You did a great job of expanding on my very brief comments.

Mel

‘I would think that companies with that percentage would do the smart thing and test hires out prior to engaging them for the long haul …’

Precisely why, whenever practical, you should start people out on a temp/contract basis before bringing them on direct.

You can do personality tests and interview until you’re green in the face, but often you really can’t tell if you have a good personality and work-style fit until after the person has actually been on the job for a number of weeks or even a number of months.

‘Robots wanted.’

Not necessarily. There really are considerably different ‘cultures’ from company to company. Although the high-energy, highly-creative ‘bull in a china shop’ type of personality can wreck havoc in a company filled with low-key, hypnotized by the CRT to the point of catatonia types; it is equally the case that someone who is more comfortable in a strictly regimented ‘spell out each indivudal instruction’ type of environment can cause an inherently high-energy, creative organization to come to a complete and grinding halt as well.

Best bet: try before you buy.

To me, this is endemic of most firms with strong, unwavering cultures that end up getting passed by. So…if people don’t fit the predefined notions of management, they get canned? I would think that companies with that percentage would do the smart thing and test hires out prior to engaging them for the long haul or warn them of the consequences of acting or doing anything out-of-the norm. Robots wanted.

I will state however if these people are true rogues or violate company policy (i.e., negatively disruptive, substance abuse, etc) then the figure is excused. Some organizations do have that type of issue and turnover.

I think the article is about working with people’s flaws and foibles. Evidently most ‘managers’ can’t or won’t do it?

I had a situation where my employer harped incessently on my direct communication style – to them, it was the end of the world. Forget the fact that my team was the most productive, the clients were super impressed with me and my team’s delivery and passion, and our quality of work was unsurpassed. The direct communication style and high standards did me in. They couldn’t work or deal with it. A year later – I was in my own business, two years later talking to a competitor of theirs, maybe five years later taking over their market share…you get the point.

86% terminated for poor fit or bad management?

I wish it was as simple as can people do the job and will I be comfortable working with them.

In most case we are good at determining the can. Only 14% of the time do we fire people for not being able to do the the job. So it is a question of will they do the job the way we want it dome. There is a one liner that sums it up. We hire people for what they know but we fire them for who they are.

Selection does not need to be complex but good selection is hard work.

Yes people will be people.

If the managers/interviewers can’t answer ‘yes’ to both questions, the candidate shouldn’t be hired. We should empower our managers with the authority to go with their best judgments in hiring, as we empower them go with their best judgments in other matters of corporate decision-making.

Cheers,

My background is in developing selection systems, so I frequently get the question Lisa did on trying to ?fool-proof? the hiring process. I sometimes speak to a hiring manager who uses the sophisticated/scientifically designed selection system that selected the wrong person for the job. In the eyes of the hiring manager the selection system is considered a complete failure. I apologize for this less than ideal experience, and then I try to educate and reset the hiring manager?s expectations. I explain that using a properly designed, validated selection system will only yield a greater than chance probability of hiring the right person for the job. I further explain that the increased use of validated selection systems will generate more qualified then less qualified hires. For example, if you hire 100 sales people using a valid selection system, you may get 80 good hires and 20 not so good hires. This is still better then flipping a coin.

Also as Lisa did point out, we do need to keep in mind the common rating errors such as ?halo?, ?similar to me? etc. However, I do want to comment in regards to her example in the article about the two hiring managers listening to the same applicant in an interview, but who come up with divergent conclusions. I would point out that the prior specification of the position requirements, using a structure interview format, and referring to behaviorally anchored bars that point out successful job behaviors should minimize this inter-rater unreliability. But that being said, as Lisa points out, ?people are people? and we need to learn and do better next time.

I recommend to my line managers to have a team analysis done, such as the BELBIN teamroles in order to determine needs for certain teamroles in the team. The second evaluation is the Occupation Personality Questionnaire (SHL) for the team and the candidate to get a better understanding of the behaviour to be expected from an individual. The above two instruments will provide you with information on the needs and cultural fit of the candidates into the team and the organisation.

A concern that I have is that the majority of hiring managers decide within the first few seconds whether or not they like the candidate irrespective of the qualifications or experirence put on the table. This holds the threat of ‘cloning’ and ‘group think’. In other cases hiring managers create and change a position to the extend that only a ‘super-human’ would be able to fill the role and be successful. It often happens that hiring managers have such high expectations of candidates that it becomes unrealistic.

Taking it all into consideration I like Lisa’s approach that ‘People are People’. I feel that we try to make too much, to be to perfect in our recruiting processes, forgetting that the most important aspect of recruitment is the attitude of the candidate combined with his/her skills. Have a clear and specific position description, keep internal politics out of the recruitment process and do what is best for the company. Stick to basics and keep it simple!