From our Director of Consulting services, Dr. Katie Packell
The conversations happened decades ago and they still go on
today. Especially right now, with flu shot reminders and winter forecasts popping
up. Somewhere in the world, someone is telling their spouse, or child, or
colleague, “bundle up – you’ll catch a cold!”
Unfortunately, while it’s thoughtful advice and has undoubtedly
prevented more than a few children from shivering on the school playground, the
advice is also flawed. Because you can bundle yourself up all you like – but
catching a virus has nothing to do with how cold you are. It has to do with how
careful you are about minimizing your exposure to viruses, which – in no small
way – is dependent on how diligent you are about washing your hands. So where
did the bundle-up advice come from? Most people tend to wash their hands less
frequently when the temperature drops.
When it comes to preventing poor employee performance, it
seems that many companies choose to take an approach that I would offer is akin
to simply bundling up. Rather than analyzing their selection process – the root
of all future employee performance – companies narrowly focus on ways to better
train, develop, or incentivize their workers. They try to keep their workers up
to date in their skills through training courses, they offer internal company
career paths, they initiate recognition and rewards programs, and they invest
in employee engagement initiatives.
Certainly there is no harm in instituting any or all of these
processes. In fact, when well crafted and executed, they can drive monumental
positive change. Yet when it comes to optimizing employee performance,
virtually all of the time and effort that a company spends on these post-hire initiatives
is futile if it can’t be assumed that every worker hired is actually well-suited
for their job. And when I say well-suited, I do not mean simply in terms of
their work experience or skill set. I’m talking about the match between an
individual’s personality – their values, preferences, and behavioral tendencies
– and the nature of the job for which they’re applying.
The arguments for including personality assessments in the
hiring process are vast and well-substantiated by research. Foremost, meta-analyses have shown
repeatedly that personality measures can predict job performance fairly well
under certain conditions (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, 1992;
Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Personality measures have also been shown to predict
performance above and beyond cognitive ability tests, which are widely
considered to be the single best predictors of performance. And perhaps even
more importantly, personality assessments do not carry the same risk for
adverse impact as cognitive ability tests.
Further, unlike cognitive ability tests – which generally
capture ‘maximal’ performance under timed conditions – personality assessments capture ‘typical’ on the
job behavior, providing a more enduring measurement of an individual’s
propensity to learn and develop. And there is strong evidence to suggest
that organizations should be concerned with how well they’re tracking the
learning and development of their workforce. Recent work by Development Dimensions International (DDI)
found that only 32% of the 14,000 line executives and 18% of HR executives felt
their organizations had a sufficient leadership pipeline to meet their future
business needs. Half of the organizations recently surveyed by The Conference
Board reported lacking the leadership talent needed to execute strategies.
Ultimately, by considering the degree to which a particular
applicant’s personality is well-suited for a job, organizations stack the deck
in their own favor. They heighten the odds that the individuals they select
will actually be motivated by their work and satisfied with their job – core
attitudes that can drive an employee’s decision to remain with their employer.
Boiled down to a few points, well-validated personality
assessments help improve organizations in three ways:
- They facilitate better hiring decisions. Taking
up relatively little time during the application process, personality measures
provide more valid and reliable insight into how well the individual is likely
to perform on the job than any hiring manager could possibly ascertain from a
typical (unstructured) interview. Better matching of applicants to positions
reduces the propensity for turnover – which ultimately means cost savings.
- They improve the hiring process by objectifying
applicant comparisons. By steering hiring managers to behaviorally-based
interview questions that stem directly from an applicant’s results, assessments
allow organizations to craft more efficient and useful interview procedures.
Using behaviorally based interview questions to organize and standardize hiring
procedures also provides a strong layer of protection against future legal
action.
- They improve new-hire productivity. With
assessment results in-hand, organizations can identify a new-hire’s potential
training or coaching needs before they set foot in the office – shortening the
time it takes for a new hire to reach his or her potential in the company.
Future leaders can be identified from day 1 – strengthening the leadership
pipeline.
The winter season seems to inevitably be accompanied by two
phenomena: individuals trying to steer clear of viruses and organizations trying
to prepare themselves for the launch of important projects slated for the New
Year. For those who avoid walking outside with wet hair for fear of catching a
cold, I would suggest a quick Google search that includes the words cold, virus, and myths. (Note:
you may also come to find out that a number of other behaviors you have done
since childhood are actually pointless. So prepare yourself accordingly.) For
organizations looking to reduce turnover, strengthen the legal defensibility of
their hiring practice, or enhance their leadership pipeline, I would suggest a
focused investigation into personality assessments.
About Dr. Packell:
Katie regularly
provides research and analytic support for client projects, delivering
evidence-based recommendations for business decisions.
Katie Packell is a Consultant at Reliant. Working with clients
in a variety of industries and job functions, she has designed and
implemented job analyses, selection-based assessment systems, survey
initiatives, and other talent management activities across a number of
different organizational applications. Katie regularly provides research
and analytic support for client projects, delivering evidence-based
recommendations for clients’ business decisions. Katie currently manages
relationships between Reliant and its clients to build and deliver
solutions that meet each client’s unique business needs.
Katie received her B.A. from Rollins College and her M.A. and
Ph.D. from the University of Tulsa, where she conducted research in the
areas of work-family conflict, workplace emotional regulation, and
organizational culture and climate assessment. She has published her
work in such outlets as The Journal of Managerial Psychology and The
Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture.
