While it is certainly axiomatic that greater degrees of useful information gleaned from a variety of sources (e.g., interviews, tests, background checks, simulations) lead to the best employment decisions, certain administrative, operational and economic considerations mandate that not all applicants be completely processed. In these situations, it is particularly important to be familiar with the information contained in the Schmidt and Hunter article. As an aside, the Executive Director of the Association of Test Publishers (Dr. William G. Harris) and I have just submitted an article to the Electronic Recruiting Exchange, which discusses the legal, practical
and technical issues surrounding testing.

When I am motivated, and enjoy the culture of the company I work for, the strength of leadership, the ability of the organizations to elicit a sense of commitment on the part of workers, and its development of a sense of shared goals, if there is a reward system, it will influence job satisfaction and I will want to do the best for My Team, and would even ask for training to hone my skills.

Dr. Williams, your views do concern me as well. It seems that we forget that people are human. We are not all perfect candidates, nor are we infallible.

Mr. Williams it is a known fact that how I feel about myself or my abilities will change year from year, or even day to day.. How I may do on a personality test based upon my current emotions, stressors, or anxieties will affect the outcome of the results. Does that mean that I cannot perform or do the job, maybe not well that day, but not on the norm. Yet Next year/week/mth If I am in a better place emotionally my scores on that test will be significantly different.

In business everyone may have a burnout stage at work, personal problems may crop up when they least expect, new systems may become implemented where the individual may not have much strength. Sudden Company changes may cause internal stressors.

I am not suggesting that psychometric and ability tests are not a good idea, but to utilize these tests as a predominate source of hiring, or to depend totally on their results without using a variety of other methods in your selection process is probably not a good idea?

Personality tests should usually be considered in conjunction with other information, as the results can obviously be unreliable. They also should be used to help your current employees to become better employees as well, by effectively measuring the key candidate characteristics that influence job performance, and helping them find ways to improve..

A significant amount of research (United Kingdom Dept. Labor) has been done on how reliable various methods are. A summary of research on how well methods predict future job performance shows that, where perfect prediction is 1.0, the following selection methods score as follows:
? Assessment centres promotion (0.68)
? Work samples (0.54)
? Ability tests (0.54)
? Structured interviews (0.44)
? Integrity tests (0.41)
? Assessment centres performance (0.41)
? Personality tests (0.38)
? Unstructured interviews (0.33)
? References (0.13)
Taken from the employers organisation for local government UK

Combining many of these factors would definitely be a strong contribution of a good hire

Here are some examples you’ve asked for:

Example A
A manager was very direct, blunt, and insensitive to his direct reports, which caused, as you can imagine, a lot of turnover under his control. The training program I referred to in the book I mentioed has helped this person ‘clearly see’ his ‘automatic’ responses and the negative impact it had on his group. Approx. 60 days into this particular training program he is now more personable and more sensitive to the needs of his people and is building stronger relationships with his people. Turnover in his department is now zero.

Example B
An individual working with money and a lot paper work, which was very detailed in nature, kept making mistakes in their daily paper work and money count. About 3 weeks into this training program this person is now our most accurate and detail-oriented person in this particular role in our company. Their organizational skills have improved dramatically.

People can change, however, they have to ‘clearly see’, or have accurately diagnosed, the source of their problems in order to correct them. Additionally, they have to want to correct the problem.

The problem is, not many professionals or training programs can accurately diagnose the sources of the problems, they tend to focus more on the symptoms and not the sources, which is the person’s thinking.

Lastly, I was surprised at your statement: ‘If the HVP, or any other test, uncovers coaching needs during the hiring phase, why hire the applicant in the first place?’

People are people, and as such, we all have needed coaching or development that is required. Hiring isn’t black-and-white, it’s not absolute. Good hiring is not hirng the ‘perfect’ person, it’s hiring the ‘best’ person for the job in question.

There is a politically correct (but common-sense incorrect) belief in our society that anyone can become anything they want. If is were true, we would all be movie stars, astronauts and very rich.

What does this have to do with Rehab? Rehab tries to put something ‘together’ that was once ‘whole’. The Rehab goal is to help people reenter society as ‘productive’ members…not change them into something they never were (or don’t have the skills to become).

Patient, ‘Doctor, will I be able to play the piano after the operation?’
Doctor, ‘Of course!’
Patient, ‘Good! I always wanted to play piano!’

(Remember, even the best rehab programs have high recidivism rates).

John suggests people can generally change behavior. He might even have some personal examples. However, my personal observation as a senior manager (10 years), head of training (10 years) and consultant (15 years) is the complete opposite.

You might look into some good OD books for a solution to the productive manager/environment question…But, OD is a long and painful process.

From the information that was gathered, was there much research done on what happened at the office after training?
Were the researchers able to determine what managers or the company did to improve the environment to accomodate the training and such like? (without repeating myself here)

It would be interesting to know how the follow up to training has been implemented in an organization, especially considering how much it costs just to provide training to an employee.

In a nutshell you are saying that it is difficult for a leaopard to change its spots. That training could only work well only if the participant is personally motivated.

Ok, Partially I can see your point there, if a person is burnt out within an organization, and does not feel the desire for the company, training would not be able to penetrate.

But again, does that not come down to the company. Should not a company look within themselves to find out why their employees have lost their fire and burn for the organization, and find ways to bring it back, is it not their obligation to their employees, if one is feeling the lackluster, there will be many others as well.

Personally though I find it difficult to believe that people cannot change. If one looks at rehab programs and the successful individuals who have gone through recovery, one can see a distinct behavioural change. An improvement in selfesteem and self worth is one of the largest factors that contributes to this change.

Most problems in the work place are generally situational or brought on by fear, beliefs, expectations, attitudes and habits. Drugs and Alcohol issues top the list, and programs can eliviate those problems, and a test would not be able to determine that problem. Secondary would be family issues, and of course there could be issues within the organization that is causing distrust and fear.

Which brings us back to if you improve the work environment, allow training to be focused on the individuals specific functions, allowing the workplace to be modified for the participants to be able to apply the training, allow training to be hands on, with consistent follow up by managers would that not bring out a positive outcome?

If you want real change, you have to understand the barriers that prevent workers from changing their behavior or performance

If the individual in your example was having difficulty with employees, should not the employee find out what was causing the situation. Understanding personal problems and issues can make for a more productive workplace - does it not?
Expressing honest and sincere appreciation, Praise and a simple ?thank you? are powerful tools for creating a sense of pride in the work place as Dale Carnagie has Shared many years ago.

If we hire people via testing and some faked the test, do we just keep firing and rehiring rather than to look at what we have within, and try to focus on how to improve?

People can change behavior. However, to change behavior you have to find the root cause of the unwanted behavior, which is the thinking that misleads the person to make poor decisions and causes us to have ‘blind spots’. If you address the unwanted behavior at the source, change can occur and the unwanted behavior is neutralized. Here’s a book with real examples cited on how this concept has had positive and measurable results in the workplace.

http://www.cleardirection.com/books/default.asp

Modeling is the ‘monkey-see-monkey-do’ approach. It usually is produced by someone who follows people around, making a list of stimulus-responses they can convert into a training program. It is characterized by ’say this when you hear that’. Lower employee levels seem to prefer modeling (Level 1-2, anyway). Xerox selling skills and SPIN selling are good examples.

Modification is deeper. It attempts to help the person understand what is happening between the stimulus and response (i.e., psychological activities). That is, what prompted the stimulus, what prompted the response and what was the consequence. Wilson’s counsellor selling and is a good example of this approach. Modification is better accepted by managers and professionals (Level 1-2).

The research I have read (and the programs I have delivered) show both produce similar (weak) results when people don’t arrive skill-ready.

We generally find organizations measuring training ‘effects’ based on pre and post-training knowledge tests. (Kirkpatrick’s Level 1-2) But this measures ‘book’ smarts, not behavior change.

Most of us already ‘know’ the right way to do things (without attending a training program), but we often are uncomfortable doing it. Take, for example, the manager who refuses to confront employee problems or techies who refuse to get along with other team members. Attending a training program seldom changes either behavior.

Training may enhance skills that someone already has…but it seldom ‘grafts’ on new skills. A salesperson with good discovery skills, may get better at discovery by learning a few more techniques; but a salesperson who believes mostly in ‘the pitch’ is unlikely to show any change at all from attending the same program.

The root cause is our personal ‘behavioral comfort zone’..introverts are very happy being introverts and extraverts are very happy being extraverted…Regardless of workshop impact, neither one is comfortable acting like the other. (Scientists have tracked many behaviors back to infants…giving rise to a strong genetic effect).

I often ask people if their spouse has behaviors they would like to change …even simple ones …in most cases they just roll their eyes and say they gave up trying to change them long ago.

The only time I have seen training effects (the kind that change behavior, not impart knowledge) is when: job competencies are clear, people are selected on those competencies, training is done within each competency, the manager supports and encourages the competency, and the employee is rewarded on the competency.

As to multi-rater feedback…the literature shows it tends to lose effectiveness over time. Nasty people tend to stay nasty and nice people tend to stay nice. This is probably due to the comfort zones described above. In the Kirkpatrick model, it confirms why Kirkpatrick Level 3-4 effects remain as rare as tap-dancing chickens.

I like to look at training this way:
suppose skills range from 1 (none) to 5 (average) to 10 (total expert)…If the job requires a ‘5′ and the person enters as a ‘4′ then training and serious coaching might help…but if the job requires a ‘6′ the person may never make it. Just ask a trainer if they have ever been able to ‘train the untrainable’

You can review research on training effects in any good university library…

Wendell

Is it possible that most training provided by companies is based upon lectures, discussion groups, videos and such like - they do not show proof of working because there is nothing like the hands on performance on the job training, as the old saying goes knowing is doing, getting rid of old habits. It is also difficult for individuals to implement what they learnt via a motivational speech into their day to day work duties.

But, when I consider for example the excellent behavioral training provided for example Six Sigma Business Excellence, NLP, NeuroTek’s Proven success with their development of Peak Achievement Training which was created to align with their business needs, with specific desired results - Xerox, and Motorola have had documented success with performance training as well…

So I wonder - does it generally come down to the individual themselves, or how the training is performed or a mixture of both, especially when participants are not held accountable for their results?

Could it also not be the companies fault because they did not help create an environment in the workplace that would accommodate and facilitate what the participants learnt, and the management team does not provide further training, reinforcement, feedback, information and support to the participants who had been trained?

Could it also be that the companies do not provide training based on the environment, the job function, the people who work in that particular job description, and the direct relation to the job skills needed that they seek? Would it not be a fair assessment that if training was more targeted and tailored to the audience intended that the participants receiving the training would be more flexible, happier and productive?

What have you seen to be the causes for non success for training of employees?

http://www.erexchange.com/Articles/default.asp?CID={4ED47926-B4DD-4741-AC7E-465232BBB840}

The thing I find interesting was a comment he made -
‘The book provides some interesting information, particularly regarding the lives of the authors of some of these tests. According to The Cult of Personality, for example, Isabel Myers, the author of the famous Myers-Briggs test, had no formal training in psychology or test construction. The man who developed the Rorschach Inkblot Test, Hermann Rorschach, may have died of heartbreak from the failure of his test to gain wide acceptance. You will also learn that Starke Hathaway, the creator of the MMPI, sometimes wore shoes that didn’t match and frequently came to classes with grease stains on his clothing.’

He goes onto mention that a large number of people fail the integrity test, and there is also a disproportionate number who have false positive.

I remember a client who would not even interview individuals based completely on the results of the test that I had candidates take prior to ‘interview’. Some excellent candidates with proven successes were dismissed - Funny thing was the reason the position was open was due to the former employee ‘who had taken the test’ was staying home watching Soaps rather than work, was not strong in sales, and managed poorly. He did know how to pass tests well though…

Wendell

As for the MMPI-2 (update version of the original MMPI), this instrument is frequently used for pre-employment testing for safety-sensitive jobs (e.g., public safety officers, flight crew), but its use is inadvisable for other positions. This doesn’t stem from EEOC issues, rather the litigation has generally been based on the doctrine of invasion of privacy. Note, given the fact that protections for invasion of privacy vary from state to state and from public to private entities, there are certain inconsistencies in the law. It is important to note that the Rent-a-Center decided to fight its use of the MMPI in Illinois, while in California these same allegations against Rent-a-Center (Staples v. Rent-a-Center) were quickly settled.

If the HVP, or any other test, uncovers coaching needs during the hiring phase, why hire the applicant in the first place?

Ignoring vendor claims to the contrary, there is little, if any legitimate research (replicated and peer-reviewed) to show that people significantly change their behavior as a result of either feedback or training–very discouraging.

Hire in haste — repent at leasure.

We’ve conducted internal benchmark studies and produced from that core competencies for each role we use it for. The results of the profile provide an interview guide to guide us in the interview. This has been extremely helpful in providing guidance to our recruiters. We’ve actually seen a large drop in turnover since implementing this into our process.

Here’s some information that you’ll find helpful, Kay.

SUMMARY OF UNIFORM GUIDELINES IN EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES (1978)
CFR TITLE 29, VOLUME 4 SECTION 1607, ET SEQ.

The CFR guidelines apply to tests and other selection procedures which are used as a basis for any employment decision, including hiring, promotion, demotion, membership, referral, retention, licensing, certification, training or transfer. 1607.2(b). The guidelines are not intended, nor should they be interpreted, to discourage use of a selection procedure so long as it has been validated in accordance with the guidelines for each purpose for which it is used. 1607.2 (c)

If the use of any selection procedure has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment opportunities of members of any race, sex or ethnic group it will be considered discriminatory and inconsistent with the guidelines unless properly validated. 1607.3 (a)

An adverse impact is determined by the 4/5ths rule. A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group that is less than 4/5ths of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded as evidence of adverse impact. 1607.4 (d)

When developing assessment tools, employers may rely on construct validity studies. Evidence of the validity of a test or other selection procedures through a construct validity study should consist of data showing that the procedure actually measures the degree to which candidates have identifiable characteristics which have been determined to be important in successful performance in the job [emphasis added] for which the candidates are being evaluated. (For example, the ability to type well is important for a secretary.) 1607.5 (b)

We have a difference of opinion here. May I suggest this could be a great opportunity to make a point:

1) Here is the EEOC’s opinion about vendor claims (41 CFR 60-3.9) -

Under no circumstances will the general reputation of a test or other selection procedures, its author or its publisher, or casual reports of it’s validity be accepted in lieu of evidence of validity. Specifically ruled out are: assumptions of validity based on a procedure’s name or descriptive labels; all forms of promotional literature; data bearing on the frequency of a procedure’s usage; testimonial statements and credentials of sellers, users, or consultants; and other nonempirical or anecdotal accounts of selection practices or selection outcomes.

2) Here is the EEOC’s opinion about validity:
(41 CFR 60-3.5)-

Evidence of the validity of a test or other selection procedure by a criterion-related validity study should consist of empirical data demonstrating that the selection procedure is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance.

3) If your attorney suggested the Hartmann was acceptable for hiring, may I suggest you ask for your money back and find a new attorney who knows the provisions of the Uniform Guidelines.

4) Regarding the Hartman Instrument…Dr. Hartman’s son and I spoke a year ago. He specifically told me his father’s test was not intended for hiring and that he would not sell to customers who misused his father’s instrument.

Now, before anyone suggests that the Guidelines only applies to adverse impact, may I suggest they are also BEST PRACTICES because they lead to better-skilled employees.

Free advice…. Forget the snake oil, go to the library, read a book on personnel psychology, and find an expert to help implement a system that works.

The HVP can be used for discovering strengths and weaknesses (if those are competencies that reliably predict performance in your employees), but that is not the same as using the tool to make a hiring decision.

In my experience studying assessments and their uses in the workplace, this means you may want to consider the results of this assessment as you develop a training program or management/coaching plan for a new hire rather than for making a hiring decision…but if your legal team says it’s OK for you to use, I won’t argue!

Best,
Victor