The other day I explored the whole “talent = star”
concept. The problem with the star-system approach to talent aquisition and management
is that a single individual can rarely achieve the value creation level of a
team of well aligned individuals. Banking on a star's next big hit is not the
same thing as predicting future success by past outcomes. "Big hits"
are not the same thing as "ongoing success." Thinking that Marc Andreessen is
going to create another Netscape is just pure folly. There are too many
elements of a big hit that are outside of the individual producer's control to
believe that lightning will strike the same place twice.
As the nature of corporate work becomes more project-focused and team-dependent the whole gestalt of the star system begins to eat away at organizational productivity and capability. This isn’t to say that everyone is equal. Far from it: there are people who produce more value with the same inputs than others. But it is a reflection of the fact that you must always start with the end in mind: if the objective of the corporation is to deliver successful products to the market, then it will increasingly be our job in the recruiting organization to talk hiring managers off the “I must have a star!” ledge.
That doesn’t mean that it is possible to have a
conversation with a hiring manager that starts with “Let me get back to you
with the three to five biggest idiots I can round up.” Intelligence is
important, but we should always beware taking any one factor as shorthand for
future success (like education or experience). The tricky part about recruiting
is you have to sell while you are solving an equation with a lot of variables.
It is tempting to reduce the complexity of the equation by saying "Everyone
says they're smart, so I know they'll do a great job" (although it certainly
hasn't seemed to hurt Google... yet).
In fact, "smart" is often filled with a lot of
traps. Smart people typically jump to conclusions without enough information
and can be so sure of their conclusions that they foreclose future exploration.
Of course you can witness these behaviors even in dumb people (politics seems to frequently
attract that particular type of person), but people without intellectual firepower
tend to be less convincing with their answers. (Full disclosure: while I am
rarely accused of being smart, I am regularly accused of being guilty of the
sins I just described.) Check out Roger von Oech's A Whack on the Side of
the Head
for a great description of this phenomenon.
A storyto illustrate this point. Ray
Morgan (of parallel processing fame) once told me about the worst
interview he ever sat through. Ray would ask the guy sitting across from him a
question, and the candidate would just sit there and stare right into Ray's
face: a sort of lights-are-on-but-nobody-is-home experience. Just as Ray was
about to stand up and say "OK, well, when you come back to earth you can
show yourself the way out" the guy replied with a perfect, concise,
well-reasoned answer. This scenario played itself out repeatedly during the
interview: question, vacant pause and then a great answer. Ray decided
to hire the fellow, and he turned out to be one of his best employees. The guy
wasn't quick, but he knew how to find the right answer. Was he smart? Who
knows, and really, who cares? He was effective.
The question you have to ask yourself, each and every time you source and hire, is do you want to be right or do you want to be rich? Do you want to be
the kind of person who only hires people who dazzle you with their brilliance
while they destroy your project, or do you want to hire the blank-stare guy who
delivers?
So the conclusion of this post is “It’s all about the
talent” may in fact mean “It’s all about the person who can drive teams to
success, even if they're not 'smart'.”
In Growing Up Gifted, Dr. Barbara Clark reviewed the research of Dahlberg, Gross, Koppel, Lovecky and Silverman, and listed the following as characteristics commonly found among highly gifted individuals.
An extraordinary speed in processing information.
A rapid and thorough comprehension of the whole idea or concept.
An unusual ability to perceive essential elements and underlying structures and patterns in relationships and ideas.
A need for precision in thinking and expression.
An ability to relate to a broad range of ideas and synthesize commonalties among them.
A high degree of ability to think abstractly that develops early.
Appreciation of complexity; finding myriad alternative meanings in even the most simple issues or problems.
An ability to learn in an integrative, intuitive, nonlinear manner.
An extraordinary degree of intellectual curiosity.
An unusual capacity for memory.
A long concentration span.
A fascination with ideas and words.
An extensive vocabulary.
Ability to perceive many sides of an issue.
Argumentativeness.
Advanced visual and motor skills.
An ability from an early age to think in metaphors and symbols and a preference for doing so.
Ability to visualize models and systems.
Ability to learn in great intuitive leaps.
Highly idiosyncratic interpretations of events.
Awareness of detail.
Unusual intensity and depth of feeling.
A high degree of emotional sensitivity.
Highly developed morals and ethics and early concern for moral and existential issues.
Unusual and early insight into social and moral issues.
An ability to empathetically understand and relate to ideas and other people.
An extraordinarily high energy level.
A need for the world to be logical and fair.
Conviction of correctness of personal ideas and beliefs.
********************************************************************
The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology - Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings
Frank L. Schmidt
Department of Management and Organization University of Iowa
John E. Hunter
Department of Psychology Michigan State University
ABSTRACT
This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and the 18 other selection procedures. Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed.
SUMMARY
Employers must make hiring decisions; they have no choice about that. But they can choose which methods to use in making those decisions. The research evidence summarized in this article shows that different methods and combinations of methods have very different validities for predicting future job performance.
Some, such as interests and amount of education, have very low validity. Others, such as graphology, have essentially no validity; they are equivalent to hiring randomly. Still others, such as GMA tests and work sample measures, have high validity. Of the combinations of predictors examined, two stand out as being both practical to use for most hiring and as having high composite validity: the combination of a GMA test and an integrity test (composite validity of .65); and the combination of a GMA test and a structured interview (composite validity of .63). Both of these combinations can be used with applicants with no previous experience on the job (entry level applicants), as well as with experienced applicants. Both combinations predict performance in job training programs quite well (.67 and .59, respectively), as well as performance on the job. And both combinations are less expensive to use than many other combinations.
Hence, both are excellent choices. However, in particular cases there might be reasons why an employer might choose to use one of the other combinations with high, but slightly lower, validity. Some examples are combinations that include conscientiousness tests, work sample tests, job knowledge tests, and the behavioral consistency method.
In recent years, researchers have used cumulative research findings on the validity of predictors of job performance to create and test theories of job performance. These theories are now shedding light on the psychological processes that underlie observed predictive validity and are advancing basic understanding of human competence in the workplace.
The validity of the personnel measure (or combination of measures) used in hiring is directly proportional to the practical value of the method–whether measured in dollar value of increased output or percentage of increase in output. In economic terms, the gains from increasing the validity of hiring methods can amount over time to literally millions of dollars. However, this can be viewed from the opposite point of view: By using selection methods with low validity, an organization can lose millions of dollars in reduced production.
In fact, many employers, both in the United States and throughout the world, are currently using suboptimal selection methods. For example, many organizations in France, Israel, and other countries hire new employees based on handwriting analyses by graphologists. And many organizations in the United States rely solely on unstructured interviews, when they could use more valid methods. In a competitive world, these organizations are unnecessarily creating a competitive disadvantage for themselves ( Schmidt, 1993 ). By adopting more valid hiring procedures, they could turn this competitive disadvantage into a competitive advantage.
Posted by: martin snyder | March 03, 2006 at 12:51 PM
its all about 3 things:
1.) who u know
2.) what u know
3.) how u apply 1 and 2
~jer
Posted by: jeremy langhans | March 07, 2006 at 09:21 AM