Wendell

I would not suggest that you are not technically qualified to offer an expert opinion. Again I was not refering to you but the person who made the original suggestions.

My point was to agree with you but for you to even give it space is publishing it and promoting it, which was your advice to everyone not to do.

There are too many people in this field who don’t know what they don’t know?

I’m afraid we all don’t know what we don’t know. The real problem is people that think they know …..but don’t.

Finally you asked me if I know of a better way to make decisions, than to learn as much as one can about the candidate BEFORE hiring?

I think this is for another forum which I would be delighted to explore with you if of interest.

I never offer legal advice. I do however, provide advice to: 1) be wary of vendor claims; 2) follow the Guidelines; 3) adhere to the Standards; 4)stamp-out wrong-headed hiring practices; and 5) read a good book or two on personnel psychology.

Some clarfications on my part…. I believe drug testing, health records ADA issues, and the like, are problematic mainly because so many organizations know so little about them. For example, ADA interpretations are still evolving and (in my expereince)are seldom positioned after the a conditional job offer.

We agree that ‘many states’ and ‘two states’ might be a semantic point. Whatever the state, qualified legal counsel should be sought. Whenever I engage a client, I always request their attorneys attend our meetings…some even ask for a copy of the Guidelines.

Are you familiar with the Uniform Guidelines and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing? They govern best practices in this field..

Do you know of a better way to make decisions, than to learn as much as one can about the candidate BEFORE hiring?

There are too many people in this field who don’t know what they don’t know.

Hiring is all about decision making and it seems that people do not want to be the ones that are responsible for the final decision. Therefore, as in this instance, they complicate the process so much that the decision to hire sits with the process rather than the individual.

I agree with the comments that we should not listen to it, follow it, promote it or publish it to make it worse. Surely the best way to do this is to ignore it, rather than promote it and publish it in this forum.

Additionally the article implies that drug testing and the use of health records are problematic under the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’). In reality, the ADA does not prohibit, require or encourage drug testing. However, this law does not control when a drug test may be administered and it allows an employer not to hire an applicant whose test results indicate the illegal use of drugs–current users of illegal drugs do not fall within the ADA’s definition of a disability.

As for health records, the ADA requires that such information be requested only after a conditional offer of employment has been tendered. While the requested information does not have to be job-related and consistent with business necessity, if a disabled applicant is not hired on the basis of health information, the basis for their rejection must be job-related and consistent with business necessity–while taking into consideration the issue of reasonable accommodation. As an aside, in California the Fair Employment and Housing Act narrows the scope of such questioning insofar as employers can only make post offer health-based inquiries that are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

You pose a great question. Unfortunately, the answer is too long and involved for this space.

I’m not trying to hold anything back from readers, but this field is so deep that over 225 universities offer graduate courses in it. Furthermore, after graduation, it takes several years and hundreds of hands-on applications to really learn what one is doing.

If you want to become familiar with the basics, I suggest at least reading what every recruiter should know about hiring:
http://www.SIOP.org
http://www.apa.org/science/standards.html
http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_41/Part_60-3/toc.htm

If you find those sites interesting, then next read some good college textbooks on:

>Personnnel psychology (good overview of the field)
>Job analysis (ways and means of doing them)
>Psychometrics (how to develop tests that work)
>Statistical design (how to use analysis tools)
>EEOC legal issues (staying out of court)
>Assessment and design (putting everything together in a multi-trait-multi-method design)

On the other hand, you could always hire an experienced consultant to do the ‘heavy work’ for you.

Later,

Wendell

‘

The bottom line, I guess is that there is no ‘silver bullet’ or can’t miss procedure. I strongly agree with Dr. Williams that we need to know why voluntary turnover is occuring and in many cases it has little or nothing to do with recruiting. What we do in corporate recruiting is mission critical and increasingly difficult with pressure from all sides (executives, hiring managers, candidates, referral sources, etc.).

To share, I believe (a) that hiring mistakes can be avoided in the hiring process, (b) that hiring the right people for your company increases the likelihood of longer retention IF you scrutinize character, competency and chemistry (fit), and (c) that recruiters and recruiting leaders should be measured on new hire retention for a fair and consistent amount of time (1 year for us) similar to search firms. I am not a big advocate of phone or face-to-face interviews, unless they are structured and consistently delivered. I rarely meet people that I don’t like or lack vision for, so informal interviews are over-rated. I do beleive in job-specific competency testing and workstyle preference assessments with validated tools that do not have adverse impact.

I believe that patience and resilience in asking candidates to endure a longer and more thorough process is sometimes necessary to find the best candidates who very much desire to work for and stay at our company. I see it this way…are the best schools more or less difficult to get into? Are terrific investments easy or difficult to find? What about finding a spouse or life partner? I believe that accomplishing anything of great value is usually complex, takes hard work and a deep commitment to excellence. Frankly, I have experienced most companies more eager to fill seats fast (Time to Fill) and cheap (Cost per Hire) than to increase their Quality of Hire….which in my book equals productivity and retention.

Thanks for the chance to share.