|
| SELECTING TOP PERFORMERS
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR |
|
 When using job match assessments to
improve the selection and promotion process, success may
depend largely upon how top performers are identified.
Since the process is designed to help a business select
candidates who share the job-related characteristics of
top performers, misidentification of those
characteristics by misidentifying members of that group
can lead to poor results and selection of candidates who
do not perform well.
Ask a
manager who his or her top performers are and you will
usually get a quick answer. Ask for the basis of that
selection, however, and you may be surprised how fuzzy
or imprecise the criteria are. It is not unusual to
discover that managers have no measurable, repeatable
criteria for identifying this most important group of
employees!
In some jobs, measurable and objective
criteria are relatively easy to identify. A salesperson,
for example, may be measured on sales production (units,
dollars, profit, etc.). Appropriate measures for sales
performance may also include calls made per unit of
time, customer service measures or revenue growth.
Performance in other jobs may not be as easy to measure.
 | What are the metrics for a top
performing social worker?
|
| How do we measure performance of a
researcher in a pharmaceutical company where 20 years
of research by 50 people may go into the development
of a single new drug? |
Often, faced with the task of
identifying performance measures in a field with soft
outputs or very long-term outputs, managers fall back on
personal likes and dislikes, personality conflicts/lack
of conflicts or other measures with little relationship
to their company’s goals, profitability or long-term
success.
In some settings, recognition of these
challenges result in attempts to make evaluation more
objective. A favourite tactic in these settings is
supervisory rating scales, where supervisors rate
incumbents on one or more dimensions thought critical to
performance on a numerical scale that may run from three
to 10 points. The outcome of such ratings may look
objective, as we tend to associate decimal numbers with
objectivity: “She scored a 2.7 of a possible three!”
Unfortunately, analysis of range compression (where
everyone scores in a one-point range of a possible
three) and interrater reliability raises serious
questions about the validity and utility of these
procedures.
If the procedures are flawed, the
outcomes will be equally flawed, with serious
consequences for the business and the employees
affected.
What can a manager do to avoid these
pitfalls and select top performers on the basis of
objective, repeatable and predictive criteria?
Fortunately, since the issues in selecting top
performers for job fit assessment are essentially the
same as those surrounding the entire topic of
performance appraisal, the literature is rich with
sources offering guidance.
Interested readers might start with these
titles:
| The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Performance
Appraisals, Adele Margrave and Robert Gorden, 2001.
|
| Performance Management, Robert Bacal, 1998. |
| The Performance Management Activity Pack, Terry
Gillen, 2001 |
|
|
| CREDIT UNION CUTS TURNOVER WITH ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM |
| In last month’s edition of Employer’s Advantage, the
case study demonstrated how a bank used a strategic
assessment program to cut turnover, improve customer
service and bring more profit to the bottom line.
As the current data set demonstrates, similar savings
and improved performance can apply to credit unions as
well. Volume two, Issue two, featured a mid-sized credit
union whose preliminary data illustrated that their
strategic assessment program was achieving desired
results. After a full year, the early indications are
confirmed.
 The
credit union adopted a funnel model of selection. At the
wide end of the funnel, applicants are screened for
suitability on the basis of their application documents.
Those chosen to enter the interview process first
complete an honesty-integrity assessment, the Step One
Survey II™ (SOS2).
With a strong applicant pool, the
credit union applies a relatively high criterion to the
scores on that instrument. The criterion, combined with
an initial interview (using the assessment’s interview
guide) selects approximately 40 percent of the pool to
continue the process.
At this point, candidates
remaining in the pool complete a job match assessment
specific to customer service jobs, the Customer Service
Perspective™ (CSP). If their match to the success
pattern for the job under consideration is favorable,
they also complete a job match assessment specific to
sales, the Profile Sales Indicator™ (PSI). A final
interview is conducted considering the complete file of
information available (assessments, employment history,
reference checks and interview results) and a job offer
decision is reached.
After a full year of this effort, the evidence is
clear: the program works as designed. Results of the
turnover reduction are illustrated in the graph below.
More importantly to the credit union and its
owner-members, return on their investment is
exceptional, and will allow them to continue pursuit of
improved customer service.
|
|
| LET THE DATA DETERMINE THE
CAREER PATH -
A CASE STUDY IN TITLE & ESCROW |
| In the title and escrow industry,
tradition has long determined a career path. Following
the century-old tradition of apprenticeships, candidates
hoping to become escrow closers usually serve a three to
five year term as an escrow assistant. If the assistant
works hard and performs well a promotion will usually
follow. Unfortunately, the rigors of the assistant
position also effectively reduce the number of
candidates surviving to become escrow closers. Many of
those who eventually get the promotion fail at the new
job and frequently leave their company or the industry
altogether. A successful Title & Escrow business
followed the traditional model for years, until they
noticed something while using the ProfileXT in
developing success patterns. The patterns generated by
the top escrow assistants were markedly different than
those generated by the top escrow closers.
While discussing these rather surprising findings
within their own ranks, they identified a major
difference between the primary functions of successful
people in each job. Escrow assistants were primarily
clerical and administrative in activity, while escrow
closers performed sales and customer service functions,
with some administrative duties. |
As these results became apparent an
opportunity to break tradition presented itself. Company
leaders asked: what if, when hiring was taking place,
job candidates were identified according to their match
to each of these distinctively different jobs?
Identification of individuals likely to succeed as
closers would allow a reduced training cycle, producing
productive closers in half the time that had been
required under the apprenticeship model.
Candidates who were a great match to the escrow
assistant job could develop in that career path and
would never feel pressured to "move up" to a job with a
large sales component for which they exhibited a poor
job match.
The company is in the second year of development
along these revised career paths. Promising new escrow
closers are producing new business, and quality escrow
assistants are becoming professionals in an endeavour
well suited to their strengths. Overall, the entire
escrow team is stronger, and more productive, with lower
turnover in each job category. The two job pattern
graphs are presented below. |
|
 |
"Success is
not so much what we have as it is what we are."
~ Jim Rohn
|
| |
|
|
|
|
  |
|
|
|
| | |
