Dale Paulson, Ph.D.
http://www.workplaceattitudes.blogspot.com

You make excellent points and I couldn’t help thinking about how the process of practicing elitist hiring methods mirrored almost every dictatorship throughout history. I absolutely agree that the companies that will grow will be made up of a diverse group of individuals who bring a myriad of ideas to the table.

Thanks for a well written article!

You may be interested in some related research. A 20 year study of 360,000 individuals across many different industries and occupations reported some interesting findings (Herbert M. Greenberg and Jeanne Greenberg, ?Job Matching for Better Sales Performance,? Harvard Business Review, Vol. 58, No. 5.)
The researchers found that success on the job is not related to prior work experience, education, technical skill or other commonly accepted criteria. What they did find was that success on the job hinges on fit with ?intangible qualities? such as thinking and communication skills, occupational interests and personality. Differences in success rates were even more dramatic when comparisons were made between low and high turnover industries.

As mentioned in the article, matching candidate competencies (including intangible qualities) to the requirements of the job can be achieved through objective tests and behavioral interviews. The Department of Labor has produced a useful guide to selecting and using tests and assessments.

Income protection may be the problem--few of us want to risk our jobs to prevent our employers from making an obvious mistake. Going along to get along is a much safer practice for most employees. Employees who speak out are often labeled 'not good team players? which is the kiss of death in many organizations.

Since 1992 countless hiring managers have told me that hiring successful employees is at best a random event--it can't be done on purpose. They say ?we hire and fire until we find a good employee?. Sometimes they will try something new but all too often they reject anything new.

Hiring managers often believe that their turnover rate is good because their industry's average is 1 or more percentage points higher. Hiring for talent can cut the turnover rate in half within a year and half yet managers prefer to suffer with high turnover. If CEOs knew the total cost, including lower morale and productivity, of high turnover, perhaps they would direct their hiring managers to try something new.

>In the end, good selection is based on matching candidates’ competencies and skills to the particular set of activities an organization needs to have completed or outcomes that need to be achieved.< What about talent? Our clients were and are very good at matching candidates' competencies and skills to the job but they were ineffective at identifying which qualified to be hired job applicants also had the talent for job success. Once they learned to measure talent their hiring success increased.

>These competencies can be identified with a variety of objective tests and properly constructed behavioral interviews.< Talent is assessed in about an hour of the applicant's time.

>Whether someone can answer the manhole question, has a 4.0 GPA, or has gone to Harvard makes no difference at all to potential performance.< I agree but who gets in trouble for hiring a 4.0 GPA candidate or a graduate of a top school? Without new tools managers will continue to hire the old way and will continue to suffer from the same turnover rate and poor job performance of too many new hires.

FYI Manhole covers are round so they can't fall into the manhole while being removed or replaced. Manhole covers weigh 100+ pounds so we don't want to have to lift them from the bottom of a manhole especially the really deep ones.

gately@csi.com