1. Security of assessment content. This includes ensuring that the contents of the test themselves are secure and that test items are not available to people who will be taking the assessment. Addressing these types of concern require several different types of security measures, including the use of technology to secure test content and the use of advance test development techniques to ensure that each person taking the test sees a different set of test questions. Any breech of this type of security can be a major problem, because it will severely limit the predictive value of assessment results.
2. Security of assessment results. This type of security involves ensuring that only authorized individuals are able to gain access to the results of the assessment process. Test results are highly sensitive information and access to them must be controlled. Another issue with this type of security is security that ensures that unauthorized individuals cannot gain access to the test system in order to make changes to the test scores stored within.
3. Misrepresentation of candidate identity. Most of the concerns we usually hear about are related to this type of security. Remote access to assessments has created very real concerns about the ability to ensure that the test taker is who they say they are. At the present time there is no way to offer full remote access to assessments while also providing absolute verification of test-taker identity. This can create real problems for organizations that make important staffing decisions based even partially on test results.
4. Security against candidate faking. This is another type of concern that we hear about rather often. It applies mostly to assessments such as personality tests or work values tests that do not contain objective questions with a clear right or wrong answer. Another facet of this dimension is embellishment (or outright lying) on resumes or other material designed to provide organizations with general background information about a candidate’s qualifications for a specific job. Each of these security problems are a legitimate concern for organizations that plan to use some form of web-based screening or assessment tool. Each can have a major impact on the ability of the assessment to do its job by systematically identifying individuals who have what it takes to succeed at the job they are applying for. Unfortunately, the ramifications of this on the organization using assessments can be disastrous in many ways.

Major outcomes associated with breeches of security can include:

• Mistakes (false positives or false negatives). This means failing to hire an applicant that is actually a good match or hiring one that is actually a bad match. Compromises to security can mean that your organization makes hiring decisions based on inaccurate test results. This situation can be a problem because, as we are all painfully aware, hiring people without the ability required to perform a job can cause problems that extend beyond that individual to others who rely on his or her work in order to do their own jobs.
• Attenuation of assessment ROI. Inaccurate test results can have a major confounding influence on the ability for organizations to measure the outcomes of their hiring processes. Test results that are not truly representative of an applicant’s ability can obscure the real value of an assessment, making it harder for those who believe in the value of assessment to build a business case for its use.
• Inaccurate aggregate data. Any data related to the efficiency or effectiveness of the hiring process can be compromised by security issues. This makes it very difficult for organizations to make effective decisions needed to manage their staffing process on a daily basis.
• Erosion of employment brand. Although we have not seen any examples of this yet, a major testing security breech would be very bad press for an organization. Such a situation could severely disrupt the organization’s ability to attract applicants.
• Potential legal issues. Although there have been no legal issues related to web-based assessment thus far, it is possible that problems with security could lead to any number of legal problems, including lawsuits related to discrimination or applicant privacy, and problems related to the actions of catastrophic hires who should have been weeded out during the hiring process.

The severity of the above outcomes should make it clear that security is an important issue that must be addressed whenever web-based screening and assessment tools are to be used. Still, it is important that one does read too much doom and gloom into our mention of these potential problems. The good news is that there are very solid defense measures available for each of the major types of security problems we have been discussing. In fact, with a little bit of effort, most organizations should be able to create a very effective security plan that ensures the integrity of their online testing and assessment efforts. Some such strategies include:

• Security of assessment content. There are a variety of ways in which test content can be secured against attempts to steal or share questions or answers. Most of the strategies in this area involve mixing up test content so that no two test takers ever get the same exact test. This makes it very hard for those who are using stolen test questions to have an advantage on the test. One way to ensure the rotation of test content is through advanced test construction techniques based on a science called Item Response Theory (or IRT). IRT can be an important part of the creation of tests that use the benefits of technology to adjust the level of difficulty of items to the ability level of the test taker. This means that no two test takers are likely to get the same questions. Although not as complex as computer adaptive testing, the simple randomization of test items also represents an effective way to help secure test content.
• Security of test results. The strategies in this category all deal with technology-based security measures designed to ensure that access to secure information is limited. The same types of tools designed to help provide security for sensitive financial information is available to those wishing to secure the contents of assessment-related databases. These include things such as firewalls, data encryption, and server security. Another good security measure involves the ongoing monitoring of those accessing sensitive databases.
• Misrepresentation of identity. As we noted earlier, this is the security breach that is most commonly associated with online testing. The most common way to guard against this problem involves the administration of assessments in a proctored environment where identity can be verified by a third party. While not foolproof, proctoring is a very good way to ensure that the person taking an assessment is who they say they are. The downside of proctoring is that it does not allow for the full benefits of remote testing. In many online screening and assessment models, organizations wish to collect data remotely before deciding to expend more resources on evaluating a candidate. Organizations wishing to take full advantage of the ability of remote assessment to screen out unqualified individuals do have some options. The most common of these is to build redundancy into their selection process such that the results of initial screening efforts can be verified during later, more intensive testing. This model has been shown to work quite well. Still, organizations wishing to ensure security should consider proctoring. Proctoring is a very effective strategy and research has even shown that it can make a positive difference in how candidates perceive an organization’s hiring process. The logistics of proctoring have been made even easier in the past few years by the willingness of third party organizations, such as Kinko’s or Kaplan Testing Centers, to provide identity verification and proctoring for vendors of online assessments.
• Candidate faking. While it may never be possible to completely eliminate this security problem, there are many things organizations can do to eliminate problems in this area. First of all, the way in which the organization presents the assessment process to the candidate can have a big difference in this area. Organizations should take the time to explain to candidates the value of the assessment for both parties involved and that faking could result in a mismatch that may make an unqualified applicant unhappy when they find they are not able to do their job or that they don’t fit into their work environment. A second type of defense against faking is the use of so called “lie” scales that are built into some assessments. These scales are most commonly included in subjective tests that have no right or wrong answer. They work by presenting questions that are able to detect if a candidate is trying to make themselves look favorable and provide a red flag for hiring personnel.

In our opinion, the best plan for managing security issues is to deploy a layered approach that involves using different security measures that have been designed to address different threats. Because the threats you may face will differ based on the type of assessment you are using and where this assessment fits into your overall hiring process it is important to make sure that your process and the security measures you use to protect it are in sync. Much of the burden for supplying security and security related advice falls on the vendor who is supplying the assessment content. A good vendor should have plans in place to address each of the concerns mentioned in this article and should be able to clearly address each type of concern. In order to help provide a better understanding of how to approach the issue of test security and web based testing, we offer the following tips:

• Identify your security concerns and use them to create a set of security requirements before you begin searching for vendors. It is important to have a good baseline understanding of what security means to your organization and what constraints or requirements your specific environment will place on the use of web based testing. This should not be an afterthought but rather a central part of the development of your hiring process.
• Use security as a part of the vendor selection process. It is important to investigate vendors’ ability to provide you with the security you feel you need. If a vendor is not able to give you peace of mind about the security of their product, move on.
• Ensure security measures are being used appropriately and in sync with your hiring process. For instance, many companies use unproctored testing for more subjective tests (i.e., personality tests) that do not have clear right or wrong answers, and then use proctoring to administer cognitive or knowledge based tests.
• Ensure ongoing monitoring of security. In the age of the Internet, security is an ongoing battle. You can’t rest on your laurels once you have put a system in place. It is critical to provide ongoing monitoring of your security measures to ensure they are up to date and functioning effectively.
• Conduct research help understand how well your investment in security is working. Why not gather some data about how applicants or internal hiring personnel are reacting to your security measures> This type of information may be quite valuable for future security efforts.

While security is a concern, it is not a reason to avoid using online assessments. Rather, a full understanding of security issues that is carefully used to build a layered approach to providing security over both test data and test content is the best approach. Security is also something any good vendor should be able to assist you with. It would be wise to think twice about using any vendor that cannot provide the level of security you feel is required for the piece of mind you need to feel comfortable with web-based testing.

• How do assessments affect the candidate experience?
• Will the use of assessments place me at greater risk for legal action? Are the benefits of assessments worth the risk of litigation?
• What are the security risks associated with the use of online assessment tools? How can these risks be managed?
• Why should I use assessments if I do not even understand what they are?
• Can you prove that assessments really work? Are there any actual examples that demonstrate their value to the bottom line?
• Do assessments “de-humanize” the staffing process? Will the use of technology based assessments replace staffing professionals?
• How can small companies benefit from the use of assessments? Are they too expensive for a small company to use?
• How can I tell which kind of assessment to use and who should provide them to me?
• What role should assessment play in the overall staffing strategy? How can other key HR functions benefit from assessment results?

The goal of these articles is to provide you with information that will help you make greater use of staffing assessments within your organization. Toward this end, we welcome and encourage any questions or concerns you may have regarding the use of staffing assessments. Please send your questions to either Charles (chandler@rocket-hire.com) or Steve (shunt@unicru.com) and we promise to respond either directly or through a future article. Is it idealistic to try to improve the world through improving the quality of staffing decisions? Perhaps. However it is worth remembering the even a single staffing decision may determine if someone’s family gets health care benefits. Whether talking about hiring one person or filling hundreds of thousands of positions, hiring decisions are not decisions to be taken lightly. How did you feel the first time someone offered you a job, or perhaps chose not to? As staffing professionals, perhaps it is through better hiring that we can most effectively do our part to create a better planet. Do Candidates Like Assessments? One objection commonly raised toward the use of assessments is that they may alienate or otherwise offend applicants. Potential users of online assessment tools often express concern that candidates may react negatively to being asked to “take a test” as part of the hiring process. These people fear that assessments might offend or otherwise drive away top performers. Asking candidates to do something they may find unpleasant or invasive might also erode the employment brand that an organization has spent much time and effort to create and promote. Finally, many people feel that negative experiences with assessment tools may increase the likelihood of hiring-related litigation. These are all valid concerns regarding the use of assessments. Our experience suggests that issues related to candidate reactions are often among the most important factors affecting a company’s willingness to use staffing assessment tools. Candidate Attitudes Towards Assessment Tools Over the course of our careers, we have personally administered staffing assessment tools to hundreds of candidates ranging from entry-level hourly employees to senior executives. In our experience, candidate attitudes toward staffing assessments seem to be surprisingly similar regardless of the job level. These attitudes tend to fall into four different groups:

1. The indifferent (the largest group). Most candidates accept assessments as part of the staffing process, and view them as neither good nor bad. It’s just another step in the selection process. If a candidate is really interested in a particular job or organization, they typically do not mind going through some extra steps to ensure their capabilities match the demands of the position.
2. The enthusiastic. Some candidates express positive attitudes toward the use of assessments. They appreciate that the company has put so much thought into making sure candidates are appropriately matched to job opportunities. The use of challenging, job-relevant assessments increases these candidates’ opinions of the company as an organization that knows what it is looking for and that is willing to invest in systematic, thorough processes to maintain its high standards.
3. The anxious. Some candidates, although usually a fairly small group, express high levels of anxiety toward completing assessments. This is most likely to happen when using assessments that remind people of “tests” they took in school. If an ADA issue is likely to be raised, it will often come from candidates in this group (addressing this particular topic is well beyond the scope of this article). Although anecdotal, in our experience the level of anxiety individuals express toward an assessment often has little relationship to their actual performance on the assessment.
4. The annoyed (the smallest group). A few candidates will openly express frustration or annoyance with assessments. These complaints tend to focus on the time needed to complete the assessment, or the lack of job relevance of the assessment questions. These complaints are often associated with the use of personality measures. This could be partially related to the fact that some personality measures contain questions that may not appear to be related to the job for which the applicant is being considered.

Ideally, we would like all candidates taking assessments to end up in the enthusiastic category. However, its probably more realistic to focus on minimizing the number of candidates falling into the annoyed category. Fortunately, there has been a good deal of research into the factors that influence candidate reactions toward assessments. This research provides some useful guidelines for helping ensure assessments are presented in a user friendly manner. The general consensus of research is that candidates tend to react favorably toward assessments if they believe that the assessments are effective and efficient measures of their potential to perform the job. In sum, if you wish to create a positive candidate experience then focus on using assessments that are perceived by candidates as clearly job relevant, interesting and engaging. Unfortunately, it is often the case that the most effective and efficient assessments for predicting job performance are not the most entertaining or openly job relevant. For example, one of the most effective ways to predict the ability to perform jobs that require rapidly learning new tasks and processing information is to give candidate tests of “abstract reasoning ability.” These tests, while very effective, are perceived to be about as fun and job relevant as a college entrance exam. Similarly, while personality tests are among the most effective predictors of “soft skills” that are often critical to job performance, many well-designed personality assessments contain questions that leave candidates shaking their heads and wondering, “Why are they asking me this?” Another approach to ensuring a positive candidate experience is to pay careful attention to how the assessments are presented so that candidates understand, appreciate, and accept their use. This is something that can and should be done for all applications of assessment tools. By providing the following basic experience for candidates, you are likely to greatly increase the number of candidates who end up being enthusiastic about the process while reducing the number who end up in the annoyed category:

• Explain why the organization using assessments. Framing the reasons for using assessments is an important part of the hiring process. We recommend clearly explaining the value of assessments both in terms of their ability to improve staffing decisions and to support more objective, consistent treatment of candidates. Candidates should understand and appreciate that the organization is very concerned about making sure people are placed in jobs that are well suited for their interests and skills. In addition, assessments are a way to ensure that the organization treats all candidates in a fair, accurate, and consistent manner. What applicant could argue with that?
• Explain the reason for using each particular tool. It is very important to explain the reason for using each particular tool that an applicant is asked to complete. Indicate that the tool was chosen based on a thorough analysis of the job and work environment and is designed to focus in on key job relevant knowledge, skills, interests, and abilities. Helping applicants understand the use of a specific assessments relative to job requirements can also provide them with a realistic preview of what they can expect on the job. There has been much research indicating that such realistic previews can have a meaningful impact on turnover and other variables such as organizational commitment.
• Pass the “why are they asking me this?” test. As we mentioned previously, assessments should not leave candidates wondering what the contents of an assessment they are asked to take has to do with the job they are applying for. We recommend carefully reviewing any assessment you are considering to be sure that it is not offensive and has clear relevance to the job of interest. Depending on the assessment you are using, you may even go so far as to admit that the assessment may ask some seemingly odd questions, but that it has been rigorously designed and tested to tap into underlying characteristics and interests that are critical to the job.
• Explain how the results will be used. One of the most critical aspects of fostering understanding around the use of assessment tools involves explaining the role the assessments will play in the hiring decision. As a general guideline, we recommend that you do not say anything that suggests the hiring decision will be solely based on the assessment (i.e., that it’s a “pass/fail” measure). A phrase we often use is that the assessment results are one “piece in the puzzle” that will go into the overall hiring decision. They are an important piece, but just one piece among many.

These guidelines can help companies reduce the number of candidates who react negatively toward assessments. However, it is unlikely to completely eliminate the presence of certain candidates who respond negatively to requests to complete assessments. In these cases companies simply need to make a choice of whether they want to hire someone who is reluctant or unwilling to go through a formal, standardized evaluation process. Of course when someone says they do not want to take an assessment, a natural question that should arise in the mind of staffing decision makers is, “Why, do they have something to hide?” Interestingly, we have found that the strongest criticism of assessments’ effect on the candidate experience often comes from recruiters. Such recruiters appear to advocate what we cynically call the “prima donna” approach toward recruiting. High potential candidates are deemed so valuable that they should not be subjected to any form of rigorous, systematic evaluation during the selection process. Such recruiters often seem more concerned about retaining candidates than they are about making good staffing decisions. This approach seems both illogical and counterproductive given the importance of verifying candidate potential prior to hiring them. Having a recruiter argue against the use of well-designed assessments because they might damage candidate relationships is like having a real estate agent tell a buyer they should not conduct a housing inspection because it might offend the seller. In sum, there are a range of valid questions around how staffing assessment affect the candidate experience. However these questions should not be framed as whether companies should or should not use staffing assessments. Instead these questions should be used to frame discussions to ensure that assessments are used in a way that candidates view them as a positive, effective, and fair method to ensure the job is right for them.

1. Many staffing professionals do not understand how online assessment tools work and are either unaware or skeptical of their value.
2. Not all assessment tools work as advertised, and some of them may not work at all.
3. Staffing assessment vendors are doing a lousy job communicating the difference between assessments whose value has been proven through rigorous empirical research and those whose value is based solely on marketing hype and lots of multi-syllabic, pseudoscientific jargon.

Obstacles #1 and #2 will probably never go away completely. First of all, assessment science is complicated. A well-designed personality assessment that takes 30 minutes to complete can accurately predict how an employee will behave two years later. But designing a measure with this predictive power is not a simple task. The best assessment tools are based on decades of research involving data from thousands of jobs and hundreds of thousands of employees. It is unrealistic to expect staffing professionals to spend the time required to fully understand the intricacies of this research. Second, as long as there is money to be made selling staffing tools, there will be people willing to sell tools that do not work. Most vendors we work with evaluate their assessment tools using a high degree of scientific rigor to make sure they work as promised. Still, this is not the case for all of the vendors we have come in contact with. Obstacle #3 reflects the most promising way to increase the use of staffing assessments in the broader marketplace. Simply put, assessment vendors need to do a much better job providing clients with clear, objective evidence that illustrates the effectiveness of their tools. This requires showing more hard data demonstrating that their assessment tools work as advertised. In the language of assessment science, this data is called “empirical validity.” Empirical validity comes from comparing scores on an assessment with measures of actual employee performance. When it comes to staffing, empirical validity is what really matters. Do not be confused by vendor claims of construct, content, or face validity. While these forms of validity are important, they are trivial compared to empirical validity. Most staffing assessment vendors do a poor job providing evidence of empirical validity. We re-visited the websites of roughly 20 assessment vendors, looking for solid, empirical data demonstrating that their tools work as promised. Of the sites we visited, about 50% contained no hard evidence indicating that their tools actually predict job performance. At best, these sites provided vague client testimonials about the value of their tools or simply claimed that their tools are “scientifically validated” or “proven solutions.” What was particularly frustrating is that we personally know that some of these vendors have masses of empirical validity data for their tools. However, their marketing departments appear to have decided that information demonstrating that their tools actually work is best kept hidden from potential clients. Around 50% of the websites did provide some empirical validity information. This information ranged from being very clear and relevant to being so confusing it was almost comical. The first two examples represent some of the better empirical validity data we found on assessment vendors’ websites. We have removed information that would identify the vendors, and shortened the examples for the sake of brevity. These examples provide the kind of information clients should demand from assessment vendors before engaging them in further contract discussions:

Example 1: A concise summary of empirical validity information “A large international call center organization with locations in over 32 countries had a very high turnover rate. They needed a pre-employment testing tool that would help them identify those individuals who had a productive attitude, were good at persuasion and diplomacy, and liked to work in a structured environment where performance is closely monitored. A complete job analysis was conducted and a large group of call center agents were tested using a custom-developed test battery. The newly developed survey was added to the selection process and launched in all locations. Within four years, turnover had significantly dropped from double digits to 4%. Equally important, productivity also improved. Booked revenue increased significantly over the 12% annual increase goal to no less than 20% on a consistent basis each year.” Example 2: A general summary of empirical validity information. “Studies have shown a direct correlation between assessment scores and on-the-job performance. While high scorers tend to be more productive and dependable and to stay on the job longer, low scorers are more likely to be difficult and unreliable. People who failed the assessment were:

• (in a retail chain) 80% more likely to “let joking friends be a distraction and interruption to work”
• (in a discount chain) 82% more likely to “take an unauthorized break”
• (in a retail chain) 55% more likely to “use a weak excuse to stay home from work”
• (in a discount chain) 56% more likely to “cheat on a timecard by punching in before actually starting work”

The next two examples show some of the more questionable validity information we found on vendor websites. In fairness, we chose these examples to make a point; other parts of these vendors’ sites may contain better information. We are not suggesting that these vendors do not have evidence demonstrating the empirical validity of their tools. However, if they have such evidence, they are not doing a good job communicating it.

Example 3: Huh? “One consistent factor which we have found and have continuously pointed out to clients is that the value patterns that indicate success and, thus, can be validated as predictors, vary between companies, within companies, and within performance areas. Unless the diagnostic patterns measured by the assessment are empirically correlated to those factors that measure success for a specific performance function in an individual company, and in an individual geographical location for that company, the information cannot be reliably used to predict who will and will not succeed.” Example 4: If you can’t blind ‘em with science, baffle ‘em with… “Unlike typical evaluations that are based purely upon a psychological categorization, our assessment is derived from a unique synthesis of brain physiology, Thurstone’s paired-comparison methodology, and the Gestalt Success-Satisfaction framework. Our integration of these methods and assumptions has produced a unique system that goes beyond right-brain/left-brain modalities.”

If you ask an assessment vendor for validity evidence and their reply contains a lot of scientific jargon and very few actual numbers, it’s time to start looking for some other vendors. Every staffing assessment vendor should be able to provide summaries of empirical validity studies that have been conducted to test the value of their tools. These summaries should include the following kinds of technical information:

• The types of jobs used in the studies, and the countries where the studies were conducted
• The number of employees or candidates used in the studies
• Whether each study was predictive or concurrent (i.e., whether the data was collected from current employees or from candidates before they are employed)
• The performance criteria used to validate the assessment (e.g. supervisor ratings of performance, tenure, sales performance, etc.)
• The corrected and uncorrected validity coefficients between employees’ scores on the assessment and employee performance criteria
• If relevant, whether the assessment validity was cross validated against a hold out sample, and, if so, the validity coefficient in the holdout sample
• EEOC statistics indicating potential differences between different demographic groups included in the studies

This information may not make a lot of sense to someone who is not fairly well versed in assessment science. However, any assessment vendor that claims the title of being “scientific” should be able to provide this sort of information. If there is no one in your organization who is able to make sense of validity information, you may want to consider consulting a qualified industrial/organizational psychologist. The money you spend enlisting an outside expert is likely to be negligible compared to the cost of implementing a bogus assessment system. We dream of the day when empirical validity information is readily provided by all assessment vendors using a standard format and link on their websites. Presenting such empirical validity information would go a long way to help clients understand, evaluate, and promote the use of staffing assessments. Furthermore, vendors that are unable to provide this information could be quickly recognized as potentially selling more snake oil than science. As the marriage between assessment tools and hiring technology continues to bear fruit, the role of empirical data will become increasingly important. The assessment systems of the future will rely on streams of real-time data to help companies gain precise metrics regarding many different aspects of their hiring process. As the value of data collected during the hiring process increase, it will become harder for vendors of bogus products to pull the wool over the eyes of their customers. Until this time, the mantra should remain, “buyer beware.”

• Decreasing access to quality candidates
• Systematically hiring the wrong people
• Missing the opportunity to hire A players
• Undermining managers’ sense of responsibility toward hiring successful employees

These problems can be fairly subtle, and the organization may have little awareness of their effects until after considerable damage has already been done. This article discusses these risks in more detail and provides guidelines for managing and avoiding them. The Risk of Choosing the Wrong System The most effective web-enabled staffing systems represent a complex blend of technology and assessment science. The complexity of these systems becomes even greater when they are used to support hourly staffing for positions located in geographically dispersed stores or locations. Myriad considerations need to be made when choosing a staffing assessment vendor. These range from relatively obvious considerations, such as the system price, to more complex and subtle considerations, such as the stability of technology platform and the skills and stability of the vendor’s consulting and customer service team. In our experience, the greatest areas of risk when choosing an hourly staffing system tend to fall into the following three areas:

• Appropriate assessment design. Hourly staffing systems vary considerably in terms of their ability to predict different behaviors that influence hourly job performance. One of the most frequent mistakes people make is the tendency to focus exclusively on systems that predict tenure without considering whether the people being hired are more effective. Selecting on tenure alone is a good way to create a workforce of mediocre employees who never leave. This is hardly what we would characterize as an ideal staffing strategy. When considering hourly staffing systems, look for vendors who demonstrate an in-depth understanding of hourly job performance and whose systems are designed to predict key behaviors that drive high performance in hourly jobs. Avoid vendors who focus primarily on increasing staffing efficiency (e.g., time to hire, cost per hire) and who give little attention to predicting the actual employee behaviors that determine job success. Lastly, do not simply take a vendor’s word that their system predicts superior performance. Ask them for data that clearly illustrates how the use of their system improves bottom line organizational performance.
• System usability. The staffing of hourly jobs is often done by first-line supervisors or store managers. These hiring managers frequently work in remote locations or stores with little direct support from other corporate functions. Hourly staffing systems must be highly intuitive, so that these people can use them with little to no assistance. Learning how to use hourly staffing systems should require minimal training, particularly if there are relatively high levels of turnover among the hiring managers who are going to use them. Make sure the vendor can provide adequate customer-service support to answer questions from hiring managers that will invariably occur after the system has been deployed.
• Technology. A variety of innovative technologies have been used to automate the hourly staffing process. Examples include interactive voice response (IVR) applications using 1-800 numbers, fax-back reporting of assessment results to managers, and in-store kiosk, notebook, and phone-screen computers to support walk-in job applicants. Each of these technologies offers it own unique strengths. They also all pose their own unique brand of challenges and obstacles. If you are interested in using one of these technologies, try to work with vendors who have considerable experience with similar technological applications. Also be prepared to work out the wide range of bugs, problems, and other technological hiccups that will invariably occur during deployment.

The best way to avoid problems associated with choosing the wrong system is to use a thorough and well-structured request for proposal (RFP) process. This process includes the following basic steps:

1. Make sure the RFP clearly lays out your needs and operational constraints. The RFP should detail specific operational, technological, and financial requirements. It should also address concerns and requirements related to the impact of assessments on the organization’s employment brand.
2. Send RFPs to the right potential vendors. There are over 60 assessment companies currently in the market, each with its own unique capabilities. Make sure you contact the ones that can offer the most appropriate solutions for your needs. A bit of homework at this stage of the game will help ensure you don’t waste your time talking to vendors who are not able to meet your specific needs.
3. Use a well-structured process to review the RFPs you receive. It is particularly critical to involve people from different areas of your organization in the review. Key stakeholders may include members of operations, information technology, line human resources, and staffing. You may also want to involve your legal department to make sure they are comfortable with the proposed solutions. It is also a good idea to have at least one person on the team who understands how to evaluate the scientific design and validity of assessment tools you may be considering.

The Risk of Negatively Impacting Applicant Flow Any time you change the steps candidates complete to apply for a job, you should consider how this will affect the flow of applicants into your organization. Online staffing systems are generally praised (and sometimes cursed) for increasing the number of applications companies receive in response to job postings. However, hourly job applicants represent a relatively unique group of job seekers. Hourly job applicants have traditionally applied by simply walking into the place where they want to work and requesting a job application. They often fill out the application on the spot, and may even be hired during the same visit. Introducing staffing automation can substantially change this process, particularly if it requires applicants to go online to apply via the web. One of us recently spoke with several recruiting and operations managers about what would happen if applicants for their hourly retail store positions had to apply online outside of the store, instead of completing an onsite application. This prompted us to search for data that might shed light on this issue. Our search led us to David Scarborough, Ph.D. David oversees the data analytics for Unicru, a company with a long history of providing hourly staffing systems. Dr. Scarborough shared several interesting statistics that relate to the importance of allowing hourly candidates to apply on-site. Here is what he found:

• Analysis of over two million hourly applications revealed that two out of three applicants live within five miles of the work location. This suggests that most hourly candidates do literally “walk in” to apply for jobs, and that requiring applicants to apply off-site could substantially decrease applicant flow.
• Additional analysis of 180,000 employees drawn from across 43 companies revealed that 87% of hourly employees live within 10 miles of their place of work. This suggests that one of the critical things that is important to hourly employees is convenience. Hourly employees are unlikely to tolerate long commuting distances between home and work. This suggests that efforts to use the Internet to share hourly candidate pools across locations and promoting “cross town” hiring could lead to higher turnover levels. In essence, hourly hiring practices should encourage recruiting applicants from the communities close to where they will be working.

We also came across another study relevant to the issue of using the web to hire hourly candidates. A 2003 study conducted by Pew Research reveals that over 40% of people in the United States still do not use the Internet. Furthermore, minorities tend to use the Internet significantly less than non-minorities. Taken together, these statistics suggest that switching from a process that allows “walk in” job applications to one that requires people to access the web on their own is likely to lead to a loss of candidates, and may also disproportionately decrease the number of minority applicants. In sum, removing the ability of hourly applicants to apply for jobs on-site may have considerable negative affects on the level and diversity of applicant flow. To avoid these negative effects, make sure your staffing process does not require hourly applicants to access the Internet on their own outside of your work location. Efforts to automate the hourly staffing process should utilize one of the many available technologies that support onsite applications. These range from fax-back systems for processing paper-and-pencil application blanks to in-store kiosks and phone screening. Which technology makes the most sense will depend on your companies unique needs and constraints. Decreasing Hiring Manager Responsibility The final risk we want to note is the danger that automated staffing systems pose to hiring managers’ sense of “felt responsibility” over the hiring system. It is common for hiring managers to react negatively to automated staffing systems. At best, this negative reaction takes the form of hiring managers refusing to use the system. At worst, it results in hiring managers abdicating responsibility for hiring quality employees, instead simply blaming the staffing system for any staffing mistakes. To avoid these problems it is important to educate hiring managers on the strengths and limitations of the system, explain why it is being used and how it can help them, and actively respond to any questions and concerns they may have about the system’s effectiveness. Also, make sure that the system is not presented to hiring managers as “doing the staffing for them.” Ultimate responsibility for recruiting and hiring quality employees must remain with the hiring manager. One client addressed this concern during deployment by stating that the staffing system was not intended to decrease the total time hiring managers put into staffing, but was instead designed to ensure that this time was used more effectively for recruiting and screening the best talent. We want to conclude by re-emphasizing our strong support for automating hourly staffing processes. Although the risks identified here are real and significant, they can all be overcome through paying attention to the design and deployment of the staffing system. In the end, the benefit automated staffing systems have on hiring efficiency and quality of hires far more than outweighs the manageable dangers posed by these risk.

• Hourly jobs tend to be associated with large staffing volumes.
• Hourly jobs usually have relatively high turnover.
• Because they involve either the creation of products or direct customer contact, hourly workers can have a huge impact customer satisfaction and business productivity.

In the past, these issues, particularly the high volume associated with hourly staffing, tended to make staffing these positions problematic. However, technology has now made it much easier for organizations to create value with their hourly staffing processes. This two-part article series reviews the use of technology-enabled staffing methods to support hourly hiring. Part 1 describes some of the advantages that can be gained from automating hourly staffing practices. Part 2 (to be run next month) will call attention to potential risks associated with automating hourly hiring processes. All of these risks are surmountable, but they are things you will want to actively manage as you migrate from a manual to a technology-enabled hourly hiring process. Hourly assessment systems tend to contribute to company performance in three basic ways. 1. Increased profits. Automating the hiring process for hourly employees can contribute directly to a company’s bottom line. This can be done through increasing the quality of hires, as well as leveraging other unique opportunities afforded by automation. Consider the following examples:

• RadioShack found that the use of a web-supported staffing-assessment process for hourly workers was associated with an increase in revenue of about $10 per hour per employee. This translates to an annual revenue increase of over $12,000 per part-time hourly employee.
• Many hourly hires are eligible for Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). This is a government program that provides companies with up to a $2400 tax credit for hiring individuals who meet certain qualifications. By using an hourly hiring system that automated the WOTC application process, one call-center company qualified for $800,000 worth of additional tax credit over a three-year period. The WOTC credit alone more than paid for the cost of the entire assessment system.

2. Decreased staffing costs. The number and turnover of hourly positions found in many organizations often places managers in a position of having to constantly focus on supplying new talent to fill existing vacancies. Many front-line managers spend more than 20% of their time at work reviewing applications, interviewing candidates, and training new employees. Even small reductions in this time can create enormous financial gains. Web-based staffing methods deliver these gains by automating many aspects of the hiring process. Furthermore, the use of systems with scientifically designed assessments can significantly reduce turnover, thereby drastically lowering the money and time spent selecting, hiring and training new employees. For example:

• Sherwin-Williams estimates that its use of automated assessment tools reduced the number of employment interviews conducted each year by more than 5,000.
• Kroger Grocery stores saw a 25% reduction in turnover following deployment of an automated staffing system to support hourly hiring. This translated into 25% less time spent reviewing candidates, not to mention the decreased administrative and training costs required for newly hired employees.

3. Reduced operating costs. Most hourly jobs have considerable operating costs associated with things such as training, inventory loss (shrink), and workplace safety. Web-based staffing systems can significantly decrease these costs by using advanced assessment tools that more accurately identify and filter candidates based on key job-relevant characteristics. For example:

• A metropolitan transit company found that the use of web-based assessments led to an 84% reduction in health-and-safety-related compensation claims among bus drivers.
• A casualty insurance company implemented an automated staffing assessment and found that the passing rate in their three-week new employee training course increased dramatically. This translated into a reduction in training costs equal to several hundred thousand dollars a year.

The case examples listed above are only a fraction of the examples we have found that illustrate the substantial benefits of using automated staffing assessment tools to support hourly staffing. In addition to financial benefits, such as the ones listed above, automating the hourly hiring process also improves an organization’s ability to control and standardize its hiring practices. The result is a more consistent and scientific approach toward staffing. This can lead to a variety of additional benefits ó ranging from the ability to apply continuous improvement techniques to increase staffing effectiveness, to the ability to decrease the use of biased and potentially illegal hiring methods often used by front-line supervisors and store managers. We want to make it clear that not all web-based hiring systems will lead to these results. It is critical to select staffing systems and assessment tools that are appropriately designed and scientifically validated to support your organization’s unique hiring needs. Always remember that truly effective staffing systems do not simply increase the speed of hiring, they also improve the quality of people hired. In Part 2 we will talk a bit more about how to manage some of the specific risks associated with automating hourly staffing processes.

• Emphasize the strengths of pre-screening. Pre-screening can efficiently screen out applicants who admit to lacking job relevant skills, experiences, or qualifications. This can reduce applicant pools by 50% or more, which is a tremendous value when dealing with large volumes of candidates. Pre-screening can also be effective for finding candidates who possess highly specific and unique qualifications (e.g. speaking Inuit or having experience using a tunneling microscope). These are the main reasons for using pre-screening. Mention them early and often.
• Recognize the limitations of pre-screening. While pre-screening questions can identify applicants who lack job qualifications, they have limited value for actually predicting job performance. Just because a candidate says they have certain skills, that’s little guarantee they are truly skilled. If it was possible to identify top candidates by asking them a few simple questions about skills and experiences we would have been using tools like this for years. Simply placing these questions on the Internet does not give them some magical power to evaluate candidate potential. Companies that expect pre-screening questions to effectively identify the top 10% of candidates are probably setting themselves up for disappointment. The main purpose of pre-screening is to remove the bottom half of the applicant pool, not sort the top half.
• Pre-screening is only as good as the questions. Writing good pre-screening questions takes a lot of work. Hiring managers or recruiters must be able to determine what requirements drive job success and be able to create questions to determine if applicants meet these requirements. This is not a trivial task. Make sure hiring managers know that they will have to do a fair bit of upfront work if they are to reap the benefits of pre-screening. We feel this is a weakness for many screening vendors. While they may provide excellent tools for asking questions, they often fail to do the post-sale work and analysis required to ensure the questions being asked are the right ones.
• Emphasize pre-screening as one part of the staffing process. The purpose of pre-screening is to make high-level decisions about applicants’ general qualifications early in the staffing process. While pre-screening questions are an excellent first step for narrowing down the number of applicants, they are not suited for determining which applicants are the best fit for a particular job. Nor will they guarantee that the right applicants are applying in the first place. Communicate pre-screening as one step in a larger staffing process that includes using appropriate sourcing methods prior to pre-screening, and use other forms of assessment and interviewing techniques to evaluate candidates who pass pre-screening. Category 2: Selecting a Pre-Screening Vendor During the process of writing our review of assessment vendors, we identified over 20 companies who provide tools for pre-screening. There tends to be relatively few differences between these vendors in terms of the look and feel of their pre-screening questions. However, there are major differences when it comes to the technology used to support these questions, the emphasis placed on ensuring that pre-screening questions are valid and effective, and the ability of their systems to support other forms of assessment in addition to pre-screening. Price also varies widely, from less than $10,000 for simple, standalone systems to well over $100,000 for enterprise applicant tracking systems. Which vendor is the “best” will depend on the unique needs of your company. No matter what your situation, we feel that the following guidelines can help you to better evaluate potential pre-screen vendors:
• Does the vendor focus on quantity or quality? The ultimate goal of staffing is to make good hires as efficiently as possible. It is not to make bad hires quickly. When evaluating pre-screen vendors, ask how they measure the value of their system. Note whether their response emphasizes measures of staffing volume (e.g., number of candidates processed) or measures of new hire performance (e.g., performance ratings, retention). Vendors who focus primarily on staffing volume may offer little help to ensure that the candidates you are screening in are truly the best performers.
• Does the vendor effectively integrate assessment and information technology? Robust technology platforms are critical for effective use of pre-screening. Make sure you involve your IT department early in the vendor selection process. At the same time, remember that the ultimate goal is to hire better employees and not simply to get a system that is easy for your IT department to support. In other words, do not put the technological cart before the application horse.
• Does the vendor support alternative forms of assessment? Pre-screening should be one of several assessment tools used to support staffing. A variety of other assessment tools such as knowledge tests and culture fit measures can also be used early in the staffing process to complement pre-screening. Look for vendors whose systems integrate and support these tools in addition to prescreening questions. Category 3: Writing Questions Perhaps the single biggest challenge to using pre-screening is developing effective pre-screen questions. Most pre-screening vendors leave it to the client to determine which questions to ask. Consequently, you need to clarify the process for developing questions prior to choosing a vendor. This requires determining who will be involved in writing or choosing the questions and what steps will be taken to ensure these questions are job relevant, legal, and effective. The following guidelines can help with this process:
• Focus on specific, verifiable skills and experiences. As a rule, assume that candidates will always respond positively to a question if they feel they can justify or rationalize their answer. Most candidates would probably prefer to be eliminated during an interview than by a computer, and if this means stretching the truth to pass pre-screening than so be it. The best way to counter this is to ask very specific questions about what candidates clearly have or have not done. For example, rather than asking if someone is an “expert in Excel”, ask them if they have “written Excel macros.” Instead of asking if candidates have “managed people,” ask if they have been “responsible for making hiring and promotion decisions.”
• Ensure all questions are job relevant. The #1 way to ensure the legal defensibility of any component of your hiring process is to establish clear links between hiring criteria and specific aspects of job performance. It is critical to demonstrate direct relationships between the content of pre-screening questions and job requirements. This is especially true if you are using questions to eliminate applicants from the candidate pool. Do not simply put in questions because people want to ask them. Challenge hiring managers to explain why the skills and experiences addressed by these questions are critical to job performance.
• Ensure questions are not offensive or illegal. Make sure that questions do not violate any EEOC regulations and that they will not seem offensive to applicants. Be wary of letting hiring managers write their own questions unless they are well versed in EEOC hiring guidelines. It is easy to write apparently job relevant but potentially illegal questions. Avoid writing offensive questions by making sure that questions do not leave applicants wondering, “Why are they asking me this?”
• Focus on “high impact” questions. The goal of pre-screening is to remove the maximum number of unqualified applicants with the minimum number of questions. Avoid questions that are answered the same way by the majority of candidates, as these provide little value for distinguishing between candidates. Also avoid questions that reflect “nice to have” concepts instead of critical skills and qualifications. For example, some pre-screening vendors recommend asking if candidates are interested in using certain skills. However, a wealth of personnel research indicates that being interested in a task has relatively little relationship with actual task performance. Furthermore, when we analyzed pre-screening responses we found that almost every candidate who indicated their skill level to be intermediate or higher also expressed a medium to high level of interest using the skill. What this suggests is that little useful information is gained by asking about interests. In general, limit the focus of pre-screen questions to specific experiences and requirements, and use other more in-depth assessments to get at soft skills like motives, interests and competencies.
• Be consistent. It is critical that every applicant for a given position be asked the same pre-screen questions. Consistency is important for establishing legal defensibility. Using screening inconsistently will also reduce the effectiveness of your hiring process. Do not allow managers or recruiters to change pre-screening questions after a requisition has been posted. Category 4: Scoring and Interpreting Candidate Responses The best pre-screening questions can be rendered meaningless or even harmful if the responses to the questions are not appropriately interpreted. This requires establishing effective methods for evaluating and scoring candidate responses. The following are a few guidelines to consider in this area:
• Assign scores carefully. Many pre-screening systems allow you to assign scores or points to different applicant responses. Most also let you create “knockout” questions where applicants who do not give the right response are disqualified from the candidate pool. Make sure that you carefully think through how these scores are used, particularly knockout questions. Test different scoring options by comparing scores received by candidates with other information you may have about them (e.g., resumes, interview results). Make sure that the scores accurately reflect key job demands and requirements and are not overly rewarding candidates who have job relevant but somewhat trivial experiences. If you are using pre-screening to place candidates into discrete groups based on qualifications, look at EEOC statistics to ensure you are not disproportionately eliminating candidates from certain protected groups. The advantage of scoring pre-screening is that it allows you to automatically sort through large numbers of candidates. The risk is that it lets you rapidly duplicate mistakes.
• The highest scores are not always the best. Our research indicates that candidates that get the highest pre-screen scores are often overqualified, are more willing to “stretch the truth” in their responses, or have job relevant skills but non-job relevant experience (e.g., an IT professional applying for a administrative job on the basis of his/her knowledge of MS office software). Do not assume a one-to-one correspondence between pre-screening scores and performance potential.
• Do not rely too heavily on pre-screening to evaluate candidates. Pre-screening is good for evaluating whether candidate meet the minimum requirements of a job. However, other forms of assessments such as interviews and personality or ability measures should be used to make more fine-tuned judgments about a candidate’s true performance potential. This is particularly true for assessing competencies associated with motivation, expertise, interpersonal style, and other “soft” skills.
• Monitor the effectiveness of questions. Establish processes to track whether your prescreening questions are screening out appropriate numbers of applicants and to determine if the applicants being screened in are the “right” candidates. If large numbers of unqualified applicants are appearing at the later stages of your hiring process, then try to determine what your screening questions are missing. Conversely, make sure the questions are effectively identifying qualified candidates. Metrics that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of pre-screening include interview-to-hire ratios, new hire performance and retention, relationships between question responses and resume quality, and question response frequencies. Note that the primary focus of these metrics is on candidate quality, not quantity. The above guidelines address the major risks and advantages of pre-screening we uncovered through our study of pre-screening. While using pre-screening and following these guidelines won’t guarantee great hires, it will greatly reduce the time you lose dealing with clearly unqualified applicants.

• Statistical analysis of pre-screening data collected from several thousand candidates applying for a variety of professional and hourly jobs at a Fortune 500 company
• Discussions with recruiters and other staffing professionals who use pre-screening tools to staff exempt and non-exempt positions
• Relevant research reported in sources such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and the Society of Industrial & Organizational Psychology.

Having spent considerable time poring over a variety of data on pre-screening, we feel we can now confidently answer the question, does pre-screening lead to more effective hiring? The answer is a resounding “sometimes.” The purpose of this two-part article series is to share the results of our study and provide guidance on how to effectively use pre-screening as an assessment method. In this installment, we critique eight widely promoted “half-truths” about pre-screening. These represent common, but only partially substantiated, claims that are often made by pre-screening vendors. Next month’s installment will provide some suggested best practices for effectively using pre-screening tools. We call these statements half-truths because they represent things about pre-screening that, while not completely false, are not totally true either. They are perhaps best thought of as risks that need to be acknowledged and managed when implementing pre-screening systems Half-Truth #1: Pre-screening is simple and easy to use. First of all, it can be very difficult to write good pre-screen questions. Hiring managers are notoriously poor at identifying job requirements, let alone writing effective questions for assessing these requirements. Secondly, it is very difficult to write pre-screen questions that validly assess less tangible “soft” skills, such as ambition, work ethic, customer service, or innovation. As a result, pre-screening tends to have very limited utility for jobs where performance depends primarily on soft skills as opposed to specialized skills, knowledge, or qualifications. This is an important consideration, because the effectiveness of any pre-screening initiative is entirely dependent on the quality of the questions used. As they say in the computer industry: garbage in, garbage out. Our work with companies implementing pre-screening suggests that the learning curve for these systems can often exceed six months. One leading vendor indicated that learning to use their pre-screening system requires “a full day of training followed by regular, one-on-one coaching sessions for a month.” In other words, these are not simply “plug and play” tools. Half-Truth #2: Pre-screening identifies the best candidates. Pre-screening can effectively eliminate candidates who clearly lack key job qualifications. While pre-screening is effective for screening out the “bottom half” of the candidate pools, pre-screening tools lack the accuracy needed to differentiate between “great” candidates and those that are merely acceptable. It is not uncommon for the majority of qualified candidates to receive nearly identical pre-screening scores. Often the differences in pre-screening scores between candidates scoring at the 90th percentile and those scoring at the 60th percentile will depend on responses to one or two questions. These questions end up having a major impact on a candidate’s overall pre-screen ranking, even though the questions may be relatively weak indicators of actual candidate potential. For example, we found that the main difference between top scoring candidates and candidates scoring at the 75th percentile for one pre-screening questionnaire depended primarily on how candidates rated their knowledge of a single software system. While this question was job relevant, it was not considered to be a “make or break” question. The bottom line is that while pre-screening can help eliminate those applicants who are unqualified, it does not do a good job at identifying which of the remaining candidates are the most qualified. Half-Truth #3: Pre-screening is not affected by candidates “faking” their responses. It should come as little surprise that candidates often respond in an overly favorable manner when asked to rate their knowledge, skills, and experience as part of a job application. Many candidates would rather be eliminated during an interview with an actual person than to be automatically screened out by a machine. If this means stretching the truth and indicating that they had “extensive management experience” even if though it was informally as a team leader, so be it. After all, what constitutes extensive experience and expertise is largely a matter of perspective. One of the main problems with faking is that those candidates who do respond in an open and candid manner are likely to receive much lower scores than candidates who stretch the truth. Half-Truth #4: Pre-screening allows you to increase the quality of candidates by “raising the bar.” One of the supposed benefits of pre-screening is that it lets you effectively manage large numbers of candidates by allowing you to “raise the bar” so that you only look at the top candidates. This benefit might be true if it were not for the problems raised by half-truths #2 and #3. While pre-screening tools can always be used to eliminate candidates, there is often little guarantee they are eliminating the right candidates when they are used to screen out candidates at the upper end of the candidate pool. Several recruiters we spoke to even indicated that the best candidates are often not those with the highest scores, but those falling roughly between the 50th and 85th percentiles. These candidates tend to be the most candid and realistic about their skills and experiences. In contrast, candidates with the highest scores often appear to be “faking” their responses and to lack accurate insight into their strengths and weaknesses, or else they tend to be overqualified for the position. Half-Truth #5: Pre-screening questions are more effective than resume reviews. Another supposed benefit of pre-screening is that it can save recruiters from having to spend long hours reading through resumes. This is true insofar as pre-screening questions can automatically screen out resumes from candidates who lack certain specific job requirements. However, recruiters still need to read through the resumes of the 50% or so of the remaining candidates who meet the minimum job requirements. We would argue that including some level of resume review is actually a good thing. Unlike pre-screen questions that ask candidates to respond to questions about their skills, resumes reflect how candidates proactively describe themselves. This is an important difference, since how we describe ourselves on our own is different from how we describe ourselves in response to questions from others. Resumes allow candidates to provide more enriched and unique descriptions of their skills and experiences as they see themselves. Half-Truth #6: Pre-screening is not a form of selection. We once heard a pre-screening vendor make the following statement: “Our system is not a selection system and does not need to be held to the same standards as tools used to make selection decisions. We simply use pre-screening to place applicants into two groups, those you want to look at and those you don’t.” What this vendor failed to acknowledge (or perhaps did not want to acknowledge) is that removing applicants from the candidate pool and placing them in a group that will not be considered for potential hire is equivalent to making a selection decision for those candidates. Although there is still legal discussion around what constitutes an “applicant,” we would argue that any pre-screening system that places applicants into different groups based on whether they are considered to be high or low potential candidates is functioning as a selection system, and should be held to the same legal standards and guidelines as any other selection instrument. It may be possible to implement pre-screening tools so that they do not need to be treated as a formal selection tools. This requires using pre-screening purely as a way to prioritize recruiting efforts, without specifically labeling candidates as “qualified” or “unqualified.” The easiest way to do this is to rank order candidates based on the pre-screening reports and simply work down the list reviewing candidates until you identify those you wish to pursue further. Note that this approach has the same basic effect as eliminating low scoring applicants since it is unlikely you will get that far down the list before finding some potentially suitable candidates to hire. However, it never specifically labels candidates as ineligible for hire, and thus the system never actually makes a selection decision. Half-Truth #7: Candidates do not mind answering pre-screening questions. Research clearly indicates that candidates are willing to answer fairly lengthy sets of pre-screening questions. However, this does not mean that candidates necessarily like these questions. The candidates we have talked to recognize why pre-screening tools are used and are willing to enter data into these systems. In general, we expect that candidate reactions to pre-screening systems are likely to depend on the same things that influence candidate reactions to any selection tool: ease of use, questions that are clearly job relevant and easy to answer, and timely and meaningful feedback on the status of their application. Half-Truth #8: Pre-screening leads to better hiring decisions. Pre-screening will almost always reduce the time needed to process candidates. However, there are many reasons why pre-screening may not necessarily lead to better hires. In order for pre-screening to increase the chances of hiring the right candidates, careful attention must be made to ensuring the system is appropriately designed and deployed. This means attending to the various risks highlighted earlier in this article. Unfortunately, many pre-screening vendors focus far more on staffing efficiency as opposed to staffing effectiveness. As one staffing manager told us, many pre-screening systems were designed by people who have a background in supply-chain automation. These vendors focus more on volume of product moved than actual quality. It’s as though they believe that the value of a staffing system should be measured in terms of kilos of candidates placed, with little attention given to the actual performance of candidates after they have been hired. Although this article admittedly has a very critical tone toward pre-screening, we are not suggesting that companies should abandon the use of pre-screening tools. To the contrary, we are strong advocates of pre-screening as an effective method for identifying talent provided the tools are rigorously designed and effectively used. Pre-screening will almost always increase the ability of recruiters to efficiently process large quantities of candidates. However, it may not lead to more effective identification of high-quality candidates. In fact, poorly implemented pre-screening tools can systematically screening out the best candidates, leaving a “pre-screened” pool of candidates who are largely inexperienced, insincere, or both. This risk is compounded by the variety of pre-screening vendors who have proven themselves ready and willing to sell their systems to clients without actually testing whether their tools actually lead to better hiring decisions. In the next installment, we will provide some specific guidelines and best practices for effective use of pre-screening.

• Off the shelf. By definition, SAs are an “off-the-shelf” solution. The vendor is selling a tool that has been designed to be used with little or no customization for a wide range of jobs. The advantages is that SAs can usually be deployed quickly, and with relatively low costs compared to more customized solutions. The disadvantage is they are likely to be less efficient and effective than solutions that are configured for a specific job and organization. Much of the assessment content in an SA may focus on candidate characteristics that are less relevant for the particular position you are staffing, thus reducing efficiency.
• Multi-use. One of the nice things about many SAs is that they are designed to be used in a variety of different ways. For example, many SAs provide reports to support both candidate selection and employee development. This is useful for fully leveraging the value of data collected during the staffing process and for fostering alignment between staffing and development practices. The disadvantage is that many SAs were primarily designed to support one function (e.g. selection), and are not particularly well-suited for other uses. Although they can provide support for other uses, these alternative applications are “secondary” to their primary purpose and it shows.
• One size fits all. Most SAs are designed to predict relatively “typical” job behaviors so that they can be used with as many jobs as possible. As a result, the more unique the job, the less effective an SA is likely to be for predicting its performance. This is perhaps one of the main limitations of SA solutions. Although they may predict performance for a lot of jobs to some degree, they may not predict performance in any one job very well. Many vendors attempt to address this by providing some ability to customize the scoring or reports used by their SA. However, there are often serious limitations to these customization efforts, since they typically do not involve changing the actual content of the assessment tool itself. It’s like trying to tailor an off-the-rack suit: when you cannot change the basic material and design of the suit, there are serious limits to what you can accomplish by changing the hem line.
• Are the old ways the best? Many of the SAs on the market have been around for years, and have had relatively few substantial revisions to the basic design of their assessment tools. We have seen SA content that has been in use for over 40 years. On one hand, this content has well-demonstrated validity ó in this sense one might argue, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” On the other hand, there have been substantial advances in the design of staffing assessments over the past 30 years. Just because something isn’t broken, that does not mean that it’s working as well as it might.
• Over interpretation. While SAs can provide valuable information for guiding staffing decisions, there is a risk of managers over-interpreting the test results. This risk is increased by the tendency of some vendors to take an almost evangelical stance when talking about the accuracy of their SAs for gaining insight into people’s underlying capabilities. Providing SAs that claim to provide a comprehensive view of all candidates regardless of the job can lead to hiring managers disengaging from the hiring process and instead letting the assessment tool do the thinking for them. The result is reduced effectiveness, felt responsibility, and accountability for making good hiring decisions.
• Accepting the ideology. Several SAs on the market are based on broad, underlying theories of human behavior. Deploying these SAs may include educating hiring managers on these theories as “the way” to think about employee behavior. We have seen cases where the use of an SA has literally changed how hiring managers think and talk about people. Instead of using adjectives to describe employees, they talk about them in terms of test scores. Although it does feel a bit like “Brave New World,” this is not necessarily a bad thing ó assuming the theory behind the SA is sound. However, many of the theories that form the foundation of SAs have not been widely tested or accepted by those doing high quality employee selection research. By using these SAs you may be asking your company to adopt a way of thinking about people that is really more a reflection of one test developer’s beliefs as opposed to well-tested principles of human behavior.
• Consulting support. Many SA vendors are relatively small companies. As a result, SAs are often sold using independent resellers in different geographic regions. The advantage of local resellers is that they can often provide high levels of personalized support at a fraction of the consulting costs that are charged by larger assessment companies. The disadvantage is that local resellers are often “test salespeople” who lack the expertise and knowledge that consultants from larger assessment companies usually have. In several cases, we have found ourselves talking to SA resellers who know less about how their test actually works than we do.

Few vendors would actually label their product as an SA solution, even though we would argue that being an SA vendor is neither a good or bad thing. When you start looking for SA vendors it does become readily apparent which assessment companies fall into this category. In our “Rocket-Hire Buyer?s Guide to Web-Based Screening & Staffing Assessment Systems” (http://www.rocket-hire.com/buyersguide/index.html) over 10 of the vendors we included could be placed into the SA category. SAs can be effective if you are interested in getting something up and running quickly with relatively little upfront costs. They are likely to be particularly attractive to smaller organizations with a wide variety of jobs but relatively low hiring volumes. However, use of SAs should be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism. Many SA vendors have a tendency to oversell the value of their tools, and care should be taken to make sure the SA does what it is marketed as doing. Don’t assume that just because an SA produces a report listing a certain job title that it actually predicts performance for that kind of job. As with all assessment solutions, ask the vendor for empirical studies demonstrating the validity of their tools. Also ask them to describe the limitations and risks of their SA. And when listening to their answer, remember the saying, “Something designed to do everything often does nothing well.”

• It creates extra work for parties on both sides. Why make candidates spend their time sifting through jobs that don’t even come close to matching their skills, experience, or interest? Why should recruiters have to waste their time sifting through piles of unqualified resumes? Why should your organization have to pay to screen out candidates who should have been filtered out at an earlier stage in the hiring process? The legacy of inefficient sourcing is an increased burden on the entire downstream hiring process.
• It facilitates resume spam. When a search provides a candidate with a job posting, it seems likely that the candidate will often feel they are somehow qualified for the job. After all, the job board told them they are a good match for it. Providing applicants with job postings for which they are not qualified leads them to take pot shots at these jobs ó we all know what the end result of this is.
• It does not help pre-load the funnel with qualified applicants. The whole objective of the staffing process it to fill the funnel with qualified applicants. Unqualified applicants only make this process more time consuming and expensive. The more efficiency you can provide in the very earliest phases of the hiring process, the easier it is to build an applicant pool that contains only qualified applicants. Statistically speaking, this provides you with a much greater chance of making a good hiring decision.
• It is not closely related to key drivers of job performance. Keyword searching and vague drop-downs provide very little ability to actually predict job performance. The whole hiring process is based on the prediction of future job performance, so why begin with tools that do a poor job of accomplishing this mission? The more predictive your sourcing tools are and the sooner you use them, the more efficient your entire process will become.

So, the status quo among job boards presents a need for the refinement of the sourcing paradigm. While there are a variety of possible ways to accomplish this, very few job boards have actually made any steps towards doing so. We feel that reaping the rewards of moving beyond the status quo is going to require some forward thinking. In the process of writing our “Buyers Guide to Web-Based Screening and Staffing Assessment Systems” (visit www.rocket-hire.com for more details), we came across three companies that we feel provide this kind of forward thinking by providing upfront tools that help route applicants to jobs for which they are actually qualified. While each of these companies has a slightly different take on how to do this, they all provide tools that can help add increased efficiency to your online hiring process. Redmatch Redmatch primarily targets newspapers; however, they can power any job board or career portal. Although Redmatch offers a variety of services surrounding their proprietary matching technology, their core system offers the following three services:

1. Reciprocal matching. The candidate enters her detailed profile and preferences and the employer enters their job definition. Redmatch’s proprietary matching technology computes the strength of the match between candidate profiles and employer job requirements, and only if there is a match between these definitions do the employer and candidates see each other and communicate. A further qualifying step occurs when a matched candidate applies for a job. At that point, the system performs a “gap analysis” between the candidate’s reported skills and the job requirements. The candidate is presented with questions about her missing skills to make sure that the skills were not omitted by mistake. The candidate’s profile is updated accordingly, and the matching level is adjusted.
2. Instant matching. When the candidate enters her profile and preferences, she immediately sees the matched jobs for which she is qualified. Applicants do not have to apply for positions and then wait for employers to contact them. As soon as the employer enters the job definition, they see matched candidates and may immediately start communicating with them.
3. Communication. Most systems require candidates and employers to use external means of communication such as fax and e-mail. Redmatch has an internal communication system that retains all communications and makes communication between the parties easier, more efficient, and confidential.

Redmatch also provides interviewing and candidate management tools that work around their core offerings. The end result is the creation of a modular, self-contained system that uses innovative tools to add a great deal of efficiency to the sourcing process. CareerXact CareerXact’s system is based on the idea that applicants prefer to search for jobs based on fit, not keywords. They offer a unique system that requires each applicant to complete a 20-minute personality assessment as part of the registration/profile-building process. Organizations posting jobs to CareerXact define their jobs using the same dimensions found in the personality inventory. This can be done in one of two ways: either by having a recruiter choose the dimensions they feel are important, or by having high (or low) performers filling similar jobs within the organization take the personality inventory in order to create a benchmark to which applicant’s profiles will be compared. In either case, sourcing is based on the match between the applicant’s profile and the profile of the traits needed for success at a given job posted on the CareerXact website. Besides their unique matching process, CareerXact offers several other innovative features, including:

1. Free personality profiles. One of the biggest problems with the present state of the online job search process is that it is a one-way street. Applicants provide potential employers with a large amount of information and often receive nothing in return for their efforts. While many job boards and employment portals have been doing a good job adding lots of additional content, this content is static and one dimensional. The CareerXact system provides each person who registers with a free personality profile that helps them to better understand their fit requirements.
2. Flexibility in matching. The system works such that an applicant who applies to one company, but is not a good fit, is automatically re-routed to other companies or jobs for which they display a better fit. This helps to ensure that applicants are able to apply for jobs for which they seem to have the best fit.
3. Metrics. Applicant MetriX is a feature that allows for real-time applicant quality measurement and control. The system provides information about how well a company’s investment in branding is working and can provide ROI data at the job posting level. Users are able to see whether the posting is attracting not just the quantity, but also the exact quality of applicants they seek. The system allows them to learn exactly what job text wording attracts the best applicants in what region, at what time of the day. This data can be used to refine job postings and develop data-based posting strategies.

aHAa!, by Behavioral Description Technologies BDT’s product, aHAa!, differs a bit from the two previous systems in that it actually works immediately after a candidate chooses to respond to a specific job posting rather then during the search process. However, because it is designed to be used by job boards and employment portals, functions at the job posting level, and is designed to reduce applicant spam, we feel it deserves mention. Simply put, BDT is a product that automatically generates screening questions straight from the text of a job postings with no assistance from recruiters or hiring managers. How does it work? Job boards and/or BDT personnel using the BDT software configure aHAa! to work with their job postings. aHAa! uses proprietary technology to analyze job postings and then generates screening questions that are directly related to the requirements of the job in question. Once aHAa! is configured for use in a specific organization, recruiters and hiring managers continue to create job postings just as they have always done. The difference is that each time an applicant chooses to apply to a posting, they are directed to a series of job-related screening questions that are generated automatically by the aHAa! product. As applicants complete the screening questions, aHAa! delivers the a summarized list of candidates ranked by their fit to the advertised position requirements. Employers can review the top scoring candidates first, investing time in those candidates and thereby increasing the likelihood those candidates will feel appreciated and attended to. Employers can opt to have just the reports of top scoring respondents emailed directly to them, with embedded action links so they can take immediate action to either reject respondents or to take next steps. Conclusion Please remember that we are not compensated by or affiliated with any of the organizations whose products we have discussed in this article. We have chosen to discuss them because we feel they represent fresh ideas that can be used to help job boards and other employment portals take their services to the next level by increasing the efficiency of the sourcing process. We feel it is also important that readers understand that the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the capabilities of these products rather than to critically review them. So, while each of these products offers some advantages, they may not be appropriate for every company or situation.

1. The data allows Unicru’s staffing assessment tools to learn from experience. As a result, the longer Unicru’s system is in place the more effective it becomes for identifying high potential candidates.
2. Unicru provides clients with ongoing reports containing information to more effectively manage their staffing processes.

Unicru’s approach represents an initial implementation of what we believe will become a fairly standard practice, as online staffing systems evolve to more fully leverage the capabilities of the Web. As such, looking at Unicru’s approach to data management provides a good glimpse into the future of online staffing assessment. Unicru System Overview Founded in 1987, Unicru began by selling staffing systems primarily designed to automate the hiring process for high volume, hourly positions. Unicru was one of the early pioneers in the use of web-based staffing, and has developed a strong client base representing a variety of large national and regional retail organizations. Although Unicru offers a variety of staffing systems, they are probably best known for their ability to support the staffing needs of geographically distributed businesses, such as retailers, through placing web-enabled kiosks and other data-capturing devices in a client’s stores or offices. These kiosks allow applicants to electronically apply for jobs onsite, greatly reducing the time hiring managers spend screening candidates and enrolling newly hired employees into the company’s HRIS or payroll system. The initial benefit of Unicru’s system is increased applicant flow and decreased time-to-hire. For example, Blockbuster’s use of Unicru’s system resulted in a reduction in time to hire from several weeks to 48 hours. While these gains in efficiency are impressive, there are a variety of applicant tracking and candidate management vendors who can also boast similar sorts of accomplishments. Consequently, this does not reflect what we feel is the truly innovative aspect of Unicru’s system. What makes Unicru’s system unique is not how they automate the staffing process, but how their system leverages data collected from applicants and employees. The following represent the key steps in Unicru’s system:

1. Applicants enter a variety of data into the system as part of the application process. This data includes general information, such as address and basic qualifications, as well as information about employment history, interests, and work styles that can be used to predict job performance and tenure.
2. Applicant information is processed and fed back to hiring managers within five minutes after it has been uploaded onto the Web. The information is presented so that it can be used to effectively support hiring decisions.
3. As applicants are hired, their records are updated online by hiring managers and the information is used to populate hiring documentation and employee records in the database.
4. As employees terminate, the database is updated again via payroll data feeds and online exit surveys conducted by managers and departing employees.

The result of these transactions is the creation of a “closed-loop employee record.” This record contains a summary of the complete employment record of each person hired through the system. On an average day, Unicru will process between 17,000 and 21,000 employment applications. The Unicru data warehouse currently contains 14.8 million employment applications and 1.7 million closed-loop employee histories. Unicru uses this data to provide clients with reports giving insight into hiring practices, employee retention, productivity, headcount, and other staffing issues that directly impact company performance. These reports go well beyond the standard EEO and system usage reports offered by most staffing assessment vendors. The data also allows Unicru to make ongoing improvements to the design and scoring of their staffing assessment tools. Unicru has developed a number of unique analytic capabilities to process this data, and has patents pending on several complex artificial intelligence and data mining techniques. Does It Work? Given Unicru’s data intensive nature, it comes as no surprise that they have done several in-depth analytical studies into the effectiveness of their staffing systems. A recent study of data collected across several companies showed that Unicru’s systems were associated with a 42% increase in median employee tenure, a 20% decrease in involuntary terminations, and a 10% increase in employee rehire eligibility. After implementing Unicru’s system, one client saw a 25% decrease in its hiring activity. This translated into 55,000 fewer hires per year. Unicru is so confident in the effectiveness of their system that it is willing to “stake its fees” on its performance. Some of their contracts link the fees they receive directly to tenure or other business improvements achieved by a customer. Why Does It Work? In our opinion, there are two basic reasons why Unicru’s system works. First, they start with solid design. The content found in Unicru’s system is a result of years of experience and research into staffing methods. While Unicru’s current system uses technology that did not even exist prior to 2001, the basic principles underlying the design of their system and the assessment tools it contains are rooted in years of psychological research. In essence, they do not attempt to substitute “technological flash” for good science. Second, they “hedge their bets” by collecting and making use of streaming data. This data allows Unicru to continuously refine and improve the effectiveness of their system after it has been deployed. This represents a radical departure from more traditional staffing assessment design, where selection tools are developed during an initial study and then left in place “as is” for years and years without any major changes or revisions. The main challenge to using Unicru’s system is getting hiring managers to faithfully and accurately enter data on employee performance, thereby “closing the loop.” To help ensure this happens, Unicru has established training programs and a complete customer service outreach program to promote hiring manager satisfaction and use of the system. However, getting hiring managers to take on such additional actions at the request of human resources is not likely to be easy. Unicru’s system should probably only be implemented when there is strong leadership support to drive the internal behavioral changes needed to ensure its effectiveness. However, given the clear financial benefits that Unicru can demonstrate, getting such leadership support may be easier than one might expect. Unicru’s system is also designed specifically for positions that generate large amounts of applicant and employee data. Most of their clients hire thousands of employees per year. In addition, some of the statistical methods underlying the scoring of their assessments require relatively large sample sizes to be fully effective. As such, the system may not make sense for applications involving smaller staffing volumes. Conclusion In addition to Unicru, there are a few other assessment companies that actively recommend the use of ongoing “streaming” data to revise and improve the effectiveness of their staffing systems (for example, ePredix, Career Harmony, and FurstPerson). However, Unicru is the only company we know of that has made the collection and use of streaming data an integral a part of their solution. Although Unicru’s use of streaming data is still quite rare in the market, we feel it represents an approach that will eventually become commonplace as companies stop viewing online staffing assessment tools as static “tests” and begin seeing them as dynamic measures for guiding real time management of human capital.

• To assess an applicant’s aptitude for learning how to perform tasks required on a given job
• To assess a candidate’s present ability to perform job related tasks
• To provide applicants with a realistic preview of critical job tasks

The simulations used for each of these purposes differ slightly but function in the same basic way, in that they are based on the same set of scientific principles used to construct all assessments used to predict job performance. Why Are Simulations So Powerful? Simulations have been shown to be highly effective and valid predictors of job performance. There are a variety of reasons why simulations are one of the most powerful tools for available for selecting employees. These include:

• Job relatedness. The major reason for the effectiveness of simulations lies in their job relatedness. Since the start of time, the litmus test of the value of any assessment used for employee selection has been the job relatedness of that assessment. The closer the information gained via measurement approaches the skills required for successful job performance, the more confidence one can have in making predictions based on that assessment. This is known as the idea of “point-to-point correspondence” between a predictor of performance and the job in question. Simulations offer a very close match between assessment tasks and tasks required on the job. This relationship also means that simulations provide excellent legal defensibility when used as assessment tools (provided that they are properly constructed and validated).
• Face validity. The concept of face validity means that the contents of an assessment tool appear to be related to performance at a given job. Simulations have very high face validity because they include tasks that closely resemble those faced on the job. This is very important, because candidates are often upset by assessments that do not appear to be related in any way to the job they are applying for. Negative impressions due to a lack of face validity can cause a variety of problems, including damaging an employer’s brand image, causing candidates to withdraw from the selection process, and increasing the probability that an applicant will seek legal action due to dissatisfaction with the results of an assessment.
• Simulations are fun and engaging. Not only do simulations resemble the tasks required for a job, they can actually be fun for applicants. This fun factor can have a huge impact on an employer’s ability to use an assessment to help build an employment brand. The ability to offer an assessment that simultaneously provides value for the job seeker and the employer is a winning situation for both parties.
• A realistic job preview (RJP). The similarity of simulations to tasks found on the job means that they can actually provide applicants with a realistic view of what it is like to hold the job they are applying for. This is important because the information provided by the RJP allows applicants to better understand what will be required of them on the job. This allows candidates who do not feel qualified or who do not enjoy performing job-related tasks to remove themselves voluntarily from the selection process early on, a situation that can help to reduce turnover and at the same time provide huge savings.

With this background in mind, let’s examine FurstPerson’s CC Audition tool. FurstPerson The goal of Chicago-based FurstPerson, Inc. is to help organizations find, hire, and keep better hourly employees and first level supervisors. By integrating screening tools and selection tools with a strong recruiting focus, FurstPerson focuses on helping clients hire employees that will stay on the job longer, be more productive, and learn more and faster during training. FurstPerson’s core focus is on customer contact positions, with a strong focus on call centers. At the core of FurstPerson’s products and services is its FurstSelect web-based platform. This platform integrates FurstPerson’s screening tools and selection tools (such as CC Audition) into a web-based system that provides clients the ability to manage their hourly workforce hiring process and provides them with real-time reporting tools. Based on XML technology, the platform is flexible enough to allow FurstPerson the ability to create hiring systems using a building block approach that matches the tools included in the selection system with a client’s hiring needs and budget. The FurstSelect system also allows FurstPerson to build complex decision trees that can automatically route the job candidate to specific selection tests based on their skills and behaviors and the hiring firm’s open positions. CC Audition Product Overview FurstPerson’s CC Audition is a multi-media, web-based simulation tool that evaluates job candidates applying for contact center positions. The CC Audition provides:

• A highly realistic simulation of a contact center environment
• A powerful, Internet-based realistic job preview that provides an opportunity for candidates to determine if the position is suited for them early on in the hiring process
• Ten interactive scenarios that focus on contact center jobs
• Immediate scoring and results accessible via the Internet
• Validation evidence supporting the tool’s legal defensibility
• Validation evidence demonstrating the tool is predictive for inbound and outbound contact centers, including customer service, sales, collections, market research, and technical support

CC Audition is broken into 10 scenarios that measure the following competencies using five standard call types: Computer skills: Ability to use a mouse and keyboard and understand the logic of a Windows operating environment. General learning: Ability to understand, memorize, and integrate new information and then to apply it in an appropriate context Problem solving: Ability to promptly solve problems by gathering and analyzing appropriate information. Ability to understand customers’ needs and suggest the best-suited product or service. Influence, persuasion, and competitive positioning: Ability to build a strong argument, negotiate agreements, and convince others of an optimal solution. Ability to integrate knowledge of the competitive environment to achieve company objectives. Rapid information processing/multi-tasking: Ability to react promptly to a situation and to efficiently listen, think, type, or search simultaneously. Customer Focus: Ability to ensure a positive customer contact while adhering to company policies. The ideal candidate respects the customer while promptly responding to requests, soothes tensions, refocuses the discussion on the problem, and recognizes and apologizes for errors. The five standard call types include:

• Orders
• Billing Inquiries
• Complaints and problems
• Product service/inquiries
• Up-selling and cross-selling initiatives

CC Audition is broken into two main components: 1) a training section that includes an introduction, a training module, and a practice session and 2) the actual call scenarios. The average test time for interacting through the 10 different call scenarios is about 75 minutes. Does It Work? FurstPerson reports that clients who have utilized the CC Audition for hiring purposes are seeing results. For instance:

• One trainer that provides training for a major communications company noted that the new employees hired through the CC Audition tool were the best she had ever trained.
• An HR manager for a call center outsourcer noted that the CC Audition has definitely allowed them to better identify job candidates with better sales skills.
• One major communications company has seen a reduction in turnover of at least 10% while using CC Audition.
• Underwriter Laboratories hired FurstPerson for a major call center expansion project. While the CC Audition was part of a multi-hurdle hiring process, it was the anchor test used in the process. Peter Serrate, director of customer service for Underwriters Laboratories, told FurstPerson, “The quality of the people working in the three centers has been exceptional. We’ve recruited 70 to 80 people and have only lost one person.”

Why Does It Work? As we discussed earlier, there are several reasons why simulations are so effective. However, in order for a simulation to be effective, it must be constructed using a precise process that will ensure it is actually measuring what it is supposed to measure. FurstPerson used the following processes to ensure the validity of the CC Audition tool:

• Three thousand contact center incumbents were surveyed on a wide variety of factors related to their job performance.
• Sixteen focus groups ó comprised of incumbents, supervisors, trainers and coaches ó were conducted.
• Real call observations were conducted at 16 different contact center sites.
• Version 1 scenarios were developed. Version 1 was analyzed within a study group of 271 candidates.
• A face validity survey (see below) was conducted.
• Suggested changes were adopted for Version 2.
• A statistical analysis with a norm group of 988 was conducted.
• Version 2 was released. Most clients are now using Version 3, and Version 4 is set to come out soon.

As part of its validation process, FurstPerson also conducted a face validity analysis in order to ensure that the CC Audition tool was seen as being job relevant by candidates actually seeking call center jobs. A total of 261 job candidates who took the CC Audition were surveyed, and 63% agreed or strongly agreed that CC Audition correctly represented contact center jobs. Conclusion The CC Audition tool represents what we feel is the cutting edge when it comes to leveraging technology to help increase the effectiveness of the process used to help make hiring decisions. This is because it:

• Enables candidates to determine if they could enjoy a contact center environment and allows candidates to self-screen out of the hiring process.
• Increases the probability that persons hired will be a good fit for call center jobs.
• Allows employers to test candidates in a highly realistic simulated call center environment before making a hiring decision.
• Presents a very cost-effective solution when one considers the rate of turnover at call-center jobs and the cost of this turnover.
• Has been shown to be a highly effective method of selecting call center employees
• Can be linked to FurstPerson’s web-based backbone system in order to provide candidate management and reporting functionalities

Look for more reviews of screening tools from us in the coming months!