I think we can agree that:
1. Candidates, their aptitudes and the work they produce, interact in complex patterns and are influenced by task and situation variables.
2. Highly structured environments tend to be more successful with employees of lower ability; conversely, low structure environments may result in better job success for high ability candidates.
3. Anxious or conforming employees tend to do better in highly structured environments; non-anxious or independent employees tend to prefer low structure.

Therefore: highly structured work, in highly structured environments can get by with lower ability, anxious or conforming employees who need highly structured tools to aid with selecting and promoting them. This will bring them peace of mind but costs them in time and money. Anxious and conforming managers seem to sleep better when the fires of fear of making a decision and the anger of making the wrong one will be dowsed by throwing money at it.
The more organic, unique or creative work-product typically has known more success in low structured environments because of level independence needed. Typically this culture is comfortable about making decisions and is less-anxious about the reward. Their proclivity with decision making tends to make them more accepting that they may make a bad one from time to time but more often, a bad hire will be influenced by changing task and situation variables and not their decision.
In the end it comes down to the cost of doing business within the values of the company?s culture.

Your response forms a tautology by simply returning to your prime argument, That is: that your methodology is what produces all these wonderful results. The desirability of the results is not in question; the methodology is.

Assessments come in many forms: driving tests, aircraft simulators, tryouts, training programs, probationary periods, INTERVIEWS, resumes, and so forth. Anything that separates people into a ‘qualified’ and ‘unqualified’ group is an assessment. And, the closer the assessment is to the job, the more accurate it tends to be. There is a long and well-established history of specific tools that most accurately predict job performance –and personal subjectivity is not among them.

Using better and more accurate assessment tools produces clones? Well, you got me there. Accurate tests and assessments consistently identify the most-qualified people. I don’t think many executives who would have a problem with that; but, I do have trouble understanding how a company staffed with fully competent people would be in danger of failure.

So, which part of a good assessment process do you disagree with:

>Hiring the most fully-qualified applicants?
>Rejecting the fewest unqualified applicants?
>Using hiring tools that are race, age and gender-blind?
>Using hiring and placement processes endorsed by the EEOC?
>Realizing the favorite tools of many recruiters and hiring managers are weak predictors of job success?

Now this is an interesting thought. Who’da thunk of including such a radical idea? Evaluate the potential for rage and drug use? Brilliant! Physical health and emotional stability? You’re skatin’ out on the legal thin ice on these last two, Dr. Williams, but I couldn’t agree more!

The survey found that 52 percent of reported crashes occurred five miles or less from home and a whopping 77 percent occurred 15 miles or less from home.

This, of course, should be intuitive since most people do the great majority of their driving within a close proximity of their homes, but many drivers seem more concerned about safety issues when embarking on a long, cross-country trip than when heading to the grocery store.

Hmm, I always thought that my excellent Driving Record and the fact that I keep getting it in the mail would be enough to support the fact that I am a good driver. Wow, dang.. how silly of me.

We make broad inquiry of human nature in the agora of employment.

One of the techniques of philosophical inquiry is to test analogies.

What would happen if we used Dr. William’s assessment methods for drivers in fact?
1) Fewer drivers would pass the assessments
2) There would be fewer drivers-therefore fewer accidents (Eureka!! It works!)
3) Further, only bad drivers would be eliminated, further weighting the reduction in accidents. (If this were quantifiable)

In truth, what would happen is many drivers would be off the road, many which earn a living at driving–there?d be fewer trucks, fewer shipments, and fewer people making a living. The economy would collapse?many competent drivers would, through error, be unjustly deprived of their right to drive—but we’d all be safer.

But would we really be safer?

No, for the simple reason that in order for the scenario to play out as predicted–the assessments would have to be accurate and reliable. Anyone not in the business of selling or promoting assessment tools knows that notion is nonsense.

Who would be the selector??Que custode?

Let us now extend this analogy (or, the actual steps as described in the article) to corporate hiring.

By further increasing selection criteria we get fewer candidates, if any —– but, they are all perfect, or, within a few degrees.
Because perfection is an ‘objective’ standard as determined by structured assessment. The candidates tend to be similar in education, personality, and outlook. This will result in stifled innovation; group think, collective incompetence and, ultimately, the death of the company that adopts it. Perhaps not this quarter but sooner than you would think. There is example in the business section every day for those who choose to read it with understanding.

Bill Wager
Hunter Green
40 Exchange Place
NY, NY 10005
212-742-0990
billwager@hunter-green.com