, while 5% were neutral.

Assessments offer a solution

Historically, employers depend upon cvs, references and interviews as sources of information for making recruitment decisions. In practice, these sources have proved inadequate for consistently selecting good employees.

When selecting people for promotion, otherwise excellent employees have too often been miscast into roles they could not perform satisfactorily.

Clearly, an essential ingredient for making "people decisions" has been missing from the formula.

The use of assessments has become essential to employers who:

• Want to put the right people into jobs
• Provide employees with effective training
• Help their managers to become more effective
• Promote people into positions where they will succeed.

The use of assessments has resulted in extraordinary increases in productivity while reducing employee relations problems, employee turnover, stress, tension, conflict and overall human resources expenses.

Several factors contribute to the failure of traditional hiring methods.

• CVs often contain false claims of education and experience while omitting information that would help employers make better recruitment decisions.
• Business references are of little value because most past-employers will tell you nothing but "name, start and finish date".

These realities are the reason interviews have become the most influential factor in recruitment and promotion decisions. However, experience shows only a coincidental correlation between the ability to deliver well in an interview and to deliver well on the job. Studies peg this correlation at 14% -- one good employee in every seven hires. Even background checks don't help much. The success rate becomes 26%, but that's only one good hire in every four. Unfortunately, many employers have accepted these poor results and the high cost of excessive turnover as a business reality. They have flown the white flag of surrender.

Assessments help significantly..... BUT they are not all the same

• Assessing behavioural traits improved the hiring success rate to 38%.
• When both thinking abilities and behavioural traits are assessed, the right people are recruited 54% of the time.
• When an assessment of occupational interests is added, successful results improve to 66%.
• The most impressive results are achieved, however, when an integrated assessment is used - one that measures behavioural traits, thinking, occupational interests, plus "Job Match." These integrated assessments employ cutting-edge technology and empirical data to assess the qualities of "The Total Person." In doing so, the individual qualities of candidates are compared to the qualities of employees who are rated as top performers. These 21st Century assessments successfully identify potentially excellent employees better than 75% of the time.

Job Match outranks all other factors

A well-documented study, published in Harvard Business Review concludes that "Job Match" is by far the most reliable predictor of effectiveness on the job. The study considered many factors including the age, sex, race, education and experience of approximately 300,000 subjects. It evaluated their job performance and found no significant statistical differences, except in the area of "Job Match." The conclusion: "It's not experience that counts or college degrees or other accepted factors; success hinges on a fit with the job."

The only reliable method for evaluating "Job Match" is with a properly designed assessment instrument, capable of measuring the essential job-related characteristics particular to each specific job. Profiles International has assessments designed for this purpose. 

Cost per hire is meaningless!

Recruitment costs are such a small percentage of an employee's value that calculating cost-per-hire is usually a waste of time.  Find out what people are worth to you!

A superior performer is worth a handful of mediocre performers.  In Hunter and Schmidt's research into human productivity and psychology, it was found that a superior performer in a management/professional position was 96% more productive than a poor performer.  Measuring the cost of each of your hires is one way to spend time. It takes a lot of it. Don't do it. It's a waste. Instead, every HR and recruiting pro should spend time measuring what a top employee is worth. How much revenue do they bring in for you?  Compare that to what an average or below-average employee is worth, and then talk to your MD about the numbers. Ultimately, if you realise how much more top employees are worth, you'll realise you can spend a lot more to hire them.  Recruitment costs are such a small percentage of an employee's value, that worrying over the cost of a hire is usually pointless.

Back to How to Recruit Top Performers