Choosing The Best Candidates

One of the most recent blogs I've come across on LinkedIn references to research from 2015 titled, "Why New Hires Fail" (Emotional Intelligence Vs. Skills). Leadership IQ conducted the research on which this essay is based. The article's opening paragraph reads, in part, as follows: "46 percent of new hires will fail within 18 months, according to a research by Leadership IQ; 19 percent will succeed. In reality, poor interpersonal skills are the most common reason new recruits fail, and many of their bosses confess that they were neglected during the interview process "As a matter of fact,. To be clear, I will not be disputing the poll, its methodology, or its findings.

The survey's findings are not the only ones of their kind (when it comes to the error rate). Many more studies and publications back up these findings. In 2013, Associate Professor and PhD Bo H. Eriksen's study concluded that 40 percent of all new recruits in Danish small and medium-sized businesses left their jobs within the first year (with an estimated 200-300,000 DKK turnover loss per quit). The study focuses and concludes more on faulty recruiting competences and methods than it does on the distinction between technical and emotional talents. Even though Bo H. Eriksen has previously shown that recruiting experienced workers does not increase efficiency, this view has been challenged in recent years.

Returning to the blog, there were a plethora of responses! Thanks for raising the issue, Henrik, because it's a critical one to debate. Initially, I was perplexed and annoyed by the content of the remarks. Many "I think...", "It's my experience/I know...", "We do...", and so forth. Simply said, this is not good enough, and it's also the predicted easy reason for "Why New Hires Fail" Recruitment practices should be designed and implemented in accordance with a large body of scientific evidence. In my opinion, the success rate would be greatly increased if recruiting managers and HR experts, as well as recruiters, including headhunters, followed certain simple and in many cases straightforward approaches (by 30 percent points or more). The headlines are listed below: You'll discover ideas for factors that can considerably boost recruiting excellence in our lists of the Top 2 Things to Do and Top 2 Myths, as well as an overall summary.

The 2 Most Important Things to Do, According to Empirical Evidence

There are GMA exams.

Recruitment processes should always begin with an assessment of an applicant's GMA. The GMA is the most important factor in predicting future success (intelligence). GMA has a "explanation power" of less than 3%, according to the last study I've read, with a correlation value of r=.65. This means that up to 42% of the variance in future performance may be explained by the GMA component. Schmidt, Oh & Shaffer, 2016 provided the data.

When GMA is used as a key selection criteria, it also exhibits a significant association to what is known as work-related learning. Who wouldn't want to recruit the employees who would benefit the most from on-the-job training and gain the most from their experience on the job more quickly?

Because of this, GMA testing should be used! (Commentary comes to a close)

Incorporate the GMA Test into...

If you combine GMA and integrity exams or employment interviews (whether they're framed as structured or not), you may get a R above.70, which means that around 49% of the variation in future performance can be predicted.

So, in terms of expense, a GMA and conscientiousness exam could be more appropriate – and everything can then be handled by a computerized solution (read: robot).

Supported by empirical evidence are the following two myths:

This is a bogus idea known as "emotional intelligence."

When it comes to professional success, having high levels of emotional intelligence (also known as EI or EQ) may be the new black... or is it? Here is a remark from Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson, who teaches at the University of Toronto. "Emotional intelligence (EQ) is a myth. Scientifically, it is an unsubstantiated theory, an unsubstantiated craze, an easy bandwagon to get on, and a corporate marketing strategy "For further information, please see the following link: There is currently no evidence that EQ is a legitimate psychometric concept. One of the most well-documented psychometric tools—the "Big Five"—describes EQ as at best a component of "Agreeableness" or "Conscientiousness." However, as Jordan put it: "No such thing as emotional intelligence exists. No such thing as emotional intelligence exists. EQ DOESN'T EXIST, and never has "The quote is 100% accurate, just in case you were wondering).

When it comes to interpreting personality tests, don't assume that Emotional Intelligence is the best way to do it!

Many companies use personality tests as part of their selection process. I don't know how often personality tests are utilized in the workplace. All of our recruiting and Executive Search procedures include it, and I've heard headlines claiming that up to 70% of all Danish recruitments are conducted this way.

The finest tests on the market (when utilized correctly) only have a validity r of around.12, which means that only about 2% of the variation in future job performance can be explained by them. The first thing that people should know is that. 'Conscientiousness' (about 5%) has the highest correlation in a test like 'Big Five,' while the attribute 'Extraversion' (around 0%) has the lowest connection.

So, what does this all signify in the grand scheme of things? As a result, the use of personality tests in the recruitment process should be questioned, or at the very least tested. Every attempt to "uncover" a candidate's personality by interpreting test results from a personality test just worsens and pollutes an already tainted relationship because no one (or very few) has the qualifications to do so.

As a result, refrain from assigning meaning to the results of personality assessments. You're not up to the task. What should I do next? Most of your work will be devoted to constructing hypotheses about a candidate's real behavior, testing those hypotheses, and then coming up with an overall picture of their character. You use this picture to match the job description.

Recruitment Excellence: What Does It Mean?

It is a talent to learn how to manage stakeholders and to analyze, listen and challenge.

Second, it's a good use of tried-and-true procedures that are easy to implement.

• Recognize the importance of (hiring manager should be challenged big time)
• Make sure you know where to find the best people
• This includes a thorough examination of the applicant and the use of basic approaches to arrive at findings (e.g. GMA and conscientiousness)
• Make use of the evaluation process to push yourself when you have excellent gut emotions about a potential recruit