Human Resources Trends Blog

It's Time to Kill This Myth about Pre-Employment Tests

Ira Wolfe — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:07:00 GMT

Neither Congress nor the Courts has said that pre-employment tests are illegal. They just say that any tests, inventories, or procedures used for selection must test for job-specific and job-related skills or traits. It's also important to note that selection activities include internal promotions and succession as well as bringing new employees from the outside.

As you can see from the list below of what the Department of Labor and its agencies consider to be employee assessments (source: An Employer's Guide to Good Practice, U.S. Department of Labor), personality tests are no more illegal to use in selecting the best employees for a job than the interview.

1. interviews
2. observations
3. resume evaluations
4. application blanks/questionnaires
5. biodata inventories
6. work samples/performance tests
7. achievement tests
8. general ability tests
9. specific ability tests
10. physical ability tests
11. personality inventories
12. honesty/integrity inventories
13. interest inventories
14. work values inventories
15. assessment centers
16. drug tests
17. medical tests

The issue of legal or illegal is based on job relatedness, not the tool itself. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures states that a thorough job analysis is needed for supporting a selection procedure. As a result the job analysis can be the proof an organization needs to defend its use of tools and techniques that screen out mis-matched, unskilled, or disruptive employees and select in the very best people for the job.

Job Descriptions: Hate 'em or Love 'em You Need 'em

Ira Wolfe — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:51:00 GMT

Job descriptions. Employees want them, managers hate them.

Job descriptions traditionally have suffered a poor reputation among managers and human resources. In fact, job descriptions often end up being ignored. The general sentiment is that job descriptions are time-consuming, labor intensive, and the root cause of many a disagreement (or worse!) in the human resources arena.

Yet, as maligned as they are, job descriptions are critical to efficient operations, workplace harmony and business success. A job description is like a map: Providing directions to the traveler on how to get from starting a job to promotion, increased compensation and job satisfaction. And that's just for the employee.

Job descriptions are also important to employers. Employers who underestimate their importance do so at their peril especially when it comes to compliance in the following areas:

Wage and Salary Administration
To Ensure Legal Compliance with: American with Disabilities Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Occupational Safety and Health, Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Collective Bargaining
General Human Resources Administration
Organizational Development/Strategic Planning

The EEOC in particular has said that one of the things the agency will look at when determining essential functions are job descriptions written before an employer advertises to fill an opening. Many companies rely on generic descriptions. A generic job description is not the best way to recruit top talent or defend a company against discrimination claims.

The Courts in fact ruled in several landmark cases that "the cornerstone in the construction of a content valid examination is the job analysis" (Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) and "job relatedness cannot be proven through vague and unsubstantiated hearsay" (Albermarle Paper Company v. Moody).

No job description should be viewed as a perfect reflection of the job. The object of a good job description is to differentiate the job from other jobs and set its outer limits.

Many a job description is rendered impotent by failing to adequately address one or more of the following:

How the job relates to successful implementation of the company’s strategy
The purpose of the position (what should happen when the employee successfully performs the duties of the job)
Essential responsibilities of the employee filling the position
Critical core competencies required how to the job
Actual job specifics such as pay grade, physical restrictions, job requirements, etc.

The information for much of job description is often obtained through what is called a job analysis. Its purpose is to identify the job, define it within established paramaters, and describe its scope and content.

Suffice it to say that job descriptions are essential in managing employee performance. Regardless if you love them or hate them, every employer needs them.

Just Released Pre Employment Tests Cut Employee Theft at Casinos

Ira Wolfe — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:34:00 GMT

Recent studies and survey reveal that human-capital considerations top the list of current managerial concerns in the gaming industry. They have good reason.

Many sources document that nearly 50% of all losses incurred by casinos are attributed to employee theft. According to the Nevada Gaming Commission, approximately 34 percent of those arrested for theft or cheating in casinos were the casinos’ own staff members.

The major types of employee theft / misdeeds include:

Cash-handling positions on the gaming floor;
Watering down drinks;
Fraudulent recording of amount of time spent gambling by patrons;
Drinking on the job, drug use, loitering;
Theft of alcohol, food and meat;
Theft of guest possessions;
Patron theft (of winnings, purses, chips, etc.)

Casinos must divert more resources to recruiting and selecting potential employees who are dependable, honest, and customer focused. It is suggested that casino management should adopt a comprehensive employee screening tool kit to screen out high risk candidates. HR managers of casinos should adopt selection tools to choose employees with better personality fit, general reasoning abilities, and positive work attitude.

For example, online personality tests are helpful to assess some important traits in casino and gaming workers such as agreeableness, the degree to which someone is trusting, amiable, cooperative, and open-minded; emotional stability, the degree to which someone is confident, reserved, and poised especially in stressful situations; and conscientiousness, the degree to which an employee will follow the rules, show up for work, and follow-through.

4 Tips to Hire The Right People in 2012

Ira Wolfe — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:00:00 GMT

While our economy and job market has a long way to go, most economic indicators point toward a positive job outlook. This means that an already tight talent pool of skilled and motivated employees will get tighter in 2012 and 2013.

The window for ramping up productivity is closing. Employers are running so lean that when new orders or business come in, they don’t have time to waste in hiring employees to sell, produce or deliver the services. Here’s a few basic steps every employer can take to ensure it has the right people in the right place at the right time.

Update job descriptions. But don’t go crazy. Be succinct. Too many businesses turn writing job descriptions into a year-long ordeal (which means they never get done or they get sourced to a consultant who creates a boiler plate document for legal purposes.) Make sure that you define the essential responsibilities, functions and requirements of the position being offered. Use an abbreviated form of the job description in your career ads. Let candidates read what you expect before they apply. This will likely limit the number of unqualified candidates who submit applications to your firm.

Tip: Use the 15 minute job description. Imagine sitting with this employee 12 months from now for his or her performance review. Ask yourself, “What are my expectations for an employee filling this position?” Identify 3 to 5 specific goals you expect them to meet or exceed. Then add or review the essential responsibilities, functions, and skills required for the employee to earn your highest performance rating. If you can’t write this job description in 15 minutes, you’re probably not ready to hire an employee without disappointing you in some way.

Centralize your recruitment and employee screening functions. Choose one employee to review and post all job postings from your business. Using the same person for this task will provide greater consistency and minimize the possibility that hiring managers don’t start personalizing the ads for their preferences and put the company at risk. For example, the desperate manager might remove or edit some job responsibilities or skills to fill jobs faster. While filling the job faster keeps his production high, higher turnover and lower quality might end up costing the company a lot of money. And many managers are inclined to seek candidates who are currently working. This practice is under scrutiny by the EEOC for discrimination because it excludes a disproportionate number of minorities, disabled, and older workers. If “employed only” is a job requirement, that decision should be made by management who assumes the risks if challenged by a disgruntled candidate, not individual managers or HR.

Be more selective with recruiting tools. Traditionally, employers have tried to broaden their searches by advertising on sites that reach a wide audience. But job boards, social networking sites like LinkedIn, and classified ad sites like Craigslist have made it so easy for candidates to apply for jobs that the volume of resumes and application coming through HR’s inbox overwhelms capacity. The knee-jerk response of many companies, especially the smaller ones, is to cut back on advertising and narrow the search. Unfortunately, this also significantly diminishes the chances of finding the right person, especially if the business is seeking a skilled worker. You may find better candidates by relying on industry-specific sites, recruiting firms or networks of professional associations. Ads on sites like LinkedIn, Facebook, and Google can also be targeted to different age groups, geographic regions, or other demographic criteria. Current employees as well as previous employees should also be encouraged to make referrals or recommendations.

Use applicant processing software to screen applicants. Allow candidates to submit applications online. The cost for online applicant processing has dropped significantly, to a point where it is affordable for a small business that hires only a few employees each year. Applicant processing software can help you narrow the search by screening out unqualified or high risk candidates before recruiters make the first contact. A few applicant processing systems include pre-employment tests too. Time to hire improves because recruiters, HR and managers are wasting time contacting and interviewing candidates who don’t meet the minimum requirements. Additionally, you'll be able to save resumes for the future and build a talent pool if you don't have an immediate opening for someone who wows you. Also, this technique makes it relatively easy to respond to each applicant. Many of the applicant processing systems have auto-responders which can be customized for a more personal approach.

The outlook for business in 2012 is improving. Don’t let the competition get the drop on you because you can’t find the right people fast enough.

Use DISC: Get People to Listen to You Now

Ira Wolfe — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:00:00 GMT

You hear the complaint over and over again – people texting, listening to their iPod, surfing the net, watching TV, playing games…all at the same time. This complaint particularly surfaces when the Mature Generation, Baby Boomers, and Generation X discuss Millennials. Yes, multi-tasking is a problem and for many, these distractions definitely turn communication into a challenging and unfulfilling process.

But ineffective communication isn’t always the result of multi-tasking. Ironically, if want to communicate effectively, multi-tasking is required. How’s that possible?

When people communicate face to face, they deliver messages on three channels. You need to listen to all 3 channels if you want to hear what the other person is saying. Likewise, if you want to gain the attention of others, you must be able to identify and tune into the right channel of your audience.

What are these three channels?

Verbal – words. Most people believe it is the words you use that differentiate good from bad communication. While important, the words used are only one channel. In fact, some research says that less than 10 percent of effective communication is driven by the words you use. A majority of people tune you out and never hear your words when you don’t first broadcast your message on the right channel.
Visual – body language. This is the most popular channel, especially in face-to-face communication. Body language is reported to determine nearly 60 percent of effective communication. Your posture, your facial expressions, your eye contact all determine how quickly another person will turn you off or engage with you. Body language also impacts non-face-to-face communication too. Just because your target can’t see you doesn’t mean he or she can’t “hear” the effect of your posture and facial expressions.
Vocal – how you say it. This is the second most popular channel, especially with so many people communicating long distance and telecommuting these days. Loud and soft, fast and slow speech all impact the impression you make on others and how likely they will want to listen to what you have to say. The vocal channel determines approximately one-third of effective communication.

Which channel is most important? That’s a great question and the answer depends on the channel that the customer uses. How can you determine quickly the preferred channel of your listeners?

If effective communication is broadcast on three channels of Visual, Vocal, and Verbal, then CriteriaOne DISC is the TV Guide. Each behavioral style has its communication preferences. By understanding the DISC model, presenters can quickly assess their audience and tune into the appropriate visual, vocal, and verbal channels so the intended listener tunes in and stays tuned.

For an example of how all this DISC stuff works, watch the video embedded earlier in the article. Dr. Tony Alessandra does a great job of demonstrating how Visual, Vocal, and Verbal channels can change the meaning of even the simple word “oh.”

Can you hear me now?

Why Companies Have It All Wrong About Employee Motivation

Ira Wolfe — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:30:00 GMT

Employee engagement of American workers is pathetic. According to recent Gallup Employee Engagement Index survey, seventy-one (71) percent of American workers are "not engaged" or "actively disengaged" in their work, meaning they are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and are less likely to be productive. That leaves only one-third of American workers who are "engaged," or involved in and enthusiastic about their work.

Part, if not most, of the reason why employee engagement is so bad is that employers go about motivating employees all wrong. The problem begins with a misunderstanding of the very basics of motivational theory. Most managers believe some people are motivated, and others are not. That’s wrong – plain and simple.

All employees are motivated. But people are motivated differently. Not only do they value things differently, but the sources of motivation can have both positive and negative influences. When the sources are positive, employees are productive. When sources are negative, employees exhibit counter-productive behavior. These differences in motivation are based on extensive research resulting in the Quality of Motivation (QM) Theory.

All motivation can be traced back to two basic ingredients: pleasure and pain. Motivation by pleasure shouldn’t require much explanation. But you must be asking why anyone would be motivated by pain?

Have you ever heard the phrase "no pain, no gain" or "nothing comes easy'? These beliefs drive people toward pain and self-defeating experiences respectively, believing a little pain now will reap pleasure down the road. Think about the marathon runner or the professional athlete. Despite the risk of chronic pain due to the constant pounding of their joints and extreme stress to body systems, these athletes are relentless in their drive to reach the finish line at any cost, even long-term crippling and incapacitating injury.

Other people constantly pass up opportunity to advance or improve their lot in life (self-defeatance) because they don’t think they have done enough to deserve the raise, the promotion, or the recognition. There is a fine line between self-defeating behavior and humility, and that difference separates employees from being productive and counter-productive.

Self-punishment is mistakenly rewarded in today's workplace. Strong work ethic, commitment, and good work habits are positive characteristics – unless they are derived from counter-productive behaviors. For example, let’s look at workaholism. It’s rewarded and often encouraged by employers. Workers who show up early, stay late, are on call 24/7, and rarely take vacation are put on a pedestal for all other employees to admire. But while doing more with less is driving American productivity and admired as good old work ethic by managers, it is also driving the rates of employee disengagement and employee turnover sky high.

It is also raining havoc on employee health, and consequently medical and disability costs. According to another Gallup survey, only 2 in 10 actively disengaged American workers report they are in excellent health, about the same as those workers who are unemployed. “A little pain never hurt anyone" is apparently not always true. Workers who "tough it out" may have the short-term benefit of increased productivity but long-term negative consequence of burnout, injury and even premature death.

What can employers do to avoid motivating these counter-productive behaviors and ensuring they create a positively motivated workplace? Managers must first recognize that enthusiasm, drive and high-paced activity alone are ineffective measures of motivation. People employed in your business bring their own unique motivational sources and skills to the workplace. That explains why some people seem to run and run….and run - just like the Energizer Bunny. Think about it. Watching Robin Williams perform can make you tired. So can hyperactive, pencil-tapping, emotionally disengaged employees. Their activity and busy-ness uses lots of energy but their results aren't always productive; their work habits are not necessarily efficient.

Rewarding hard work and a strong work ethic is one thing but when it inadvertently rewards self-punishment, the cost to the bottom line is devastating.

Self-punishment is just one of four maladaptive behaviors that motivate employees and shape a company's culture. Motivation is more complex than just pumping up spirits and getting people to work harder. By understanding that motivation has both positive and counter-productive effects, employers can create work environments and employee incentives that get the business results they want and avoid the long-term debilitating consequences of encouraging the wrong behaviors.

Read about “martyrance” – another counter-productive, but self-motivating behavior.

It is therefore crucial for businesses positioning themselves as thriving businesses to select and develop employees who will become profitable, motivated, and highly skilled at providing value-added services. The business must engage the emotional energy and attention of the employees and provide the resources to help them cope with the emotional, intellectual, and physical demands of the job.

Twas the Week Before Christmas and All Through the Shops - A DISC Tale

Ira Wolfe — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:01:00 GMT

Twas the week before Christmas and all through the stores, everyone is scurrying and rushing toward the doors.

The sales staff is exhausted, the shoppers are spent,

The businesses are hoping, they'll make enough to pay the rent.

But regardless of the holiday, one thing is for sure,

To predict how a person approaches shopping, DISC will endure.

Over the next few days, millions of people will purchase goods and services-on-line, by phone, or in person using one of four DISC behavioral styles. There is no magic or hocus-pocus to identifying these styles. All you need to do is observe and listen. Here are a few examples of DISC shopping styles in action:

The high D behavioral style says "Only 1 day? What's the big deal? There's plenty of time left." D types love the challenge. Ironically, the remarkable emotion of D behavioral style is a short fuse - traffic jams, long lines, crowded stores and D types don't mix. Internet shopping is tailor made for these direct, results-focused individuals. Gift cards and certificates are near perfect because they are much more efficient and they believe you can't go wrong with cash or its equivalent. Then again, the D behavioral style might cajole his administrative assistant to make the shopping list, check it twice, and be Santa's little helper. It shouldn't surprise anyone that high D behavioral types are the ones doing last minute shopping on Christmas Eve. And if anything needs to be assembled, Ds pay someone to do the handiwork. High D behavioral types give gifts that identify with increased productivity.

The high I behavioral type loves the holiday season, and the shopping, parties, and crowds that go with it. Shopping is an event, a day out at the mall with friends and families - the more the merrier. The I behavioral type plans a shopping trip with the attention normally given to planning a wedding. Shopping begins early and centers on meals. After all, how can you possibly shop without a big breakfast, numerous breaks for snack and lunch, lunch, wrapping up the day with a sit-down dinner? By the end of the day, the high I behavioral type has had a great time regardless of the success of paring down the gift list. The High I person is optimistic. There's always time for shopping! The high I behavioral type is highly influenced by those gifts with the most attractive wrappings, even if what's inside is not always practical. You can be sure he/she's an I if you hear, "I just couldn't resist buying it. It had my name all over it. I hope you like it too."

The high "S" behavioral style favors handcrafted gifts and homemade food. Christmas shopping begins and ends early. This steady, methodical shopper makes lists, clip coupons, and maps out a shopping itinerary before leaving the house. Although Black Friday marks the start of the shopping season for most consumers, December 26th is the right time to get a head start on next year's shopping list. The S behavioral style kicks into high shopping gear right after Labor Day and with few exceptions, gifts are bought, wrapped, and shipped before Thanksgiving. December isn't a time for shopping but for making cookies and preparing Christmas dinner. On Dec. 16, the high S behavioral style thinks, "Only nine days until after-Christmas sales begin."

The high “C” behavioral personalities work to avoid big crowds and don't understand how anyone can leave shopping to the last minute. In many ways, the C and S behavioral styles share shopping preferences. But the gifts they choose differentiate these behavioral styles. S personalities give gifts with a personal touch; Cs seek quality. The more practical C behavioral type purchase gifts that will last, and makes certain their gifts have the best warranties. During September and October, they do research to find the best-made, highest quality and most reasonably priced gift. These logical analytical types prefer to give gifts with a proven track record and can't understand why anyone would waste money on this year's fad.

If any of these types seem familiar, that is because they are. DISC is the universal language and dates back to....well as far back as Christmas itself. Learn more about DISC and its history here.

14 Tips to Improve Employee Performance Appraisals

Ira Wolfe — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:00:00 GMT

Performance appraisals. Other than terminating an employee, is there any managerial or HR task more dreaded than carrying out a performance appraisal?

Also known as annual performance reviews, performance management systems and performance evaluations, they can be stressful for all involved, sometimes creating a quasi-adversarial relationship between the appraisee (employee) and appraiser (manager). However, it doesn't have to be that way.

In this article let’s look at how the entire process can be enhanced in hopes of generating the best result possible: An engaged employee determined to do his best and improve wherever possible.

To engage employees and managers in improving performance, what are the critical components of effective performance appraisals?

The first and most important ingredient is honesty. I addressed the importance in a previous article. Once you've addressed the issue of honesty, discussions involving the following thirteen additional tips become more relevant and help create effective performance appraisals:

Clearly identify your objectives;
Have the employee complete a self-assessment;
Redefine or reconfirm the purpose of the job, the duties and the responsibilities;
Define the priority of and set objectives for each responsibility;
Establish specific performance standards;
Be specific when addressing areas requiring improvement, (i.e., facts, figures, work records, reports, etc.)
Be specific when addressing examples of unacceptable conduct (not general references to 'laziness' or 'bad attitude'), cite specific examples as much as possible;
Present, discuss and agree to a "Performance Improvement Plan" if necessary;
Set ongoing goals;
Provide the opportunity for feedback, not only during the meeting but by allowing your employee to respond to the evaluation in writing, detailing their disagreement or position;
Solicit as much feedback as possible not only about the performance at issue but also about what the employee would like to improve, what professional development, training, new assignments and challenges in general she has in mind for herself;
If performance in some area(s) does not meet standards, then agree to set frequent and regularly scheduled performance discussions;
Before closing the meeting, be sure to ask if there is anything else the employee wants to discuss, thereby maintaining a conversational rather than confrontational tone.

One other thing to remember is that it's always a good idea to remind the employee that the annual performance appraisal is not automatically tied to a compensation review. He may be disappointed with some of the results of his appraisal; it's best not to deepen that disappointment by not addressing compensation if he presumed you would.

Effective performance appraisals - They are not possible but, if given the proper priority, purpose and planning, but essential to maximizing the productivity of your most important resource: People.

Honesty Best Policy When Appraising Employee Performance

Ira Wolfe — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:00:00 GMT

The first and most important ingredient in managing performance is honesty. In order for a performance appraisal to have any benefit at all, managers and employees must be honest with each other and the process. Managers must candidly address not only the perceived shortcomings of the employee, but also the employer's part in contributing to those shortcomings.

Managers must ask: “Does the employee still have the same duties and responsibilities she was assigned at the time of hire or since the previous appraisal?” This question is extremely important since so many companies are running lean and mean. Many support and collateral jobs have been eliminated. Others simply go unfilled. That means an employee may have absorbed responsibilities into their job that managers don’t even recognize.

This creep of responsibility is not always isolated to the employee’s company. A growing problem is that suppliers, vendors, and client organizations have shrunk and your employee may be assuming responsibilities for tasks formerly handled by another business in the supply chain. In addition, if your employee is doing a different job or the same one with different tasks, has he been adequately trained in order for the changes in her job? If not meeting expectations, is she unwilling to change or simply unable to carry out the position successfully?

The requirement to be honest applies as well to examining the purpose of the pending evaluation. If the employee has performed in a substandard manner without prior comment, is the appraisal being used in lieu of progressive disciplinary action? If so, even more care will be required in communicating inadequate performance to avoid the perception (not unreasonable, we would argue) that the evaluation process is simply being used as the first step on the road to termination. As always, we think it appropriate to remind you that any disciplinary or remedial action should be conducted proximate in time to the performance or conduct you seek to correct.

4 Ways People Prepare and Celebrate Thanksgiving

Ira Wolfe — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:52:00 GMT

In a just a little over twenty-four hours, many of us will have our bellies full of turkey, stuffing, cranberries, pumpkin pie and who knows what other goodies.How we will get that way is the topic of today's column.

Whether it is Uncle Bob, Grandma, or cousin Sue, there are basically four different ways people prepare and celebrate for the holiday. They fit what is commonly called the DISC behavioral style model. DISC is an acronym standing for Direct, Influencing (or Interacting), Steady, and Compliant (or Conscientious) - in other words, how people respond to problems, people, pace and procedures. Even if you never have heard of DISC before, you will certainly recognize a few relatives, friends or acquaintances who exhibit these classic behavioral styles, representing D-I-S-C.

D Style

Thanksgiving dinner is an event to High D behavioral types, The guest list is figured out on the fly, most likely on the back of a napkin or on whatever writing surface is handy. Seating often resembles a strategic planning event. In fact, Thanksgiving dinner is the perfect venue to discuss a few business deals that just can't get done during working hours. High D behavioral types shop for groceries without a list. The fact of the matter is they don't have any idea what they'll serve for dinner - they'll know a good deal when they see it. If the long lines at checkout are too long, they may decide to make reservations at a local restaurant or country club or even order take out. Where ever and whenever they eat, they chose the place, meal and time. To high D's recipes are only guides. They add and substitute ingredients at will and use gravy and sauces to cover up the "mistakes". Microwaveable foods are a staple. If D-types actually do any cooking, the kitchen may be a mess but they know exactly where everything is. They will be in control. If your host is D behavioral style, don't be surprised to get a call on your mobile while on your way to stop for ice. When the D is ready to eat, he/she tells his guests where to sit. During dinner, expect a blow-by-blow description of each course. You'll hear how much time, money or effort it took to prepare. Recipes are described as "best", "special", "can't be beat", and "great deals."

I Style

High I behavioral types don't prepare dinner, they plan a party. They insist on only one rule - NO business talk! Grocery shopping is an experience - they go to the store at the busiest time so they can socialize and meet people. I-behavioral types may spend more time in the party store picking up holiday table cloths, napkins, dishes and decoration more than they do in the grocery store. They carry dozens of coupons, torn (not cut) from newspapers and magazines, stuffed in no particular order into an envelope or purse. I-behavioral types know where everything is in the store, whether you ask them to tell you or not. The guest list includes family, friends, neighbors and anyone who might otherwise have to eat dinner alone. The list resembles the yellow pages. I-types can't remember everyone they invited so they set extra places just in case extra people drop by. What time is dinner? Just drop-in. A menu? You've got to be kidding. The menu is potluck and the I-type just asks everyone to bring something along. I's use recipes but never measure ingredients and substitute freely. They may even experiment with a new recipe. Foods are selected for color, texture, and whatever looks good in their favorite bowls and dishes. They describe each course by how much fun it was to make it or a history on who gave them the recipe. Seating? Sit wherever you'd like. When it comes time to clean-up, guests will be scooted out the door - you'll hear, "I love to clean up." As soon as the last guest leaves, the I-behavioral type host plops down on the couch and "wishes" the dirty dishes away. "They will still be there tomorrow", the I-type thinks aloud, and puts off today what can be done tomorrow - still wishing for the "dish fairy" to come along while he/she is sleeping!

S Style

High S behavioral types prepare dinner for the entire family. In fact, they will prepare enough food to feed a neighborhood. You never know a guest may lot like a particular food or course, so the S prepares back-ups. "Family" for an "S" may include neighbors or anyone who doesn't have family to share the holiday with. "How terrible to spend the holiday alone" they think. They begin planning dinner weeks ahead by preparing a list. Next, they begin to clip coupons, even ones they don't need, just in case they meet someone at the store who doesn't have the right one. This list takes weeks to prepare. Finally the cooking begins. S-behavioral types begin making the feel-good foods first, desserts and appetizers, weeks ahead of time. Personalized invitations are prepared for guests, a few S-types preferring the hand-written invitation, taking the time to personalize each note. Every course is prepared from scratch using his/her favorite recipes, including special foods for the kids and anyone on a special diet. Often times the recipes are family traditions, handed down through the generations. They rarely use the microwave except for warming things up. Guests are seated in groups by family and friends. During dinner the S-behavioral type offers to share his/her recipes with everyone and likely have copies already prepared for distribution. There is always extra food for guests to take home in doggy-bags. The doggy bags may even have each guest's name on them including a label with what's inside and the date.

C Style

High C behavioral types prepare dinner for just the immediate family or may even prefer to eat alone. Dinner is more like a tradition or ritual than a celebration. Guests receive a formal invitation and an RSVP is required. C-types shop with coupons which are organized by aisles. They have a budget and click off items on a calculator as they work their way up and down the aisles. C-types have a practice run of each course throughout the preceding week. Recipes are followed exactly as written using measuring cups, utensils and timers. C-behavioral types would never think of substituting an ingredient, not even one brand for another. Guests have assigned seats and name cards are typed at each setting. (The cards are saved after each meal and re-used at future family events.) Rarely do C-types have any food left over - that would mean they made a mistake. If food is left over, they store it by meals in compartmentalized containers, just like the old "TV dinner". If asked about a recipe, C's describe each course in excruciating detail including the cost of the ingredients, the best place to purchase them, the best time to shop. The recipes are available upon request, which are stored in alphabetical order on computer printouts in the filing cabinet. After dinner, C's refuse everyone's offer to clean up - they have an unchangeable routine and a special place for everything. If by chance you get to peek inside their cabinets, don't be surprised to see the canned goods alphabetized and sized. If the C-Behavioral type does allow you to help, expect explicit instructions how to wash, dry, and put things away...and criticism when you don't do it exactly the "right" way. No one can clean up or put away the dishes as good as the high C behavioral type- so they think!.

A most important take-away from understanding behavioral types is that no one style is right or wrong. Likewise there is not one right way or one wrong way to prepare Thanksgiving dinner.

There is, however, a right way to celebrate Thanksgiving - be thankful for the opportunity to share Thanksgiving with friends and relatives, be thankful for the food you enjoy, be thankful for whomever prepares your meal, and be thankful we can laugh at our behavior!

Did you recognize any relatives or friends in these descriptions? Or maybe you experience a grimace or grin when a particular style revealed a little about you too. Whatever the situation, Happy Thanksgiving!

Employee Performance Evaluations (without comments) Are a Waste of Time

Ira Wolfe — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:07:00 GMT

Volumes have been written about the importance of employee performance evaluations. Proponents extol their value; skeptics promote their demise. Some talk about designing the employee evaluation form. Others talk about how to conduct the employee appraisal meeting. Consultants promote greater frequency, especially for workplaces recruiting Gen Y. A few even discuss how to evaluate the evaluation. What has not received much attention, however, is the act of actually writing effective comments about employee performance.

No matter how much emphasis has been placed on it, the fact remains that employee engagement is the key to conducting effective and productive performance evaluations. Engagement beings with the manager providing advice and counsel, not a report card.

A good starting point is for the managers to describe exactly what it is he or she wants to accomplish. Is this an annual review? Is it to review a probationary employee? Perhaps you're reviewing performance on a specific project. Whichever it is, you can be succinct, to the point. You can be objective. Focus will help you go where you intended to go. But regardless about what you write, take a few minutes and plan that journey in advance.

Next, consider what challenges, obstacles, feedback or, heaven forbid, blow back you can reasonably anticipate throughout. Plan, in writing, a response for each item you believe may happen. While you can't predict every possibility, there are situations or circumstances you can reasonably expect.

Now for possibly the most important writing a manager can do. Too often performance review forms rely on cookie-cutter, checklist-style performance evaluations: Grading on a scale of 1 to 5 or 1 to 10. Or perhaps rating each performance aspect from Excellent to Poor or Needs Improvement. The "grade" provides little help or insight into improving or advancing performance. While this system is quite common and expedient, these types of employee evaluation forms are usually inadequate to address the sole reason for their existence: Evaluation of Performance.

An effective employee performance appraisal identifies strengths and weaknesses. More importantly, guidelines for improvement are clearly articulated which should stimulate a productive dialogue with the employee. This conversation should engage both the manager and employee in a discussion that helps improve employee performance, productivity, and career development. To encourage this dialogue, supervisors and managers must provide written comments describing or defending their rating of the employee. Without these comments, the performance review process becomes no more than an elementary school report card.

So, what does a manager write about? To borrow from a popular television crime drama of the late 1960s, "the facts, ma'am, just the facts." Writing performance evaluations is not the time to engage in creative writing or clever prose which you hope will disguise uncomfortable issues or bad news.

The narrative portion of any performance evaluation is the most important. It is here where you, as the appraiser, have the opportunity to communicate in a clear, concise and constructive manner, everything your staff member needs to know in order to fully understand her job and perform it to the best of her ability. So facts are of critical importance. The more information about her performance that you can provide in factual form, the easier it will be to illustrate how he or she performed her job. This will also make it easier to assess empirical rather than anecdotal evidence in the context of (and measured against) established goals and objectives.

The language used when writing performance evaluations should always be without any opinion or editorial comment, unless such comments serve to provide guidance for improvement (e.g., "If I were you, this is how I would...."). Objective, unemotional language will not only assist you in staying on task, but will facilitate a less emotional response from your employee. Someone will always take a personal observation personally so don't make one.

One additional thing to remember when writing performance evaluations is that you should avoid including anything that is not relevant to the review itself. Keep references to outside issues or observations not related to how the job is performed out (e.g., family matters).

Writing effective performance evaluations is art, not science. It requires managers to describe shortfalls and recommend improvement. It’s time for employers to turn the annual performance review into a process that engages employees, not grades them. Providing thoughtful, objective, and helpful comments in addition to a numerical grade adds context to employee ratings and power to the process.

6 Tips To Save Time Doing Annual Performance Reviews

Ira Wolfe — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:27:00 GMT

Time is money. It is also true that time can save money. An example? Taking the time necessary to prepare for and conduct annual performance reviews can save your organization both time and money.

Annual performance reviews, also called performance evaluations or appraisals, are an essential and inevitable component of the relationship between employee and employer. That said, supervisors, managers and executives (perhaps especially executives) usually hate the thought of conducting reviews and would just as soon skip the whole process. Combine this perspective with the fact that the manager or supervisor puts off this responsibility as long as possible and the performance evaluation meeting is often awkward, uncomfortable or even contentious. The employee appraisal process is so stressful that it may even trigger termination of the employer-employee relationship.

Although the necessity of conducting a performance review is well documented, a stressful process and negative outcome is not. To help alleviate the pain, here are a few annual performance review tips.

1. The first tip relates to time. Before you actually review the employee's performance and certainly before you discuss the results of your review with her, you should set aside sufficient time to fully prepare yourself so that you are able to conduct an honest, objective and complete performance review devoid of emotion.

2. Re-familiarize yourself with the purpose of the appraisal. Review the employee's personnel file, her past reviews and her job description to be sure that what you're evaluating is what she understands her job to be.

3. Remember, this is an annual review, not disciplinary action. And by that I mean that waiting until the annual evaluation to carry out corrective action is not only unwise, it is inappropriate and counterproductive. Although conducting disciplinary or remedial action is beyond the scope of the present discussion, we would be remiss if we didn't issue a reminder that corrective action should be taken proximate in time to the incident(s) of inadequate performance or unacceptable conduct, not weeks or months after a non-performing incident.

4. No discussion of annual review tips is complete without reference to honesty. In order to conduct a performance appraisal productive for the company and employee alike, it is critical that the written review and the meeting to discuss it involve direct, clear and honest language. Failure to do so will only create problems down the road. If there are specific areas in which the employee needs to improve, he needs to be advised what they are and what he is to do about them if your intention is for him to remedy any shortcomings and improve his performance. (That is the purpose of the performance appraisal, right?).

5. Another important tip that your appraisal should be specific, both in written and spoken word. Quantify whenever possible. "Tardy 14 days in the last quarter" is objective; "always late" is not. If there is a behavior issue, use specific scenarios and facts to describe the behavior, not subjective statements such as "aggressive", "short-tempered", or "always in a bad mood." For example, what you consider aggressive, someone else may find to be initiative.

6. If your review includes some negatives, you must do everything in your power to converse with, rather than confront, the employee during the meeting. Refer to strengths and provide a clear path to improvement. Again, speak honestly, but with an eye on the big picture.

There are, of course, numerous other annual review tips. Regardless of which ones you incorporate, the bottom line is to do it and take the time to do it well. After all, avoidance disguised as expedience will not serve the process, you or your company.

6 Great Interview Questions

Ira Wolfe — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 05:19:00 GMT

Seth Godin posted a excellent post earlier this week. There's not much to add so I'm just posting it as is:

What good interview questions are actually trying to discover:

How long are you willing to keep pushing on a good project until you give up?
How hard is it to get you to change your mind when you're wrong?
How much do you learn from failing?
How long does it take you to learn something new?
How hard is it for you to let someone else take the lead?
How much do you care?

The rest is merely commentary, either that or they're interviewing you for a job that's not as good as you deserve. For those jobs, the only question they're really focusing on is, "will she fit in around here?"

When DISC Meets Social Networking

Ira Wolfe — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:45:00 GMT

A recent Hubspot post asked "if your marketing strategy had a personality type, what would it be?" The article discussed how Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) might be used in developing a good inbound marketing strategy, addressing each of these personality types.

That prompted me to dig into my library of posts and articles to find the one I published in my book Geeks, Geezers, and Googlization about DISC Meets Social Networking. A few things have changed since I wrote it, but I thought it was worthwhile revising and reprinting in light of the interest in how understanding personality types can help improve inbound marketing.

For those of you who know your behavioral style, do the following responses feel familiar?

D: Social networking is all about gaining market share and beating the pants off our competition. The change brought about by all this disruptive innovation, ambiguity, and complexity - it's the perfect environment for me to establish myself as the expert. I've got so much to tell people and Twitter is great. What more can I ask for - tell someone what I'm thinking in 140 characters or less!

I: Woohoo! For me, social networking sites keep me on a 24/7 high. They are a dream come true. I know no strangers, just friends I haven't met yet. I can now become friends with people all over the world. I feel like I'm at one continuous party. I love getting invitations to follow other people. That means other people find me interesting. It's such a warm feeling knowing that I never have to feel alone again. I can say whatever is on my mind whenever I want and there is always someone who is ready and willing to talk.

S: I'm overwhelmed. I opened accounts in Linkedin and Facebook but I wasn't sure what to do next. I got to the personal profile and felt uncomfortable sharing my birthday with complete strangers. How do I know that I can trust all these people who send me invitations? I've never even heard of many of them before? How much can I believe about the information people put on their profile? If I'm going to join a site, I'm going to start with just one and feel my way around. But I'm exhausted just thinking about getting started.

C: I'm really squeamish about this whole thing. There's just no research that any of these sites will ever last...and then what happens with all my information. Is it safe? You never can be too careful. Someone needs to prove to me that my privacy will be protected and that I can control who sees my profile. Only a fool would want to share their personal information with a complete stranger. I've got to study this more and evaluate the benefits vs. risk. If I do become a member, you can be assured I will keep my profile protected and only connect with people that I know and trust.

How are your behavioral preferences influencing your approach to social networking? How can marketers use DISC to tune their messages to different styles?

Why Interviews Aren't Fair....but Pre-Employment Tests Are

Ira Wolfe — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:03:00 GMT

“Our attorney told us that pre employment tests are illegal to use.” If that is your logic and defense for sticking with the interview and resume as your primary screening tools for employee selection, it is time to get with the program. The job relatedness of most interviews and many resumes carries very little weight when defending a discrimination claim by a candidate.

Since anyone can sue anyone for anything, we'll agree that employee discrimination claims are very real. But that doesn’t mean that all claims are justified. Ignoring tools that can help companies hire the right people and avoid costly employee turnover is a sign of avoidance, or even ignorance, of the risks associated with different employee selection assessments.
Unbeknownst to many human resource professionals and small business owners, the U.S. Department of Labor publication, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT: AN EMPLOYER'S GUIDE TO GOOD PRACTICES includes employee applications and the interview in the same category of employee assessment as the personality "inventory," background check, or drug test. In fact, any tool, inventory or procedure used to "assess" the fit of a candidate for hire or an employee for promotion is considered a test.

By this definition, the simple act of observation is considered an employment assessment and in order to be legally defensible, decisions based on observation must be as valid, reliable and job related as interview questions or personality tests.

So let's look at the manager or human resources director or corporate attorney who views the personality test as fluff, hocus-pocus, or just plain too risky and compare it to candidate observation? How would you defend yourself and your company if questioned about the validity or job-relatedness of any of these questions?

• Are you turned off by a male with a ponytail or a female with a buzz-cut?
• Are you turned on by individuals with athletic builds and turned off by anyone who is obese?
• Do you feel uneasy around other men who walk with a swish and speak with a lisp?
• Do tattoos, body-piercing and purple hair affect how you evaluate job fit?
• Men: do you prefer buxom, petite, and perky blondes to chunky, outspoken middle age women?
• Women: Are you attracted to tall, dark and handsome hunks or short, bald and chubby men?
• Do you notice if other people are wearing a crucifix, Star of David, or a mezuzah around their neck?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you are discriminating and put your company at risk for prejudicial hiring. Not one of the observations above is a valid predictor of abilities, skills, knowledge, or job fit.

Whether we intentionally or unintentionally do it, we all have our biases. We respond to the information we receive by valuing some of it positively and judging the rest of it negatively. Like it or not, we all have our preferences. Those things we value more or less bias our observations and therefore impact how we rate candidates for hiring.

In addition to looking through our own rose-colored glasses, how likely is it that our mood at that moment in time might affect our ability to interview fairly and without bias?

The simple act of observing candidates is filled with personal bias, much of which has nothing to do with job fit. The same goes for the process of interviewing. For most companies, observation and interviews fail to meet the required validity, reliability, and job relatedness standards required by law. If and when challenged, companies lose.

On the other hand, many (although admittedly not all) employee screening assessments have gone through extensive validation studies that confirm reliability, job-relatedness, and fairness. Pre-employment tests offer an objective, cost-effective, third party assessment of a candidate’s job fit.

Isn’t it time employers stop throwing stones at pre-employment personality tests when their current screening process is a house of glass?

5 No-No’s When Designing Performance Review Forms

Ira Wolfe — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:04:00 GMT

Human resources and management spend an awful lot of time designing performance review forms. That’s good news because despite the negative attitude of many managers toward completing the annual employee appraisal, it does show the good intentions of management to make the review more valuable for the employee and the company.

Unfortunately, good intentions don’t always end up with good results. Here’s a list of typical mistakes that companies make when designing employee evaluation forms.

Too much criteria to evaluate. To accommodate the personal viewpoints and biases of human resources, managers, and management, the number of items evaluated becomes everyone’s wish list with little to no relevance to performance. After a year’s deliberation, a client of mine recently released their new evaluation form…with 33 criteria. Consider these unintended circumstances: a manager has 6 reports. That means he needs to consider a total of 198 items when evaluating performance. Even if desirable, it’s not logical to think that a manager will give each item sufficient time before he offers a rating and/or include a comment that might be helpful to his direct report. If a company wants to turn a superficial feedback processes into complete irrelevance, then add as many competencies, goals, and attitudes as possible to the evaluation form. That strategy is a sure way to turn a performance feedback system from superficial to irrelevant.
Non-relevant criteria. Whether a human resources designs a form with 10 or 50 competencies isn’t as big a problem as when the criteria don’t directly impact employee performance. Management and HR painstakingly investigate the validity of pre-employment tests but rarely if ever test the relevance and correlation of criteria on their employee appraisal forms with performance, productivity, and profitability. For instance, attendance and appearance are almost universal criteria used by managers to evaluate performance. But little if any data supports the linkage between appearance (tattoos. piercings, facial hair, etc) and productivity or meeting attendance and profitability.
One form fits all. Out of necessity, many organizations use one form to evaluate all employees, from the maintenance person to the executive team. For the sake of sanity, reducing the number of form types to one or two prevents managers from completing the wrong form or version. It also minimizes the number of forms HR needs to update. Unfortunately this strategy makes no sense except for convenience. Ideally each position should have its own set of criteria; possibly four or five company-wide criteria plus up to a half-dozen job specific ones.
Lack of comments. A rating without supporting comments significantly diminishes the value of performance feedback. In effect, a performance review without comments is a report card – a grade on past behavior with no justification, documentation, or value. Without some explanation to the employee why the rating was given or recommendation for improvement, the value of the performance review is near meaningless.
Unintended comment consequences. Many companies require comments only if and when a managers gives an employee of 5 (consistently exceeds expectations) or (consistently misses expectations). Often this strategy is chosen with a single purpose – to avoid giving too many employees high or low ratings, especially if the ratings are tied to compensation. But even if compensation is not linked directly to the ratings, many managers will avoid giving an employee a 1 or 5 rating even if he or she deserves it – just to avoid taking the time to comment and justify the high or low rating. Requiring comments on only high and low ratings skews all employee performance ratings toward average. That strategy is neither motivating nor productive.

One very effective solution to improving the employee performance review process is to go digital. Online performance review systems don’t necessarily solve the problem of too much or not relevant criteria, but it does allow companies to customize multiple forms specific to different jobs. The problem of filling out the wrong form is minimized if not eliminated because the form the reviewer receives is programmed into the system, removing the chance of human error or oversight. By simplifying the distribution of multiple employee appraisal forms, HR can more easily engage managers from different departments and functions in selecting the criteria they feel are most important to improving the performance of their teams. By engaging managers, they have more ownership and participation will improve. Greater involvement and participation means faster and higher completion rates and more valuable feedback for employees.

Online performance reviews systems also can require a manager to comment on all reviewable items or as an alternative just the most critical ones. Unlike paper forms, the reviewing manager cannot submit the form until he or she includes a comment in addition to a rating.

Providing employee performance feedback has never been as critical to a company’s productivity and profitability as it is today. The ability to create employee evaluation forms specific to the responsibilities of individual employees is a significant benefit of putting the performance review process online.

Management and Leadership Competencies That Will Make or Break Your Business

Ira Wolfe — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:12:00 GMT

Management. Leadership. Two simple words, two complex concepts. In today's hyper-competitive business environment in which profits are scarce and companies are forced to do more with less, financial success (if not mere survival) depends on hiring the right people to manage and the right people to lead. The question is, of course, how to do this. In order to find effective managers and leaders, you must first identify the management and leadership competencies that make them successful.

Since successful recruiting and hiring is contingent upon finding leaders most likely to perform, if not excel, in the job, it critical that these efforts focus on managerial competencies. But let’s stop there for a minute.

What are competencies? They are, in short, a set of personal traits, skills, knowledge, and abilities that determine whether someone can perform a specific activity, task or job. These attributes address personal capability, a person's focus on results, the interpersonal skills and, for those considered for leadership positions, ability to lead organizational change and vision the future.

Many large American employers, including the federal government, have developed or are developing a list of core competencies which drive their personnel decisions (as an example, see Making the Right Connections-Targeting the Best Competencies for Training, A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, February 2011).

This sounds easy enough, but it really isn't. The difficulty doesn't lie in choosing the competencies that are important; the difficulty also lies in whether the management competencies of those doing the choosing are sufficient to adequately assess the importance and criteria of each competency. In other words, are your managers capable of distinguishing critical factors so that they can apply them appropriately when making personnel decisions?

Because traits, motives and characteristics are qualitative rather than quantitative, recognizing those deemed most relevant is a subjective exercise. And evaluating these characteristics is itself a subjective exercise. You could say that employing the right competencies by which to evaluate a candidate is actually something that requires its own competency.

Unfortunately no hiring decision requires accurate recognition of relevant competencies more than when a company is looking to bring aboard or promote a leader. Effective leadership requires that a person with vision is able to transmit that vision and convey a sense of mission (where are we going, how do we get there?) in such a way that she gets commitment from others to realize the vision and energizes them to feel empowered so that they, in turn, utilize their own capabilities, characteristics, their competencies, to maximum effect. (While that’s a mouthful, it accurately represents the complexity of effective leadership!)

So where does that leave executives and business owners? It leaves us is with the task of determining what competencies are crucial to the position for which we are hiring and then picking out the person in possession of those competencies, preferably in abundance. We can no longer hire people simply on the basis of education and prior experience, because what got a business to where it is today very likely aren’t the same skills required to keep it moving forward.

A typical list of managerial competencies might look like this:

Visioning
Decisive Judgment
Championing Change
Driving for Results
Planning and Organizing
Managing Others
Influencing and Persuading
Coaching and Developing Others
Motivating Others
Relationship Management
Integrity
Business Acumen

(Source: Assess Leading Others Competency Model)

How do these compare to your managerial skill list? How are you evaluating these competencies on candidates, current managers, as well as future leaders?

Why DISC Doesn't Work For Employee Screening

Ira Wolfe — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:28:00 GMT

There are several reasons why DISC doesn’t work for screening employees.

Before I dive into those reasons, let me first address a few of the reasons why so many employers do select DISC as their pre-employment test of choice for employee screening.

First of all, DISC has been around a long, long time. While the acronym DISC was adopted sometime in the mid-twentieth century, the four-style behavioral model was first described by Hippocrates somewhere around 400 B.C. If longevity has anything to do with credibility, the DISC assessment certainly has time on its side and centuries of endorsement.

Another reason is that DISC is also one of the most user-friendly assessments available. Most DISC assessments require only 10 to 15 minutes to complete, the questions are very easy to understand, and face validity (which means the participant agrees with the results of the assessment) is extremely high. And while fees vary widely, the cost is generally below $100, often times significantly less.

By now, it should be fairly obvious why DISC is so popular – user-friendly, high credibility, low-cost. All those reasons sound pretty good, don’t they? Then why am I saying that DISC doesn’t work for screening employees?

There are many reasons. Let me start with three.

Validation. This reason is a big one- one that concerns HR and employment law attorneys. While the DISC assessment itself is valid (it accurately measures what it says it measures), DISC is not a valid tool for job success. If that was the case, every assertive, outgoing individual would be a successful salesperson and every steady, compliant person would turn out to be a very successful accountant. But we know for sure that’s not the case. DISC merely assesses HOW energetically an individual will respond toward problems, people, pace, and procedures. It was not constructed to predict how proficient that same person might be at solving problems, interacting with people, working at a fast pace, or complying with rules and procedures.
Observation. DISC is an “observable language.” Each style (D-I-S-C) is easily observed by others when the other person(s) know what to look for. Ds and Is tend to be very animated; Ss and Cs more reserved. Is and Ss are more people-oriented; Ds and Cs are task focused. Is and Ss should be "good with people." But we know that isn't always so. People make assumptions about performance based on behavioral style. But as the research about hiring success shows, the behavior you see might not be a predictor of the results you get. Five-factor personality tests and cognitive ability tests are much better predictors of future job fit and skill potential than behavior style assessments like DISC and temperament assessments like MBTI. And that’s not only my opinion but the caveat offered by many of the DISC and MBTI publishers.
Norming. DISC assessments are considered ipsative tests. The preferred type of test for hiring is a normed test. Like hundreds of other assessments based on the four style behavioral model, DISC reports the relative strengths of the person being tested. If a DISC assessment reports the individual is 75% “high D”, this merely means this individual is energized by asserting him/herself in dealing with problems. What it does not predict is how two people with similar DISC patterns will perform a job or interact with others. In plain English, two people who both "score" 70% in the D Style might appear to approach the same problem in a similar way but get two entirely different outcomes. Using normative tests, an individual’s “score” measures a specific characteristic against confirmed patterns of normality, usually represented as a bell curve. In business, normative testing allows individuals to be compared to other employees who have met with success or failure in a job.

Normative tests (like PeopleClues, Prevue, and Assess) are therefore best suited as a recruitment and selection instrument. They can be also useful in developmental, coaching and training. By using normative tests when screening employees, managers can select candidates who will have the best chances of success if hired or promoted and avoid placing the wrong employee in the wrong position.

Note: I do recommend on occasion using DISC for employee screening and selection. While I mentioned DISC is not a good predictor job skills, it is a powerful assessment for predicting HOW a candidate will interact with other people and approach a project. By using DISC in conjunction wth five factor personality tests, managers can predict both job fit and team (people) fit with accuracy. When selecting the right pre-employment test for your organization, the best choice is not a case of either-or. If DISC is used for hiring employees, use it in conjunction with other hiring tools...or not at all.

Click here for more information about ipsative and normative tests.

8 Ways to Overhaul Your Employees' Annual Performance Reviews

Ira Wolfe — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:00:00 GMT

The dreaded annual performance review. This has to rank near the top of the list of necessary evils for managers and supervisors. The reasons are obvious: who looks forward to having to assess how someone is performing and providing him or her feedback?

Many managers chose to avoid any form of confrontation. Good news gets communicated while corrective feedback remains a secret. Avoiding giving employees feedback is not only bad management practice but a terrible recruitment and retention strategy. Unlike Baby Boomers, Gen Y (also called Millennials) demand more frequent and constructive feedback than once a year… or never as is the practice in many organizations.

To help managers improve employee management, this article offers Eight Ways to Overhaul Your Employees' Annual Performance Reviews.

#1: Review the employee's job description. Does the performance under review actually relate to the job for which the person was hired? Have the responsibilities changed? Are those changes reflected in the pesonnel file? If there have been undocumented changes, formalize them now and make them the new baseline for future assessment.

# 2: Once it's determined which job is actually being evaluated, separate the mission-critical components from the unimportant. 'Score' those areas that are key to the company's success higher than those that aren't. If, for example, "cleanliness of workstation" is lacking, but the work done at that desk is stellar, stay focused on the bottom line results.

#3: Make the review electronic. Files stuffed with paper aren't very user-friendly. In fact, they're a nightmare. Craft an electronic form annual performance review that is easily accessible and eliminates the hassle of paperwork.

#4: Increase the relevance of the review. In addition to the traditional checklist and 1-5 scoring system, provide narrative feedback that addresses specific situations. For example, if the employee is considered not to be a good team player, speak to examples and offer guidance on how the employee could have done things differently. Ratings don’t help – constructive comments do.

#5: Have the employee advocate for his performance. Many companies have the supervisor do one review and the employee another, each, in essence, filling out the same form. When differences of opinion result, both the manager and employee should be ready to justify their reasoning. These differences should not serve as sources of discord but catalyst for conversation. Provide specific examples of strengths and accomplishments, the ability to take direction and so on. There's a difference between saying "I'm excellent" and actually establishing it. Employees should share the responsibility of reviewing their performance.

#6: Coach, don't criticize. This should not be limited to the annual performance review. Criticism is easy. Coaching is not. Effective coaching provides employees a better environment within which to succeed. If an employee receives information about her performance once per year, the company has missed a year's worth of chances to identify areas for improvement and implement changes that enhance performance.

#7: Have the performance review discussions be conversational, not confrontational. Employees usually aren't looking forward to these meetings any more than their supervisors. So, discussing it in a manner in which a coach might address a star player will likely create a more comfortable atmosphere in which both sides can express their respective points and respond, not react, accordingly.

#8: The annual performance review must be honest. Rigorously honest. Not just with and about the employee. Managers must be honest with themselves. Are there issues the manager has with the employee that might impact his or her objectivity? Is the proper perspective being maintained? Is ego playing a disproportionate role in the evaluation? Failure to deal with these questions truthfully may doom the process to failure.

Implementing these steps (among others) will go a long way not only towards improving the annual performance review process but the supervisory skills of the management team as well.

How Safe Are Personality Tests for Screening Candidates?

Ira Wolfe — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:02:00 GMT

Despite evidence to the contrary, many human resource professionals and hiring managers continue to discount the reliability and predictability of psychometric and cognitive pre-employment testing.

Just a few days I gave a presentation to 50 HR professionals at a regional SHRM meeting. One of my four best practice recommendations was pre-employment testing. Not unexpectedly, one individual, a Vice-President of HR, raised her hand and asked, “how safe are personality tests?”

That’s a pretty common question I get. I wish more HR people would ask it. Asking the question at least starts a conversation. Not asking it keeps HR and employers living in a world of darkness and naiveté.

Many people still believe personality tests are illegal and that their use exposes an employer to more risk. I’ve written (along with many colleagues) quite a few blog posts and articles about why employee assessments are legal but unfortunately doubts still linger. HR and many employment law attorneys raise the risk flag (which trumps the voice of a consultant) and squash any attempts to assess candidates and employees alike.

But a new research paper titled Legal Risk in Selection: An analysis of processes and tools presented at the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology conference dispels many of the lingering myths associated with using personality and other employee tests.

The research findings reviewed EEOC and OFCCP cases settled both in and out of court between 1998 and 2010. Two key areas were covered: (1) type of selection test and (2) the hiring process.

Based on the findings, personality and other psychometric tests do carry some risk. But in nearly every case, the challenge did not involve the validity or reliability of the test but how the assessment was used. For example, according to Dr. Charles Handler, one of the most respected authorities on employee selection, “Cases that went to trial around selection devices were decided for the plaintiff only 28% of the time, vs. 68% for those related to the selection process, meaning that process issues are more likely to land an employer in hot water.”

Cases related to inconsistent process accounted for the largest percentage of all process related cases and over half of these were settled prior to court. A whopping 91% of all inconsistent process cases were found to be discriminatory.
Some examples of process related cases that were lost include:

In Dennis v Columbia Colleton Medical Center (2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals described the hospital’s selection process as “a peculiarly informal process” because their explanations for not hiring the plaintiff were different from the written job description, giving the decision “a flavor of post-hoc rationalizations.”
In Dunlap v Tennessee Valley Authority (2008), the court determined the company’s hiring process was discriminatory because they found 70 counts of manipulating test scores and changing interview and test scores in candidate rankings.
In Allen v Tobacco Superstore (2007), the company relied on word of mouth to publicize open positions and had no consistent procedures for advancement; employees simply asked a supervisor to be considered. The court found the word-of-mouth hiring and promotion process — which resulted in a company-wide dearth of Black store managers despite operating in communities with large Black populations — was discriminatory.

In the cases involving employee assessment tests (cognitive ability and psychomotor tests), decisions that favored the rejected candidates failed to demonstrate the job relatedness of the test, resulting in the adverse impact challenge.

In EEOC vs NationsBank of Tennessee (2001) a cognitive ability test discriminated against Hispanic employees by requiring English proficiency, a competency that was not required on the job.
In EEOC vs. American Airlines (2002), the company used a pre-employment test for meter readers and janitors that had adverse impact against females and measured skills that were not required on the job.

Interviews were also the subject of discrimination claims. And like the hiring process itself, the unstructured, informal traditional poses a much higher risk to the employer than does psychometric pre-employment testing.

Of all the cases that went to trial involving interviews, 50% of the unstructured interviews were ruled discriminatory. Structured interviews create consistency across interviewers and provide a rationale – job relatedness - behind the interview scores that contribute to hiring decisions.

So here’s a checklist of things HR and hiring managers must do to lower the risk of discrimination and improve the success of their hiring process.

1. Use a structured interview. According to Dr. Handler, “if you are not using a structured interview process, you have a problem.” I couldn’t agree more. The casual, off-the-cuff interview is not only poor risk management but not very predictable when selecting employees.

2. Be consistent. Interview questions must be consistent with job relatedness. Even if the interview questions are structured and managers trained in behavioral interviewing, it doesn’t mean the questions are job related (Dennis v Columbia Colleton Medical Center (2002). The same goes for the job board ad or word of mouth referral programs you use. If you write an ad or ask a question related to a responsibility or skill that is not required for the job, you open the door wider for adverse impact claims to step in.

3. Remain objective. Pre-employment testing IS legal. It’s also a best practice with positive results reported time and time again. Testing is not an astrology or voodoo-like experience but a scientifically proven practice that leads to better hiring results without increasing the risk of adverse discrimination.

Using pre-employment tests for the right reasons (job-relatedness) is the equivalent of having a skilled, unbiased, third party manager interview candidates. Many pre-employment assessments also include job-related interview questions, based on candidate results. These questions structure the interview and keep the focus on job-relatedness.

4-Point Checklist to Improve Annual Performance Reviews

Ira Wolfe — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 02:09:00 GMT

For years, the annual performance review has been an exhausting and unpleasant exercise in futility. Managers and employees alike have long dreaded the annual performance review, and many studies have shown it to be largely ineffective. They typically involve lots of paperwork and can inflict unnecessary, sometimes harmful, stress on everyone involved. However, there are several ways in which employers and managers can improve these reviews and see the results that these reviews were designed to achieve. This checklist will help employers achieve better results and will create a performance review system that helps cultivate a better, more productive work environment.

Include Positive, Not Just Negative, Evaluations
The tendency in these reviews is to focus exclusively on what the employee is doing wrong, while ignoring what they might be doing right. In today's modern work environment, it is important to not only critique, but also point out when the employee has gone above and beyond for the company. In many ways, the annual performance review is still tailored to the baby boomer generation. Older generations preferred their bosses to leave them alone, and the "no news is good news" edict was the norm. Today's generations are different, and expect their accomplishments to be recognized as much as they expect their shortcomings to be critiqued.

Go Electronic
Annual performance reviews are incredibly cumbersome for managers and employers. Managers and employers must adapt performance reviews to the modern world in which we live. The easiest way to improve the employee appraisal process is to simply put the evaluations online. There is no good reason for human resource managers and generalists to have to track down managers who don’t complete reviews on time or waste hours filing paper. An online performance review system will reduce paperwork for the employer and the employee and allow managers and their reports to spend more time on the evaluations, and less on busy work.

Built-in Improvement
The annual performance review should not just be used as a means to review past performance or compensation. It’s also an opportunity to improve future employee performance. The ultimate goal of the annual performance review should be to create a more productive and engaged worker. There must be built-in processes to help an employee address and respond to performance gaps and develop his potential in the current job and future roles.

Make Evaluations More Frequent and Less Formal
One of the biggest criticisms of the annual performance review, is that it is annual. These reviews are rendered largely ineffective because they identify problems when a solution was needed months ago. By having more frequent reviews, managers can identify and solve problems much faster, thus eliminating problems and enhancing productivity. Once a year reviews are also quite stressful for employees and managers alike. In essence, it is their one shot to prove their worth to the company. There's a lot riding on these reviews. A good one can mean a promotion and a raise. A bad one can lead to termination. Having quarterly evaluations will lead to better outcomes. If the employee is doing something wrong, they now know that they have an opportunity to correct it rather than simply being fired or demoted. With social media and an entire generation being raised on real-time response, people expect feedback much more frequently.

The performance review was designed to help managers and employees. Unfortunately, poor execution undermines its success. By following the guidelines described above, employee performance reviews will be more effective and workers more productive.

Google Returns 60 million+ Results for “Interview Questions Guide”

Ira Wolfe — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:31:00 GMT

Creating an effective employer interview question guide is a necessity for hiring qualified workers. But a simple search for the phrase “interview question guide” turns up 60,200,200 Google results in only 0.14 seconds. With such an ample supply of free advice, why are employee interviews so ineffective at employee screening and employee selection?

An effective employee interview requires that manager ask the right questions in the right way. Unfortunately many interviewers ask the wrong questions. That’s not even counting how many managers ask good interview questions in the wrong way. Asking the wrong questions in the wrong way at the wrong time and in the wrong setting are all reasons why the traditional interview has odds of success just slightly better than flipping a coin.

Asking the right questions is the first step in ensuring that the interview is not only valid and legal but also more accurate and predictive.

The problem with most employee interviews is that the wrong questions can elicit persuasive but non-predictive candidate responses that influence managers to hire them. There are two types of wrong questions. First, you have the illegal questions – the questions you can’t ask. Federal and some state law explicitly prohibit asking specific questions about age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion and others. These questions are nixed because they generally have nothing to do with the ability to do the job. The solution to this problem is simple – avoid these questions.

That leads us to the second type of questions – the questions you can ask. Unfortunately that approach doesn’t mean you can ask just any question that comes to mind.

The interview itself can be approached in two ways. Most often managers and other interviewers tend to ask questions and listen for responses that confirm their assumptions. That approach is a horribly inaccurate way to consistently hire employees. Assumptions are often not factual and definitely not helpful when selecting successful workers.

The other approach is to challenge your assumptions and biases. Instead of seeking the “right” answers to a question and then moving on to the next question, interviewers need to probe deeper with more questions – to “test” the candidate. (FYI – the interview is considered an assessment or test by U.S. Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) just like a personality assessment or other pre-employment tests.)

For example, an interviewer often asks this popular interview question to a managerial candidate: “describe for me how you have motivated an under-performing employee?” The candidate describes a scenario that is music to the interviewer’s ears. The interviewer checks off that question and moves on to the next. Unfortunately the candidate could have just recited a scripted response he picked up on the Internet or learned from a friend. Providing the “right” answer doesn’t conclude the candidate actually performed this act or even has the ability to do it. All he or she did was merely show a skill in answering a question.

And here’s a third step necessary for effective interviewing. While the candidate might have indeed accomplished what he says he did, the skilled interviewer should not accept the response at face value. He should follow up by asking something like “And how did you learn that process?” or “have you been able to repeat that success again?” Few if any interview questions relating to job fit should ever answered satisfactorily with just one response. The interviewer should always be prepared with a probing follow up question. My rule of thumb is that for every question asked, the interviewer should be prepared to ask two additional follow up questions.

Interviewers also tend to ask a lot of questions that might be job related, but not job relevant. Agencies like Equal Employment Opportunity Commission only require that employers ask job related questions. But while a question like “tell me what you disliked about your last job” might be job related, it might not help you determine if the individual can actually do the job for you. A job relevant question might be “tell me how you generate and qualify leads” or “describe your role in developing and implementing a plan to reduce employee turnover.”

The questions a manager asks a candidate MUST help understand each of the following three things: job fit, team fit, or culture fit. By asking the right job relevant questions targeting all three areas, following up with additional probing questions, and challenging your assumptions, managers will begin to hire successful workers and avoid the problem of selecting candidates who interview well, but perform poorly.

A Fine Line: 5 Top Performer Sales Personality Traits

Ira Wolfe — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:49:00 GMT

Not all salespeople are successful. Given the same experience and education, why do some salespeople succeed where others fail? Is it motivation? Product knowledge? Evidence suggests that key personality traits directly influence a top performers' selling style and ultimately their success. What follows is a list of my findings after reviewing thousands of sales personality tests and post-hire discussions with clients.

Collaborative. A fine line exists between confidence and bravado, ambition and selfishness. Ego and greed are two sales personality traits that don’t mix well with clients. While there is no question that the salesperson who believes “that second place is the first place for losers” can be successful, that’s a tough blueprint for sustainable relationships. Long-term high value clients don’t develop when every sales transaction has a winner and loser. Top performing salespeople in all but the low-margin, high volume transactional sale requires the ability to collaborate with, not compete against, customers. The focal point of every sales transaction should be team, which includes the customer and other critical players within the company. A dash of modesty and humility wouldn't hurt either.

Conscientiousness. The stereotypical salesperson is often deemed to be synonymous with over-promising, under-delivering. It’s also a given that most top performers don’t like completing and submitting reports. But not liking details and low compliance doesn’t bode well with clients. One trait that differentiates top performers from average and below-performers is conscientiousness, having a high level of reliability and accountability.

Curiosity. A passion for asking questions (and then listening for the answer) is a trait that over three-quarters of top performers possess. Especially in today’s marketplace, a thirst for knowledge and desire to be a subject matter expert is a must. Unfortunately for many previously successful salespeople, a large part of their past success relied on others spoon feeding them information. But now, the ability to solve problems quickly is a key differentiator. This doesn’t mean that every top performer is a walking/talking encyclopedia. But it does mean that he or she has to know what to ask and where to get the information about a customer’s business, competition, and customers almost on the fly. On the other hand, low performers take too much for granted and accept too much information at face value.

Sociability. One of the most surprising differences between top performing salespeople and those ranking in the bottom half is their level of sociability and outgoingness - and that doesn't mean hire extroverts, reject introverts. Many “best fit” models place a high value on extroversion as a predictor for sales success. But research has shown time and again that listening skills are just as important to selling as networking and persuasiveness. Managers tend to be impressed with the extrovert who can walk into a room of 100 strangers and within minutes be the life of the party. They are the analog equivalent of the Facebook user who has 5,000 “friends,” a large rolodex. But extroverts have a tendency to do a lot of talking and not enough listening (That's what makes them extroverts!) But how many salespeople do you know (or maybe even hired) that has thousands of contacts but few sales. While presentation and interpersonal skills are critical, over-reliance on sociability and extroversion as key indicators for hiring salespeople leads to a significant number of failures. In other words, the introvert who is curious, articulate, and personable yet reserved, can be just as successful if not more so than the gregarious extrovert.

Stability. Resilience and coping skills are likely the most overlooked traits when it comes to selecting salesperson. Emotional stability which drives both resilience and stress management is also the most misunderstood trait. In one study after the other, too much stability is as bad as too little when it comes to predicting top performers. In fact, in several studies, 50 percent of low performing salespeople had so much composure that they lacked a sense of urgency, an Achilles Heel in most sales organizations. Likewise, candidates who had an “edge” about them – always restless and anxious, almost ADHD-like - often turn out to be the high-energy, always “on” individuals. Management rewards them for hard work and loyalty, only to discover that they are also high maintenance, demanding, and needy. Over time, the team of “Energizer” bunnies wears everyone down around them, including the manager. Of all the sales personality traits, the right amount of emotional stability is one of the most predictive of top performance.

These five traits can be assessed esily with a number of different employee assessment tools, including a combination sales personality tests and behavioral interviewing. The assessment model I recommend is based on the 5-Factor model, most easily remembered by the acronym OCEAN – openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. We currently offer three different assessments based on this model – Clues, Prevue, and Assess.

Learn more about each of these assessments and how they might fit in your business.

Millennial Mindset: 18+ Things That 18 Year Olds Find Normal

Ira Wolfe — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:00:00 GMT

No matter how much I try, I’m amazed each August when the Beloit College Mindset List is released. And this year’s list for the Class of 2015 is no exception.

The list has been compiled since 1998 by Beloit’s former Public Affairs Director Ron Nief and Keefer Professor of the Humanities Tom McBride. Coincidentally, they just released a new book The Mindset Lists of American History and the subtitle says it all: From Typewriters to Text Messages, What Ten Generations of Americans Think Is Normal.

Originally intended to remind college professors that their students are from a different generation not a distant planet, the list is an intriguing, and sometimes cruel, reminder that we’re getting older. “We” for this example includes Veterans (born prior to 1946), Baby Boomers (1946-1964), and much to their chagrin Generation X (1965-1979). What’s important, each generation considers its experiences and values normal. Unfortunately what is normal for a Baby Boomer is just history for the Millennials. And what is normal for Millennials seems quaint and even trivial to generations that passed before them.

This year's "Mindset List" again includes life shaping experiences that are part of a Baby Boomer’s or Generation’s DNA but is totally irrelevant for the college freshmen, the class of 2015 mostly born in 1993. As the survey suggests, this younger generation hasn’t the foggiest idea about what older generations are talking about when they we say “I remember when….” For Baby Boomers, the list is a harsh reminder about how much times have changed in just 40 years.
Consider this: Back in the '60s, people pulled up to the gas pump and get 3 gallons of gas plus change, a windshield wash, and oil check (gas was only 31 cents a gallon). You could also send letters to 20 friends for $1 or send 25 postcards. And if you stopped by the grocery store, you could purchase a gallon of milk for 95 cents; a Pound of sirloin steak for 85 cents; and a six-pack of Pepsi for 59 cents. And remember that media called the newspaper? You could get the New York Times for 10 cents from Monday through Saturday. And if you splurged you could spend 30 cents for the Sunday edition! For today’s 18-year-old, this isn’t recent history – it’s almost fiction.

Flash forward to the Millennials entering college this week. Among other things, a river in South America is not the first thing they think of when they hear the word Amazon; there always has been an Internet ramp onto the information highway; "PC" doesn't stand for "political correctness"; they've never touched a "dial" on a TV; LBJ stands for LeBron James and music has always been available via free downloads.

Here’s 18 more things that 18 year olds starting college this month find normal:

Andre the Giant, River Phoenix, Frank Zappa, Arthur Ashe and the Commodore 64 have always been dead.
States and Velcro parents have always required that they wear their bike helmets.
The only significant labor disputes in their lifetimes have been in major league sports.
There have always been at least two women on the Supreme Court, and women have always commanded U.S. Navy ships.
“Don’t touch that dial!”….what dial?
Refer to LBJ, and they might assume you're talking about LeBron James.
They’ve always gone to school with Mohammed and Jesus.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show has always been available on TV.
Arnold Palmer has always been a drink.
Dial-up is soooooooooo last century!
Their older siblings have told them about the days when Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera were Mouseketeers.
Music has always been available via free downloads.
Sears has never sold anything out of a Big Book that could also serve as a doorstop.
They’ve always wanted to be like Shaq or Kobe: Michael (Jordan) Who?
They’ve often broken up with their significant others via texting, Facebook, or MySpace.
Their parents sort of remember Woolworths as this store that used to be downtown.
They won’t go near a retailer that lacks a website.
“PC” has come to mean Personal Computer, not Political Correctness.

Read the rest of the 2015 Beloit College Mindset List.

Employment Testing: What's Next?

Ira Wolfe — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:00:00 GMT

Despite persistent slow hiring by businesses, spending on employment testing rose about 20 percent in the US last year to between 1.5 and $2 billion annually (Workforce.com). One reason for the increase might be that organizations using assessments report on average 18 percent more of their organizational goals achieved and 15 percent more of their new hires achieving their first performance milestone on time (Aberdeen Group). So what’s next for employee assessments?

SHL Previsor’s recently released 2011 Business Outcomes Study report reviewed several recent trends in assessment.

Multimedia-based assessments

At the top of the list was the increasing use of multimedia-based assessments. These can take the form of audio, video, and/or animation. These technologically advanced assessments not only look realistic but do predict the critical business outcomes they are designed to impact. In addition, those who complete these assessments consider them relevant and realistic, resulting in high overall candidate engagement.

More Organizations Integrating Assessments into their Applicant Tracking Systems

As organizations are inundated with increasing numbers of applicants from multiple sources, there is a clear trend to integrate all of that information seamlessly into Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS). ATS integrations increased 70% in 2010 over 2009. By integrating assessments into an ATS, HR professionals may use a single interface to manage the full range of hiring data and processes about prospective talent. HR professionals who leverage this approach are driving additional cost savings, a reduced time to hire, and of course the bottom line productivity impact from improving the quality of hire.

Structured Interviewing Gains Ground

Although structured behavioral interviews have been around for decades, the interest in this approach has seen resurgence with the availability of new, robust online tools. Overall, structured interviews add consistency and objectivity to what could otherwise be a somewhat arbitrary hiring mechanism. Many assessment programs include a structured interview guide in each candidate report, where the questions are customized based on how the candidate responds to the assessment questions. According to our 2011 Global Assessments Trends Report, nearly 95% of survey respondents’ companies use or plan to use structured interviews in their hiring processes, up from approximately 85% in the previous two years.

Testing Goes on the Road: Remote and Mobile Assessments

Organizations are embracing the use of remote testing. In a recent survey, 83% of respondents reported that their organizations use remote assessments as part of their recruitment processes. Smart phone/ mobile testing is inevitable as this type of technology surpasses traditional ways individuals access the Internet and could potentially prove to be a competitive advantage for companies who want to engage candidates early in the process.

Assessments Support Employee Talent Development

Assessments are often thought of as a way to identify the best candidates for a position, but another important and growing use for them is to assess the incumbent workforce for development and succession planning. Pairing assessment results with other information, such as multi-source (360 multi-rater) performance ratings, can give decision-makers more refined and informative data to evaluate, develop, or promote talent.

Personality and ability scores can often be paired with 360 degree feedback and on the job performance data to provide a rounded picture of a person’s potential and actual performance. In some cases, organizations ask employees to create their development plans after an in-depth assessment and integration of the resulting data. Overall, the information from objective assessment programs can be used successfully to identify potential in employees and inform a myriad of decisions about an organization’s talent.