For the record, I cannot stand generalizations. They do not tell the story the way it really is.
I have always admired the potential power of the HR department. It is the single department that has the potential to add or destroy tremendous value. Unfortunately, much of that created or destroyed value is hidden. It is the type of value that one cannot always quantify on the balance sheet but it is there. After all... How does one quantify strong employee morale vs. low employee morale?
I am frustrated...
Over the years in working with the HR departments of hundreds of companies, we have worked with some of the most brilliant minds in HR as well as some of the most inept, unprofessional types you can imagine. "Generally" - HR types come in two "categories" and typically have something in common with their peers:
-
The strategic HR "types" get it. They usually use pre-employement personality assessments. Strategic HR professionals are "seekers" - they seek a better way of doing everything.
-
The non-strategic HR "types" do not get it. Non-strategic HR types typically do not use pre-employment personality assessments. They instead trust their instincts, intuition, and biases. Non-strategic HR people are "guardians of the status quo" - they seek to protect the way things have always been done.
Is there a "rhyme or reason" to the type or size of organization and the level of "get it" or "strategic level" of the HR professional and/or team? No, there is not.
We have seen some of the biggest organizations with amazing HR teams who are incredibly strategic as well as small companies. On the other hand, we have seen significant-sized organizations with HR departments that leave me shaking my head wondering how they stay in business with their HR and talent management practices.
I am absolutely convinced that there are HR professionals and departments whose real mission is to protect their status quo - not add value to the mission of the organization. There are HR departments out there who do not use pre-employment personality profile assessments because they are "pretty good" at interviewing people - they have a good "nose" for talent. They apparently are not biased in any way.
Recently, we experienced yet another situation where HR shot down the pre-employment screening solution we have demonstrated time and time again that it adds serious value, is EEOC compliant, and relatively simple to implement. As usual, we did our homework. We sample-assessed more than a dozen high performers as well as more than a dozen low performers.
The predictability was clearly there. It was beyond obvious. Our personality profile solution CLEARLY demonstrated predictive talent selection value.
Yet, they sent us the bad news. It sounded something like the following...
"With 2010 budgets wrapped up, we realize we have some very tough times ahead of us. We will not be moving forward with candidate assessments this year."
Excuse me?
Alright. I hereby give permission to anyone that would like to call me and save me money. Please call any time. I love to save money.
If you have a way to help me make money - even better yet. Call me day or night. I am all ears.
Here is the punchline... We had not even discussed price and they decided not to proceed...
What? Huh?
Think about it strategically. The math is actually quite simple... The facts are indisputable.
Selecting the wrong talent is costly - We did our homework here as well. Not only did we show the predictability of our assessments, we helped our HR contact understand the true cost of their talent mismanagement problem. It was quite significant to say the least. It was as we sometimes call it, a "no brainer". They agreed that they had to do something to improve their hiring process.
Studies suggest that validated assessments are better predictors of future performance than interviews alone. Human beings are inherently biased. I have never met a human being that can consistently beat our assessment system.
Reduce expenses / maximize margins - We are facing tough economic times where, as always, one must watch expenses and maximize margins. Therefore as long as the return on investment of the improved productivity and reduced employee turnover is higher than the assessment investment, make it happen.
Better Talent or Job Fit leads to improved margins, reduced turnover costs. Who does not want to make more money and reduce employee turnover costs?
What is one to assume when an HR professional is given pre-employment assessment data that demonstrates without a doubt that predictability is clear and yet they decide their budget cannot handle the investment?
Yes, I know. It makes me wonder too.
I believe I know what the problem really was. I believe this particular HR department was scared. They were scared that their "zone of control" would be threatened. Some HR people really enjoy their power - their ability to sit high on the "throne of judgement" during the interview process. To bring in an impartial, statistically-validated pre-employment assessment tool that actually did a better job then they do?
We cannot have that.
Now go Maximize Possibility!
Other posts you may be interested in:
- "Hey! I Want my $200K Back!" The High Cost of Hiring Mistakes
- Hiring the Best Sales People
- How Poorly Fit Team Members Pose as High Performers
- Are You Hiring Candidates or Selecting Them? There is a BIG Difference!
Chris Young helps organizations Maximize Possibility through talent management, cultural transformation, and strategic intervention. Bring Chris in today!
