DDI Selection Forecast 2007
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

DDI Selection Forecast 2007

on

  • 674 views

Why Employees Leave - page 32

Why Employees Leave - page 32
One impediment to better retention is that employers often are
clueless about why employees resign.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
674
Views on SlideShare
674
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

DDI Selection Forecast 2007 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. SELECTION FORECAST 2006|2007 Slugging Through the War for Talent > Ann Howard, Ph.D. > Scott Erker, Ph.D. > Neal Bruce MICABERSR14_CV.qxp 4/26/2007 3:01 PM Page 1
  • 2. SELECTION FORECAST 2006|2007 Slugging Through the War for Talent > Ann Howard, Ph.D. > Scott Erker, Ph.D. > Neal Bruce Welcome from the Authors We are pleased to present DDI’s third and most multifaceted study of recruiting and hiring talent. Since the first report in 1999, the trumpeted “War for Talent” has indeed arrived. The competition for talent from a shrinking pool of skilled workers can sometimes seem as up close and personal as a boxing match—the theme for this year’s Selection Forecast report. This report demonstrates that managing the hiring process can be both frustrating and exhausting. This Selection Forecast uncovers valiant efforts that are liberally sprinkled with oversights, misperceptions, and eyebrow-raising foibles. But don’t despair. Although the survey results exemplify our title of slugging through the war for talent, they also lay the groundwork for multiple insights into how to score a knockout. In our first recruiting and hiring survey, DDI relied on the perspectives of staffing directors; we added hiring managers to the second study. This time, thanks to a productive DDI-Monster partnership, we have the additional viewpoint of an important but neglected stakeholder— the job seeker. Comparing and contrasting these three critical perspectives makes this study unique. The hiring process should allow parties to come together for mutual advantage. In the current labor market, however, the stakeholders sometimes appear to be working against one another. A staffing director digs deeply to find a good candidate that a hiring manager subsequently alienates in the interview; a hiring manager lures a good candidate to fill a long-vacant position just as an employee in the next cubicle is enticed away by a competitor. As you read this report, we invite you to put yourself in the other stakeholders’ shoes and consider how their motivations and goals mesh—or conflict—with yours. Most important, we want this report to be a catalyst for change. Please discuss its findings with new employees, HR leaders, hiring managers, and your executive team. Ask yourself, “What action steps can we implement this month to improve our hiring process?” We at DDI and Monster know that you can be better at finding, acquiring, and keeping the best talent, and we’d like to show you how. Hopefully, this report will encourage you toward that end and help point the way. MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:12 PM Page 1
  • 3. ABOUT DDI It’s a grow-or-die marketplace. Having the right talent strategy is crucial. Development Dimensions International (DDI) helps organizations systematically and creatively close the gap between today’s talent capability and the people needed to execute tomorrow’s business strategy. We excel in two areas: • Designing and implementing selection systems that enable organizations to hire better people faster. • Identifying and developing exceptional leadership talent critical to a high-performance workforce. DDI is all about giving organizations the kind of business impact they want—what we call “realization.” The work we do is tied to the organization’s strategies and becomes part of its business and culture, creating a solution with long-term sustainability. For multinational organizations DDI has the kind of global resources needed to implement talent initiatives effectively and consistently worldwide. Each year organizations rely on DDI to assess more than 4 million job seekers. Our wide range of selection solutions includes: • Competency profiling to define key job roles required to drive business success. • More than 800 assessments, tests, and simulations that evaluate knowledge, skills, experience, and motivations critical to on-the-job success. • Targeted Selection®, the leading behavior-based interviewing program. • A full range of assessment tools that provide a clear picture of senior leaders’ strengths, derailers, and development priorities. ABOUT MONSTER.COM Monster® is the world’s leading recruitment advertising company. A division of Monster Worldwide, Monster works for everyone by connecting quality job seekers at all levels with leading employers across all industries. Founded in 1994 and headquartered in Maynard, MA, Monster operates in 38 countries today. More information is available at www.monster.com or by calling 1-800-MONSTER. To learn more about Monster’s industry-leading employer products and services, visit http://info.monster.com. DDI TREND RESEARCH The Selection Forecast 2006–2007 is part of the continuing series of trend research by DDI’s Center for Applied Behavioral Research (CABER). Selection Forecast research occurs biennually; research for the companion report, the Leadership Forecast, takes place in the alternate years. CABER also investigates special topics around optimizing human talent in the workplace. Executive summaries of research reports are available at www.ddiworld.com. To order full reports, call DDI Client Service at 1-800-944-7782 (US) or (outside the US) 1-724-746-3900. 2 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 © Development Dimensions International, Inc., MMVII. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved under U.S., International, and Universal Copyright Conventions. Reproduction in whole or part without written permission from DDI is prohibited. MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:12 PM Page 2
  • 4. CONTENTS 4 About the Study 4 Job Markets 4 Hiring Perspectives 5 The War for Talent Heats Up 7 Implications for Stakeholders 11 The Challenge for Organizations 12 Not Taking Your Bait 12 Recruiting Methods Vary by Position 13 Recruiting Messages Miss Their Targets 16 Well, Maybe 16 Dissatisfaction with Selection Systems 19 Neglect of Scientific Selection Methods 22 Thanks, but No Thanks 22 Sabotaging the Interview 28 Good Interviewing Aids Selection 30 Hello, Good-bye 30 Employee Tenure Is Shortening 31 Why Employees Leave 33 Improving Retention 36 Scoring a Knockout 36 Lure Qualified Candidates 36 Spot the Best for You 36 Land Your First Choice 37 Keep Valuable Talent 38 Appendix 38 Demographics 42 Participating Organizations 47 About the Authors 47 Acknowledgments 48 Endnotes CONTACT INFORMATION ANN HOWARD, PH.D. CHIEF SCIENTIST DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL 1225 WASHINGTON PIKE BRIDGEVILLE, PA 15017 PHONE: 412-257-3643 • FAX: 412-257-3093 E-MAIL: CABER@ddiworld.com 3 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:12 PM Page 3
  • 5. ABOUT THE STUDY The escalating war for talent is pressuring organizations to ferret out job candidates who also are being vigorously pursued by competitors. This intense job market demands optimal efficiency and effectiveness, but hiring processes are not measuring up. Dissatisfaction abounds, both internally as human resource specialists and hiring managers struggle to fill open positions, and externally as job candidates pick their way through cumbersome and insensitive systems. Everyone, it seems, is slugging through the war for talent. To investigate hiring practices and pinpoint ways to improve them, Development Dimensions International and Monster cosponsored the Selection Forecast 2006–2007. The study sought information about best practices for the full cycle of hiring: recruitment, selection, gaining candidate acceptance, and retention. Job Markets One goal of our research was to sample selection practices in key regions of the world. Globally, job markets are affected by government regulations, education systems, industrial development, and a host of other factors that necessitate different approaches to hiring. For example: • In North America, the coming retirement of the baby boom generation and a dearth of skilled new workers are making it increasingly difficult to staff positions. The U.S. market has seen steadily rising wages, firm job growth, and low unemployment.1 • Unemployment in Europe ranges widely. At the low end are countries like Norway (3.5 percent unemployed for 2006) and Denmark (3.8 percent), whereas Germany (8.4 percent) and France (9.1 percent) have legions of applicants in the job market.2 • China’s economy is expanding by more than 10 percent a year, and recruiters are swimming in resumes.3 • In New Zealand, where a skills shortage at all levels has existed for some time, employers rate retention more important than attracting talent.4 In light of these differences, a global average about hiring practices would hide more than it would reveal. Instead, we aggregated our data into five global regions: North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Australia/New Zealand. For this report we focus on the relatively homogeneous North American job market, which includes the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. We bring in comparisons with the other regions where there are notable differences. Numerical summaries of survey responses for each of the five regions are available on request. Hiring Perspectives Although many surveys rely on human resource (HR) professionals as their primary source of information, we were more ambitious. We wanted to compare and contrast perspectives on hiring from three primary stakeholders: staffing directors, hiring managers, and job seekers. We invited staffing directors in organizations around the globe to respond to surveys about their organizational practices and, in addition, to send surveys to hiring managers in their organizations. We also sent survey 4 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:12 PM Page 4
  • 6. invitations to online job seekers who had updated their resumes within the previous 12 months. To help flesh out the results, we conducted 30 one-on-one interviews with job seekers. Table 1 shows the final tally of survey participants. More details are in the Appendix. Hiring practices also vary according to the type of position to be filled. Where relevant, we asked staffing directors and hiring managers to indicate how their hiring experiences varied for five types of positions: individual contributors, professionals, first-level leaders, mid-level leaders, and executives. Job candidates also indicated the type of jobs they were seeking. Definitions of these positions and their associated sample sizes are in the Appendix. THE WAR FOR TALENT HEATS UP Staffing directors in North America overwhelmingly reported that competition for talent had increased since 2005 (see Figure 1). Even more (79 percent) expected it to intensify in 2007. The war for talent is hot and getting hotter. The war for talent is hot and getting hotter. 5 Total North America Staffing Directors 628 376 Hiring Managers 1,250 635 Job Seekers 3,725 1,183 SURVEY PARTICIPANTS 73% 22% 5% Increased Same Decreased Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 1 Competition for Talent Since 2005 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:13 PM Page 5
  • 7. 6 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 Staffing directors in the other regions differed somewhat in their estimations of “heating up” since 2005 (see Figure 2). Those in Australia/New Zealand were most aware of an increase in the competition for talent. A case in point: Australia has been suffering from a shortage of skilled workers in the financial services sector,5 and acute demand has led to the addition of IT professionals to its Migration Occupations in Demand List.6 On the other hand, staffing directors in Europe were somewhat less likely to report an increase in competition for talent since 2005. These results reflect a predominance of staffing directors reporting from France and Germany, where unemployment has slowed down the effect. When looking ahead to 2007, staffing directors across all regions were equally concerned about additional competition in hiring. The competition varied for different types of positions. Nearly two-thirds of North American staffing directors experienced strong competition when hiring new executives, while only one-third found it strong for individual contributors. Competition also was strong for mid-level leaders and professionals (see Figure 3). The contest to hire executives and professionals most likely reflects the fierce demands of complex global competition. Many growing companies also may be re-staffing mid-level management positions eliminated some years ago when organizations flattened. Given the rise in importance of knowledge-based services and the decreasing amount of time before 68% Asia67% LatinAmerica 55% Europe 73% NorthAmerica 91% Australia/NewZealand Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 2 Reported Increases in Competition for Talent Since 2005 46% First-LevelLeaders 60% Professionals 34% Individual Contributors 60% Mid-LevelLeaders 65% Executives Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 3 Strong Competition for Candidates by Positions MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:14 PM Page 6
  • 8. technological obsolescence sets in, up-to-date professionals are in particularly high demand. Staffing directors reported that there were fewer qualified candidates for professional positions than for any other job category (see Figure 4). * Throughout this report, totals might not equal 100% because of rounding. Implications for Stakeholders The talent war has important implications for various stakeholders. Staffing directors and hiring managers are getting desperate to bring qualified candidates in the front door at the same time that employees are venturing out the back door in search of new opportunities. Staffing Directors Staffing directors feel pressured. Their job is growing much tougher as barriers to hiring rise. Competition and a dearth of qualified candidates that are difficult to find create the greatest obstacles for staffing directors. More respondents cited these factors as their top three barriers to recruiting and hiring in 2006 than did respondents to a similar survey in 20047 (see Figure 5). Staffing directors and hiring managers are getting desperate to bring qualified candidates in the front door at the same time that employees are venturing out the back door in search of new opportunities. 7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent 43 48 45 53 40 48 42 49 38 51 10 10 6 9 10 Fewer Qualified Candidates Same More Qualified Candidates First-Level Leaders Professionals Individual Contributors Mid-Level Leaders Executives Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 4 Qualified Candidates Are More Difficult to Find* Others competing for same applicants Level of salary and benefits you can offer Difficulty finding and identifying applicants 62%Fewer qualified applicants available 44% 50% 40% 49% 39% 32% 33% Source:StaffingDirectors 2004 2006 FIGURE 5 Top Barriers to Recruiting and Selecting Employees MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:14 PM Page 7
  • 9. The level of salary and benefits was less of a barrier than the top three, perhaps because organizations are adjusting salaries to compete for employees. Nearly half of the employers responding to a recent survey planned to increase initial salaries to employees.8 The war for talent has significant financial implications beyond increased salaries. In the next two years, one-third of the responding organizations are planning to pour more money into job advertising and two-fifths plan to increase their budgets for selection (see Figure 6). Hiring Managers Hiring managers feel anxious. If the right people can’t be found, how will they get their work done? > 53% could lose a direct report within six months. > 51% find fewer qualified candidates available compared to two years ago. To better understand this anxiety, consider the situation facing sales leaders. In a recent study, more than 100 sales leaders set a median goal of 10 percent growth in sales for 2007. Most felt confident they could achieve that goal by getting better production from their current head count. However, turnover of star talent and difficulties finding replacements who can perform at the same level will severely compromise the sales leaders’ ability to meet this double-digit growth target.9 The pressure on hiring managers has caused a change in strategy. More than half (51 percent) felt some need to sell the job and company to the best candidates; 15 percent felt they must sell a lot, a rather small percentage considering the brisk competition for talent. The hiring managers went into selling mode most often for executive-level candidates (see Figure 7), who are much in demand—particularly with the impending retirement of baby boomers—and likely to scrutinize the organization as well as the position. 8 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent 18 27 30 27 35 34 Not at All A Little Mid-Level Leaders First-Level Leaders 12 17 11 27 44 Executives 18 Somewhat A Lot Source:HiringManagers FIGURE 7 Felt Need to Sell Job/Company to the Best Candidates 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent 41 36 27 32 31 28 Increase Beyond Inflation Increase to Adjust for Inflation Stay the Same Selection Job Ads Decrease 4 2 Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE6 Hiring Expenditures in the Next Two Years MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:15 PM Page 8
  • 10. Some hiring managers were willing to hire a good person even if the job fit wasn’t quite right; that is, they would change the job or find a job that would better fit the person. There were regional differences in whether hiring managers were willing to take this approach (see Figure 8). Beyond the pressures of a tight job market, cultural differences are likely to influence managers’ comfort with changing a job to fit a good candidate. Job Seekers Job seekers feel bold. If one job doesn’t pan out, they’ll find another one. Among employed job seekers, 61 percent had more than one full-time job in the past five years. Ten percent had four or more jobs during this time (see Figure 9). Job seekers feel bold. If one job doesn’t pan out, they’ll find another one. 9 25% Asia 29% LatinAmerica 39% Europe 37% NorthAmerica 44% Australia/NewZealand Source:HiringManagers FIGURE 8 Willingness to Change the Job to Fit the Person 2–3 Jobs 8% 4–5 Jobs 2% 6+ Jobs 39% 1 Job 52% Source:JobSeekers FIGURE 9 Number of Jobs in the Past Five Years MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:16 PM Page 9
  • 11. The youngest job seekers were more likely to have had many recent jobs, suggesting that they are putting themselves and their careers ahead of loyalty to the organization. Given that a large majority of this age group lacked a higher degree and were employed in individual contributor jobs, this simply might reflect the casual job market. Future retention does not look promising, however, if this finding reflects a broad-based, persistent trend. Almost half (46 percent) of the individual contributors had applied for 10 or more jobs in the past year; the proportion of professionals (43 percent) was not far behind (see Figure 10). The North American job seekers were particularly active; those in other regions made fewer applications. As would be expected, employment status was related to the number of job applications. Two-thirds of the job seekers who were unemployed or working part-time applied for five or more jobs in the past year; however, half of the full-time employed also applied for five or more jobs. The message is clear: Organizations cannot take the loyalty of their employees for granted. 10 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 19 14 8 8 29 30 22 21 23 19 27 25 1 5–102–3 First-Level Leaders Professionals Individual Contributors Mid-Level Leaders 46 >10 43 38 29 Source:JobSeekers FIGURE 10 Number of Jobs Applied for Last Year MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:16 PM Page 10
  • 12. The Challenge for Organizations Most organizations today are built on intangible rather than tangible assets. Their fortunes derive less from goods they make and more from the services and expertise that their employees provide. If you rely on human capital to compete, inevitably you must compete for human capital. The driving need for capable employees explains why employer branding—or marketing your organization to the people it wants to hire—has become such a buzz phrase in human resources.10 But marketing is no more than the first bread crumb leading human capital out of the forest. To survive the war for talent, organizations need to be at the top of their game in recruiting, selection, and retention. Their processes and practices must be strategic and efficient and have bull’s-eye accuracy. Unfortunately, our research uncovered little evidence of such excellence. On average, both staffing directors and hiring managers were lukewarm in their evaluation of the quality of their recruiting and hiring strategies and processes (see Figure 11). Only about 10 percent of each group rated either practice “top of the game” (9 or 10 on a 10-point scale). To meet the competitive challenge of the war on talent, your organization must prevail at each of the following steps: 1. Lure qualified candidates. 2. Spot the best for you. 3. Land your first choice. 4. Keep valuable talent. Organizations that stumble on any of the four steps will not have the talent they need to reach their business objectives. Moreover, they will face mounting costs as departing employees force them to endlessly repeat the hiring process. Marketing is no more than the first bread crumb leading human capital out of the forest. To survive the war for talent, organizations need to be at the top of their game in recruiting, selection, and retention. 11 Recruiting Selection Hiring ManagersStaffing Directors 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6.5 6.0 6.8 6.9 FIGURE 11 Overall Effectiveness Ratings LURE SPOT KEEP LAND MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:17 PM Page 11
  • 13. NOT TAKING YOUR BAIT Today, attracting job candidates seems easy for organizations that use electronic systems like company web sites and large online job boards. Staffing directors indicated that these are two of their most frequently used recruiting tools. Interpersonal methods like employee referrals and networking also were popular. Recruiting Methods Vary by Position Organizations adapt their recruiting methods to the type of target position (see Figure 12). Recruiters leaned on headhunting firms for higher-level positions but used them less often for lower-level jobs. Contrarily, they most often used employee referrals and electronic methods to find candidates for lower-level positions but were less inclined to use them to find executives. There were some regional differences in the choice of recruiting methods. North Americans made more use of online job boards, whereas Asian recruiters were more likely to use newsprint ads. Australian staffing directors, apparently needing a proactive approach to find candidates, were more likely to use headhunting firms at all levels. 12 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 Employee referrals Source:StaffingDirectors Individual ContributorsProfessionals 1st-Level LeadersMid-Level LeadersExecutives Company web sites Large online job boards Networking Headhunter firms Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FIGURE 12 Preferred Methods for Finding Candidates LURE SPOT KEEP LAND MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:17 PM Page 12
  • 14. Your goal should be to attract candidates who are a good fit with a job or your organization and not wasting time and resources on candidates who aren’t. 13 Recruiting Messages Miss Their Targets Reaching the most candidates is not your optimal goal. Rather, your goal should be to attract candidates who are a good fit with a job or your organization and not wasting time and resources on candidates who aren’t. Taking the time to craft an effective online job posting can pay off enormously in terms of targeting the right candidates (see sidebar). How to Write Effective Online Job Postings Be Specific A quick job search turns up mostly short ads with no clear definition of job requirements. If half the people reading the ad can imagine themselves to be qualified, your inbox will be full within hours. Writing specific postings takes a little longer, but by helping job seekers understand your needs, you’ll reduce the number of applications from unqualified candidates and ultimately save more time than you spend. Be Clear Make sure the requirements and job duties are easy to understand by someone who does not already work for your company. Some postings have so much corporate jargon that it’s difficult for job seekers to tell if they are qualified, leading many to simply press a button to submit a resume. If you’re not sure whether you have included “companyspeak,” have a friend or fellow HR professional review your posting and give you feedback. Be Up Front Dissuade potential job seekers from speculative applications by adding a statement explaining that your requirements are firm. Be Demanding Don’t make the application process too easy. Instead of just asking for a resume, include an assignment in your posting. Qualified candidates will be excited to have the opportunity to stand out from the crowd, while casual applicants will be less willing to put in that much effort for a long-shot application. To be successful in your recruitment efforts, you must constantly adapt your strategies to suit the market. You must manage the candidate flow so you can effectively service your organization. By creating specific, clear job postings and an application process that requires effort on the part of the applicant, you can reduce the number of unqualified candidates and increase your chance of making the right hire quickly. —Abridged from Louise Fletcher, of the Monster.com for Employers Resource Center. MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:17 PM Page 13
  • 15. Survey results suggested that both staffing directors and hiring managers might miss out on attracting the best applicants because they misunderstand what job candidates are looking for. Job seekers cited many factors as important to them in a new job, but hiring managers and staffing directors downplayed the importance of some of these factors. In particular, employers gave short shrift to environmental factors that job seekers valued, like an organization to be proud of, a creative or fun workplace culture, and a compatible work group (shown as underrated in Table 2). Regional differences also affected job seekers’ desires. Asian job seekers showed the least interest in a fun, creative organizational culture. In Europe most job seekers looked for a compatible work group and interesting work; they were less attracted by vacations or company leadership than job seekers elsewhere. Because vacations tend to be generous in Europe, one firm has no particular competitive advantage over another in this regard. Age exerted another kind of influence on job seekers. The highlighted areas in Table 3 show what’s particularly important to certain age groups relative to others when searching for a new position. Different life and career stages most likely account for these age-related motivations (see the Job Search Life Cycle on page 15), although generational perspectives also might carry some sway. 14 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 PERSPECTIVES ON WHAT JOB SEEKERS WANT IN A POSITION* Job Hiring Staffing Seeker Manager Director Opportunities to learn and grow 78% 68% 69% Interesting work 77% 63% 63% A good manager/boss 75% 69% 57% An organization you can be proud to work for 74% 58% 55% Opportunity to advance 73% 69% 77% Promise of stability/job security 70% 62% 65% A creative or fun workplace culture 67% 50% 43% A compatible work group/team 67% 50% 37% Balance between work and personal life 65% 65% 65% Opportunity for accomplishment 64% 53% 41% * Beyond salary and benefits Underrated MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:18 PM Page 14
  • 16. The lesson here is that when describing open positions, employers need to attend to factors beyond what is in the job description to appeal to candidates in particular age groups: • The very young respond to a fun workplace where they can make friends. • Those in their 20s and 30s are intent on growing and moving up the organization. This can create tension for young families, encouraging those in prime parenting years (30s) to be alert to the balance between work and personal life. • Mid-career and senior employees care more about opportunities for accomplishment, with senior employees also attentive to the organization’s reputation and its people. They want a good manager and compatible team, but also an organization that has strong leaders and makes them feel proud. Organizations won’t be able to attract the best job candidates if their messages fail to address their target audience’s interests. You can’t lure the right fish if you don’t use the right bait. 15 WHAT’S MOST IMPORTANT TO JOB SEEKERS BY AGE Let’s Rock Moving Up Balance My Legacy My Company 20s Teens 30s 40s 50s+ Job Search Life Cycle Age Group <20 21–30 31–40 41–50 >50 A creative or fun workplace culture 77% 72% 69% 62% 62% A compatible work group/team 71% 64% 65% 66% 75% Opportunities to learn and grow 67% 81% 85% 77% 72% Balance between work and personal life 65% 63% 71% 63% 63% Opportunity to advance 62% 80% 79% 73% 59% Opportunity for accomplishment 52% 61% 64% 67% 70% A good manager/boss 68% 73% 74% 75% 83% An organization you can be proud to work for 59% 74% 72% 74% 81% Great company leadership 39% 51% 57% 62% 65% Relatively More Important You can’t lure the right fish if you don’t use the right bait. MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:19 PM Page 15
  • 17. WELL, MAYBE Assuming you can lure qualified candidates to apply for a position, your next challenge is to spot the applicant most suitable for your job and organization. Doing this well requires a comprehensive selection system that uses several methods to tap into different aspects of human talent: knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal attributes. Dissatisfaction with Selection Systems Most organizations’ selection systems were found wanting; fewer than half of the respondents, whether staffing directors or hiring managers, rated their level of satisfaction with their hiring process high or very high. Two-fifths of staffing directors said that in the next two years their organization will not only spend additional funds beyond inflation on selection, but also will significantly change their approach to selection. > 57% of hiring managers rated their satisfaction with the hiring process as medium, low, or very low. > 58% of staffing directors rated their satisfaction with the hiring process as medium, low, or very low. > 40% of staffing directors will significantly change their approach to selection in the next two years. Legal defensibility was the only aspect of selection systems that at least two-thirds of staffing directors and hiring managers rated high or very high (see Figure 13). Only about half of each group gave high ratings to the hiring process’s objectivity, its ability to identify people with the right behavioral experiences and background, and its ability to provide a complete picture of candidate qualifications. There was even less satisfaction with ensuring a fit between candidates’ values and preferences and the organization or job. The efficiency of selection systems drew the most critical response, with only one-third of staffing directors and hiring managers rating theirs high or very high. 16 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 Ease of use Efficiency Ensuring job fit 46%Ensuring organization fit 43% 43% 40% 39% 41% 31% 33% Staffing Directors Hiring Managers 50%Providing complete picture 46% 47%Identifying right experiences 46% 49%Objectivity 56% 72%Legal defensibility 68% FIGURE 13 Aspects of Selection Systems Rated High or Very High LURE SPOT KEEP LAND MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:20 PM Page 16
  • 18. Staffing directors measured the success of their selection systems primarily by the quality and tenure of new hires and the satisfaction of their primary stakeholders, the hiring managers (see Figure 14). These priorities appear quite appropriate. However, if hiring managers are dissatisfied with the efficiency of selection methods (as noted in Figure 13), staffing directors need to pay more attention to this aspect as well. Yet, only 42 percent of staffing directors measured speed to hire, a critical factor when job seekers can become impatient and take a job elsewhere. Inefficient selection systems also can alienate job seekers. Nearly three-fifths (59 percent) indicated that after applying for a job, they wanted either an interview scheduled or a “no” answer within a week or less. Also, they expected quick feedback after an interview, but what they got too often was deafening silence for weeks or even months. “I left the interview being told that they would contact me within a week with more information or a decision. This occurred three and a half weeks ago. They left me in the dark on the conclusion.” —Job seeker, industrial design Costs did not loom large among staffing directors’ concerns. Only 39 percent measured the cost per hire, and only 3 percent named costly selection systems as one of their top three barriers to recruiting and hiring employees. Although it’s hard to justify their ignoring costs, a great deal of research has shown that the investment in sound hiring methods pales when compared to the gains from a high-quality hire who will stay with the organization.11 Although the costs of a good selection system are easily recovered, the costs of a poor system are often unrecognized and can quickly grow. Slow replacement of lost employees— particularly leaders—is a hidden cost of an inefficient selection system. (See sidebar on page 18.) Although the costs of a good selection system are easily recovered, the costs of a poor system are often unrecognized and can quickly grow. 17 Cost per hire Number of legal challenges Speed to hire 56%Candidate reactions 42% 39% 12% 71%Hiring manager satisfaction 72%New hire job performance 79%Turnover Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 14 Measures Used to Determine Selection Systems’ Success MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:20 PM Page 17
  • 19. The higher the management level, the longer it takes to replace the person (see Figure 15). North American organizations take the longest to replace managers at all levels. The problem is most acute for executives, perhaps because of the time it takes for headhunter firms to locate appropriate candidates. 18 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 The True Costs of Hiring Every time a new position comes open—whether from an increase in head count or through turnover—a cost meter starts running. It can take months or years to recoup the costs incurred from the time the meter starts running until a new hire becomes fully productive. These costs fall into three main areas: 1. Hiring Process—How much does it cost your organization to find and place a new hire (include advertising and posting costs; time and costs for sourcing, screening, and evaluating candidates; and travel and relocation costs)? How long does it take to fill open positions? These costs can run in the thousands of dollars. 2. Ramp-Up—Once candidates accept your job offer, how much extra time do their managers or coworkers spend with them? What training investments are needed to educate new hires on internal processes or to accelerate their development? 3. Productivity Gaps—What is the performance gap between your star performers and the rest? A 2000 McKinsey study found that, compared to average performers, high performers in operations roles generate 40 percent more productivity, those in general management roles generate 49 percent more in increased profits, and those in sales functions generate 67 percent more in revenue.12 A highly accurate selection system can help you recover costs quickly and increase profits; a poor system will do neither. Ultimately, you need to pressure-test your selection system in each of these three areas to see where and how much money your organization is losing and ultimately gaining. TIME LOSSPROFIT Hiring Process Ramp-Up Productivity New Hire Acceptable Performance 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 First-Level Management Mid-Level Management Executive Europe North America Latin America Asia Australia/ New Zealand Source:StaffingDirectors Weeks FIGURE 15 Average Weeks a Position Is Vacant MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:20 PM Page 18
  • 20. Neglect of Scientific Selection Methods Selection tool usage has changed only modestly since DDI’s previous Selection Forecast in 2004. The significant shifts in tool usage that did occur (see Figure 16) should have led to more efficiency. In other words, there was an increase in computerized methods (biographical data, résumé screens) and a reduction in more labor-intensive methods (drug tests, application forms). Although these are steps in the right direction, the low level of satisfaction with selection system efficiency (as noted in Figure 13) suggests that organizations still have a long way to go. A larger problem with respondents’ selection systems was overreliance on traditional methods like application forms, manual résumé screening, and background checks (see Figure 17). An exception was that a large majority used behavior-based interviewing, a well-researched and effective method of probing into job candidates’ relevant experiences. Using only a narrow range of traditional tools has two major consequences: important aspects of candidates’ qualifications will be overlooked, and the information gained will lack the accuracy that could be provided by scientifically developed methods. Using only a narrow range of traditional tools has two major consequences: important aspects of candidates’ qualifications will be overlooked, and the information gained will lack the accuracy that could be provided by scientifically developed methods. 19 Biographical data form Computerized résumé screen Drug tests 88%Applications 60% 67% 56% 13% 23% 19% 40% Source:StaffingDirectors 2004 2006 FIGURE 16 Change Over Time in Selection Methods Used Extensively Drug tests Application forms 68%Résumé screening —manual 60% 56% 72%Reference checks 76%Behavior-based interviews 78%Background checks Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 17 Selection Methods Used Extensively MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:21 PM Page 19
  • 21. 20 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 Organizations seriously underused techniques that evaluate personal attributes or directly observe important behaviors, although these tools offer substantial validity and distinct advantages to the selection process.13 Despite more than 50 years of scientific research on these methods, half or more of the staffing directors never used each type of testing and assessment method listed in the survey (see Figure 18). Organizations in other regions were twice as likely to use tests and assessments. Only 37 percent of North American staffing directors made extensive use of at least one scientifically developed test or assessment compared to 80 percent of those in Latin America, 71 percent of those in Europe, and 69 percent of those in Asia. Failure to use scientific methods opens the door to inconsistencies and leaps of faith in selecting employees. Organizations that neglect using these techniques risk getting an inaccurate and incomplete picture of job candidates. > 53% of staffing directors noted that hiring managers don’t use a consistent set of practices and procedures. > 44% agreed that gut instinct and intuition play an important role in selection decisions. There were clear payoffs for organizations that made good use of even one test and assessment method. Staffing directors rated the quality of different aspects of their selection systems on a five-point scale (very low to very high). Those who extensively used at least one scientifically developed testing method were clearly more impressed with every aspect of their selection strategies than those who sometimes or never used one (see Figure 19). Although there were some gains in efficiency, the biggest payoff came from a more objective process that provided a well-rounded picture of candidates’ qualifications and fit. In other words, selection systems without tests and assessments often lack critical information that could turn a “maybe” about candidate suitability into a clear “yes” or “no.” If you’re not currently capitalizing on tests and assessments, see the sidebar on page 21 for some pointers on how to enrich your hiring system. Knowledge tests Ability tests Performance/Work sample tests 60%Job simulations 50% 48% 46% 65%Personality inventories 66%Motivational fit inventories 86%Integrity tests Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 18 Scientific Selection Methods That Were Never Used MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:21 PM Page 20
  • 22. 21 Source:StaffingDirectors Used ExtensivelySometimes UsedNever Used Satisfaction with hiring Percent 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 Efficiency of hiring Objectivity of hiring Ease of use Legal defensibility Complete picture of candidate qualifications Identify people with right experience Fit between culture and candidate values Fit between candidate’s preferences and job 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 FIGURE 19 Impact of Using at Least One Test or Assessment Method Adding Tests and Assessments to Your Hiring Process The real value of deploying tests and assessments comes from painting a more complete and accurate picture of a candidate. All facets of job success—knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal attributes—should be systematically evaluated to make reliable hiring decisions. To build a comprehensive hiring system, follow these steps:14 1. Clarify your purpose. Will you be using the system for internal as well as external selection? Does your hiring strategy tie to your business strategy? 2. Set hiring system criteria. What do you want to gain from your hiring system? Look first for highly valid techniques that will maximize the individual performance and commitment of selected candidates. Do you also care about generating information for employee development, legal defensibility, candidate acceptance, or efficient delivery? Your priorities might vary by type of open position. 3. Define employee success. What knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal attributes will be important to success in each position to be filled? What characteristics are important for success in your organizational culture? 4. Choose selection techniques. Select a parsimonious set of selection techniques, considering relative gains in validity and usefulness. Each selection method has advantages and drawbacks that need to be balanced. • Inferences about behavior can be made from tools like cognitive tests and personality inventories. These measures most easily meet the efficiency criterion, but they might not gain candidate acceptance, are more likely to have adverse impact than other methods, and have limited usefulness for guiding development. • Descriptions of behavior, knowledge, and experience come from biographical data, career achievement records, and interviews. These methods can provide important information about the past, but they provide little information about behavior in new and different positions and can be labor intensive. • Demonstrations of behavior come from work samples and simulations, typically used in assessment centers. Simulations can address future jobs, provide information on trainable behaviors for developmental feedback, and engender positive reactions from candidates. However, they are labor intensive and best measure competencies that can be exhibited in condensed time periods. 5. Combine tools into a selection system. Multiple hurdles can enhance selection system efficiency. Use efficient, computer-scored tools (like tests) to eliminate lower-end candidates and reserve labor-intensive methods (interviews, assessment centers) to differentiate among a smaller pool of more promising candidates. 6. Execute your plan. How will you will introduce the new hiring system into your organization and assure its continued success? Plan how to communicate the business case for the system, assign accountability for its execution, develop the skills of those who will carry it out, align other systems, and measure the lead and lag indicators that will tell you if your hiring system is meeting its objectives. MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:21 PM Page 21
  • 23. THANKS, BUT NO THANKS The interview is a critical selection tool that helps you spot the best candidate for a position. What is often overlooked is its role in the next step in the hiring process—landing the candidate you want. Two-thirds of the job seekers reported that the interviewer influences their decision to accept a position. This was particularly true in the Americas (see Figure 20). Perhaps unwittingly, the interviewer, not just the interviewee, is on stage during the experience. Both parties need to speak their lines in a professional way, but the evidence suggests that amateurish behavior is all too common. Sabotaging the Interview The interview can easily become less a meeting of minds than a clash of personalities. Both interviewers and interviewees found fault with each other’s approach and illustrated their complaints with many poignant examples. Complaints About Interviewers Regardless of the type of position to be filled, interviewers irritated candidates in multiple ways (see Figure 21). Most grievous to job seekers were interviewers who acted as if they had no time to talk with them. This behavior along with showing up late or appearing unprepared devalued the interview as well as the interviewee. Such carelessness can easily become a serious mistake in a talent-challenged economy. “The HR manager seemed pretty interested in me, but the hiring manager seemed uninterested from the start. He never gave any indication that he was even remotely interested in hiring someone, which made me question the value of giving my best effort in the interview.” —Candidate for managing editor position “I had to wait for the hiring manager for 15 minutes. When he finally came out, he said, ‘I’m sorry, who are you?’” —Candidate for office manager position 22 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20 14 9 21 29 27 26 30 32 27 33 29 Not at all ModeratelySlightly Latin America North America Europe Asia 20 A lot 32 32 19 Source:JobSeekers FIGURE 20 Influence of Interviewer on Job Acceptance LURE SPOT KEEP LAND MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:21 PM Page 22
  • 24. Second on the job seekers’ list of grievances was interviewers’ withholding information about the position. Interviewers who fail to educate an applicant about the job (1) lose important selection information by not soliciting the candidate’s reactions to the position and (2) forfeit a timely opportunity to keep a candidate from searching elsewhere. “The recruiter mostly talked excitedly about my resume and qualifications. I didn’t learn much of anything about the job and even less about the organization.” —Manager applicant, pharmaceutical company Another common interviewer mistake was turning the discussion into a cross-examination. Although candidates expect to be asked questions, no one likes to be grilled. “I got the impression that the interviewer was desperately looking for some evidence of falsification on my application. I listed all my relevant jobs since college graduation, but the interviewer asked about jobs before that. I said I had had some part-time jobs (like being a waitress) here and there in college and high school; some were in places that don’t exist anymore. The interviewer said they needed everything: names, numbers, addresses. When I said there was a good chance some previous supervisors had died during the past 18 years and the information might be very difficult to get, she called me very unprofessional.” —Applicant for retail position Job seekers also criticized interviewers for asking questions unrelated to the skills needed for a position. Some were questions of unsubstantiated validity, apparently used to make inferences about traits or abilities. For example, “If you were an animal (or a fruit, Disney character, tree, etc.), what kind would you be?” or “What would you do if I gave you an elephant?” Other questions invaded people’s privacy, such as “Would you date two people in one night?” Personal questions were particularly annoying to women. “I had to wait for the hiring manager for 15 minutes. When he finally came out, he said, ‘I’m sorry, who are you?’” —Candidate for office manager position 23 70% Acting like has no time to talk to me 57% Witholding information about position 51% Turning interview into cross-examination 48%Showing up late 47% Appearing unprepared for interview 43% Asking questions unrelated to job skills 38% Asking personal questions 33% Talking about oneself instead of my qualifications Source:JobSeekers FIGURE 21 Most Annoying Interviewer Behaviors MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:22 PM Page 23
  • 25. Even more hair-raising questions revealed that interviewers are risking not only the loss of potentially valuable employees, but also their organization’s reputation. “If I had a very poor interviewing experience, I would want no association with that company at all as a customer. I might even become an advocate against them.” —Office manager candidate Correcting interviewers’ faulty behavior could considerably enhance organizations’ ability to land the candidates they want. Adhering to a structured method like behavior-based interviewing is also an antidote to irrelevant questions that serve no purpose except to annoy candidates. Complaints About Interviewees Hiring managers also complained about job candidates’ behavior (see Figure 22). Like interviewers, job seekers engaged in behaviors that suggested the interview wasn’t that important. They came late or were poorly groomed or dressed. Some even stated that the interview wasn’t important, saying, for instance: • “I’m not sure that I want this job. I was just checking it out.” • “I don’t really want this job. I just need 13 weeks for unemployment.” • “How long is this going to take?” Other applicants treated interviewer questions like an imposition. For example: • “That has got to be the weirdest and toughest question.” • “I don’t need to answer these questions.” 24 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 Some Inappropriate Interviewer Questions • “If you were a dog, what kind would you be?” • “What do you think of the artwork hanging on this wall?” • “Would you date me and my daughter at the same time?” • “What is your natural hair color?” • “What is the cost of the ring you are wearing?” 77% Appearing poorly groomed or dressed 71% Giving vague answers about past experiences 62% Exaggerating qualifications 53%Being inarticulate 52% Treating interview questions like an imposition 40% Withholding information about himself/herself 39%Playing hard to get 39%Talking too much Source:HiringManagers 77% Being late for the interview FIGURE 22 Most Annoying Interviewee Behaviors MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:22 PM Page 24
  • 26. Although some self-promotion might be expected from job candidates, many took it to a higher, unacceptable level. Hiring managers thought some job seekers exaggerated their qualifications to get the position, occasionally making unbelievable claims such as: • “I really am a rocket scientist.” • “I can do all the jobs in this organization.” • “You’d be a fool not to hire me.” With a job market generally in their favor, job seekers also made some outsized demands of their potential employers (see sidebar). A significant proportion of hiring managers accused some job seekers of outright misrepresentation. They offered many examples of how job seekers stretched the truth, such as: • “An ICU nurse claimed she had open heart experience, but it became very clear early on that she did not have the knowledge base to care for this type of patient.” • “He said he had a Ph.D. when the school he attended did not offer that degree.” • “Based on the applicant’s age and amount of experience he claimed, he would have had to start his supervisory career at age 10 and graduated from college at age 12.” • “She misrepresented dates of employment to cover employment gaps.” • “He denied criminal convictions, but a background check turned up four of them. When confronted, he said he was set up and shouldn’t have been convicted.” • “He claimed 10 years of experience in human resources on his resume and in the interview, but a background check found discrepancies; he was only 24. When he was terminated, he said, ‘You’re firing me over that?’” • “The applicant didn’t include a previous employer due to being dismissed for starting a fire in the storeroom.” • “A technical writer claimed she wrote publications when in fact she only formatted them.” • “A background check showed she never enrolled in or graduated from the school she placed on her résumé.” 25 Some Outsized Interviewee Demands • “Can I work in my pajamas?” • “Do I have my choice of cars?” • “I just got my college degree. Do you think I could get an office with a window?” • “Can I bring my dog to work?” • “I want your position.” MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:22 PM Page 25
  • 27. Hiring managers at the highest levels saw the most misrepresentation by job candidates on either the résumé or in the interview (see Figure 23). More than three-fourths (77 percent) of the executives claimed job experiences had been misrepresented, and 44 percent claimed they had dismissed someone for misrepresentation. The executives undoubtedly had a broader perspective on the extent of misrepresentation both across the organization and across time. Despite the hiring managers’ claims, few job seekers admitted to misrepresentation (see Figure 24). Some of the discrepancy might be because managers were looking over many years of hiring; claiming misrepresentation was modestly correlated (r = .14 for education, .17 for experience) with tenure in a management role. Cultural differences were also apparent. Job seekers in Latin America and Asia were more likely to indicate misrepresentation than their counterparts in North America or Europe. Yet culture fails to explain the difference between interviewers and interviewees on how much misrepresentation actually occurs; there is still a huge gap. 26 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 Source:HiringManagers ExecutivesMid-Level Leaders1st-Level Leaders Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Misrepresented education on résumé or interview Misrepresented experience on résumé or interview Used personal, nonwork friend as a reference Dismissal for misrepresentation on résumé or interview 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 FIGURE 23 Executives Identified More Job Seeker Misrepresentation Misrepresent experience on résumé or interview Use personal, nonwork friend as a reference Misrepresent education on résumé or interview 31% 3% 58% 5% 40% 15% Hiring Managers Job Seekers FIGURE 24 Do Job Seekers Misrepresent Themselves? Job Seekers’ Confessions Latin America: • 18 percent misrepresent education. • 21 percent misrepresent experience. Asia: • 12 percent misrepresent education. • 18 percent misrepresent experience. MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:23 PM Page 26
  • 28. Other evidence suggests that job seeker misrepresentation is fairly widespread. ResumeDoctor.com found that of 1,000 résumés checked, 43 percent had significant inaccuracies.15 In 2006 the legislature in the State of Washington passed a bill that made using a fake or unaccredited degree a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The bill also criminalized lying, either orally or in writing, to get a job.16 If job seekers are misrepresenting their experience and credentials, they are doing so at some degree of risk. One final cluster of interviewer complaints related to how interviewees answered the questions posed to them. A frequent interviewer complaint was that job seekers were vague about their past experiences. This is especially problematic for hiring mangers trained in behavior-based interviewing, which relies on getting interviewees to provide examples of competency-related behavior. Job seekers who were inarticulate or talked too much also prevented interviewers from retrieving the information they needed. Talking too much took on another connotation, according to hiring managers’ write-in comments. Apparently, many job seekers reveal personal information that is embarrassing or even detrimental to their job application. For example: • “I left my previous job due to going off and smacking my manager because she didn’t show me any respect.” • “I got married too young and learned I really should have listened to my mother.” • “I applied for this job and other unrelated jobs in your company—sort of like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.” • “I was convicted of domestic violence last weekend, but it was no big deal.” • “I will be retiring in a few years, and I want this job for the benefits.” Job seekers would do well to heed advice on how to handle an interview (as described in Landing the Job You Want17). Even though the job market currently works in their favor, job seekers’ should not set as their goal just any job, but the right job. Getting there requires the kind of discussion that can benefit both interviewer and interviewee. “I applied for this job and other unrelated jobs in your company—sort of like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks.” —Job seeker 27 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:23 PM Page 27
  • 29. Interview Traps Their respective complaints demonstrate that both job seekers and hiring managers tend to fall into one or more of five common traps that sabotage the interview. Table 4 summarizes these five traps—devaluing, dueling, withholding, ego-stroking, and wandering. These traps can be avoided. Organizations savvy enough to appreciate the value of the interview as a sales tool can get an immediate payoff by helping their managers recognize and avoid committing these costly mistakes. Good Interviewing Aids Selection Interviewing should not be left to the idiosyncrasies of individual hiring managers. Professional interview training not only assures a more reliable outcome, but also boosts managers’ confidence in their ability to handle the interview experience. Hiring managers who received interviewer training rated their confidence in conducting a good interview considerably higher than those who had not been trained (see Figure 25). There are well-researched ways to conduct an interview that avoid the common traps, provide critical information for selection decisions, and serve to inform candidates about the position and its organizational context. The behavior-based interview is a prime example (see sidebar). 28 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 FIVE DEADLY TRAPS THAT SABOTAGE THE INTERVIEW INTERVIEWER Mistakes INTERVIEWEE Mistakes Devaluing Acting like there is no time to talk; Being late; showing up poorly being late; appearing unprepared. groomed or dressed. Dueling Grilling the candidate. Treating questions like an imposition. Withholding Withholding information about Withholding information about self. the position. Ego-Stroking Talking about oneself instead of Exaggerating (misrepresenting) the candidate. qualifications; playing hard to get. Wandering Asking irrelevant, inappropriate, Giving vague answers; being or personal questions. inarticulate; talking too much; revealing inappropriate personal information. Moderate Very low or low High 8%Very high 30% 28% 55% 57% 23% 7% 0% Source:HiringManagers Untrained Trained ConfidenceinInterviewingAbility FIGURE 25 Training and Interviewer Confidence MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:23 PM Page 28
  • 30. Staffing directors whose organizations used behavior-based interviewing extensively rated the effectiveness of their selection strategy and process significantly higher than those who used it only sometimes or never. In particular, those who used behavior-based interviewing more were far better equipped to identify candidates with the right kinds of experience for the position (see Figure 26). Ratings of the overall effectiveness of selection strategy/process (10-point scale): > 7.1 among those who used behavior-based interviewing a lot. > 6.2 among those who used behavior-based interviewing sometimes or never. A scientifically sound method can capitalize on the interview as a selection tool, and avoiding the deadly traps can capitalize on the interview as a selling tool. Train your managers in these foundations, and your interviews will help you land the right candidates, not drive them away. 29 Behavior-Based Interviews Behavior-based interviews provide a standard framework to gather and evaluate job-related information from candidates systematically and reliably. They are based on the belief that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. During a behavior-based interview, candidates are asked to share information about how they responded to particular situations in the past. The situations are developed from critical incidents identified through job analysis and are directly related to dimensions required to be effective in the targeted job/role. Follow-up questions probe for specific details, including the consequences of the behavior. In addition to determining a candidate’s skills and abilities, past behavior also can be used to assess job motivation and organizational fit. The selection and assessment literature supports the validity of the behavior- based interview, primarily because of its structured format and the foundation upon which it is built—the job/role analysis. This stands in sharp contrast to traditional, unstructured interviews, which often show no relationship to later job performance. Job-relatedness and consistent treatment of all candidates also enhance legal credibility. Behavior-based interviews are a flexible, efficient way of collecting information on a wide variety of competencies. Unlike traditional, unstructured interviews, they are easily integrated with other competency-based instruments to form a comprehensive selection/development system. Moderate Very low or low High 3%Very high 11% 16% 46% 52% 38% 29% 5% Source:StaffingDirectors Sometimes or Never Use Behavior-Based Interviews Use Behavior-Based Interviews Extensively IdentifyingCandidateswith RightExperiences FIGURE 26 Behavior-Based Interviewing Identifies the Right Experiences MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:24 PM Page 29
  • 31. HELLO, GOOD-BYE The most efficient selection system in the world won’t help you meet your business objectives if you can’t keep the talent you find. Unfortunately, retention is becoming an increasingly serious problem. Employee Tenure Is Shortening Nearly half of all hiring managers expected that new employees would stay in their positions a shorter time than did their counterparts five years ago. Executives were the most pessimistic; 61 percent expected new employees to stay a shorter time. The tenure situation may be more drastic than organizations realize. Both hiring managers and staffing directors seriously underestimated how long new employees would stay with the organization compared to what job seekers thought was a reasonable time (see Figure 27). Nearly one-third of job seekers had been in their current job less than six months, yet they were already in the market for a new one. Apparently, many had taken a placeholder job until something better came along (see Figure 28). “This job was going to be what kept me afloat while I looked at new career directions. I thought it would be a good idea because I wouldn’t be desperate to take other jobs and lower my standards.” —Office manager Job seekers in North America were particularly prone to taking placeholder jobs, especially those in their teens and twenties. In Europe, however, longer tenure before leaving for a new job was more the norm, perhaps in response to government-mandated protections. 30 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 1–2 Years 3–5 Years 6–10 Years Staffing Directors Hiring Managers Job Seekers Individual Contributors Professionals First-Level Leaders Mid-Level Leaders < 6 months 32% 18% 6+ years 18% 3–5 years 18% 1–2 years 15% 6–11 months Source:JobSeekers FIGURE 28 Job Seekers’ Tenure in Their Current Job LURE SPOT KEEP LAND FIGURE 27 Perspectives on Expected New Employee Tenure MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:25 PM Page 30
  • 32. Why Employees Leave One impediment to better retention is that employers often are clueless about why employees resign. Table 5 compares the reasons job seekers give for leaving their most recent jobs with what staffing directors and hiring managers believe causes employees to leave. The biggest discrepancy between the job seekers’ stated reasons and the perceptions of others is in the impact of external factors (e.g., accompanying a spouse on a move to another location, returning to school). Ten percent of job seekers cited external factors as the reason for moving on to another job, ranking it tenth in a list of 14 reasons for employee turnover. Yet, hiring managers and staffing directors placed external factors as first and second (respectively) in their rankings of the 14 reasons (shown as overrated in Table 5). Such a startling gap in rankings suggests one clear interpretation: that employees give face- saving reasons (that is, an external factor) for resigning, perhaps not wanting to discuss painful disappointments or to burn their bridges behind them. “This job was going to be what kept me afloat while I looked at new career directions. I thought it would be a good idea because I wouldn’t be desperate to take other jobs and lower my standards.” —Office manager 31 PERSPECTIVES ON REASONS FOR EMPLOYEE TURNOVER Underrated Overrated Job Seeker Staffing Director Hiring Manager Rank Agree Rank Agree Rank Agree Insufficient compensation, benefits, rewards/recognition 1 30% 3 48% 3 36% Lack of growth/development opportunities 2 29% 1 53% 2 37% Did not feel efforts were appreciated 3 24% 7 19% 6 19% Felt treated unfairly 4 18% 14 9% 10.5 13% Skills/Abilities not a good match for the job 5 15% 11 13% 12 12% The organization changed 6 13% 8.5 18% 10.5 13% Poor relationship with the manager 7 12% 4 35% 4 25% Did not find the work interesting 8 11% 10 13% 9 13% Poor fit with the organizational culture 9 11% 6 21% 7 18% External factors (e.g., spouse moves, going back to school) 10.5 10% 2 52% 1 53% Job changed focus or scope over time 10.5 10% 12.5 12% 13 10% Job left too little time for personal life 12 10% 8.5 18% 8 16% Job was not what the employee expected 13 9% 5 21% 5 22% The economy changed, making a move possible 14 3% 12.5 12% 14 10% MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:25 PM Page 31
  • 33. Reasons for leaving a job, as with reasons for taking a job, varied with the employee’s age. The highlighted areas in Table 6 show what’s particularly important to certain age groups when searching for a new position. (See the Job Flight Life Cycle on page 33.) Employers need to pay attention to what tempts different age groups to leave: • Those in their teens and 20s are more likely to get bored and find external reasons for leaving, such as going back to school or accompanying a spouse who moves. • Those in their 20s and 30s are likely to look elsewhere if rewards are not forthcoming and growth opportunities appear limited. • Employees in their 30s can become dissatisfied if the job leaves them too little time for their personal lives. • Organizations undergoing change need to be especially attentive to the impact that change has on employees in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Knowing the real reason that employees leave is a key to preventing short-term turnover, or “hello, good-bye.” If too many “polite” explanations (such as external factors) keep turning up, beef up your exit interviews, or even better, outsource them to a third party. A disgruntled employee is more likely to open up with a neutral third party who can assure anonymity. 32 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 TURNOVER REASONS BY AGE <20 21–30 31–40 41–50 >50 Insufficient compensation, benefits, rewards/recognition 18% 35% 29% 29% 26% External factors (e.g., spouse moves, back to school) 18% 14% 11% 7% 5% Did not feel skills/abilities were a good match for the job 15% 14% 16% 15% 15% Did not find the work interesting 14% 18% 9% 7% 8% Poor relationship with my manager 14% 12% 9% 13% 13% Did not feel efforts were appreciated 14% 28% 26% 24% 19% Lack of growth/development opportunities 12% 37% 33% 28% 19% Felt treated unfairly 12% 21% 18% 20% 15% Job was not what I expected 11% 12% 7% 8% 7% Job changed focus or scope over time 11% 8% 13% 11% 10% Job left too little time for personal life 8% 11% 15% 6% 11% My style did not fit well with the organizational culture 6% 10% 10% 13% 11% The organization changed 3% 7% 17% 16% 16% The economy changed, making a move possible 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% Relatively More Important MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:26 PM Page 32
  • 34. Improving Retention If you want to keep your employees, you need to pay attention from the beginning of each person’s career. Many employees have a rough beginning in their new jobs, which is a lost opportunity for binding them to the organization. For that reason, “on-boarding” is something organizations should carefully consider. On-Boarding Few staffing directors described their on-boarding as high quality (see Figure 29). But well-constructed on-boarding processes pay off. Staffing directors with good or excellent on-boarding rated their organization better at retention than other organizations in their industry (see Figure 30). The best on-boarding programs were longer and capitalized on information from the selection process. Only a minority of staffing directors (39 percent) reported using selection information in on-boarding, but those who used it for purposes such as creating development plans were rewarded with lower average turnover of professionals and executives. They also reported that fewer employees left because of a poor relationship with their manager. 33 20s Teens 30s 40s 50s+ Ho-Hum Movin’ On More Growth More Money Balanced Growth The Company Changed Job Flight Life Cycle Source:StaffingDirectors 4% 36% 46% 14% Excellent Good Poor Fair FIGURE 29 Quality of On-Boarding Same Worse Better 49% 38% 45% 50% 6% 12% Good or Excellent On-boarding Poor or Fair On-boarding RetentionComparedto OtherOrganizations Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 30 Quality of On-Boarding and Retention Knowing the real reason that employees leave is a key to preventing short-term turnover, or “hello, good-bye.” —Job seeker MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:27 PM Page 33
  • 35. Promotion Opportunities Promotion opportunities also can help you retain your employees. As reported earlier (Table 2), opportunity to advance is one of the top five factors that entice people to take a job. More than half of job seekers, regardless of region, expected a promotion quickly—within one or two years. This high expectation puts pressure on organizations to keep high-quality employees moving ahead, particularly those in their twenties and thirties. Despite having employees eager for promotion, organizations fill two- fifths to one-half of management positions from outside the organization (see Figure 31). This seriously cuts into current employees’ promotion opportunities and no doubt leads to frustration. Outside hires also pose a higher selection risk, especially at professional and leadership levels.18 On a positive note, more than one-third of employers responding to a recent job survey indicated that they planned to offer more promotions and career advancement opportunities to their existing staff in 2007.19 Ongoing Strategies Other retention efforts emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring and attentive, interested leadership. Surveys have demonstrated that in about 85 percent of participating Fortune 1000 companies, employees’ morale sharply declines after their first six months and continues to deteriorate for years afterwards.20 Some of the strategies used to inspire worker loyalty include tying supervisors’ compensation to retention performance, enabling work/life balance in the workplace, and monitoring employee sentiment.21 Good Selection Leads to Better Retention Arguably the most powerful way to improve retention is to select the right people to begin with. As reported earlier (Figure 14), staffing directors use turnover as a primary measure of selection success. Survey results showed that this emphasis is well founded. Staffing directors in organizations with better retention than those in similar industries also had notably better quality selection programs (see Figure 32). 34 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 First-Level Leaders 42%Mid-Level Leaders 40% 48%Executives Source:StaffingDirectors FIGURE 31 Positions Filled by External Hires MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:27 PM Page 34
  • 36. In other words, getting a clear, accurate, and complete portrayal of candidates in the selection process will help you to keep the ones you select. If the job is an excellent match to a candidate’s talents and motivations, the person has little to gain and much to lose by saying good-bye. If the job is an excellent match to candidates’ talent and motivations, they have little to gain and much to lose by saying good-bye. 35 Fit between culture and candidate values Fit between job and candidate’s preferences Identifying people with the right experiences 41%Complete picture of candidate qualifications 61% 40% 56% 38% 56% 38% 56% Source:StaffingDirectors Same or worse retention than others Better retention than other organizations 40%Objectivity of hiring 60% FIGURE 32 Selection System Quality and Retention of Good Employees MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:27 PM Page 35
  • 37. SCORING A KNOCKOUT The war for talent continues to put pressure on organizations to do a better job of finding and selecting employees who are capable of making strong contributions to organizational effectiveness and who will stay around long enough to do so. Satisfaction with current recruitment and selection systems is only moderate; there is much room for improvement. Despite increasingly difficult obstacles, getting better mileage from your hiring system is far from impossible. This report has highlighted some clear paths to improvement, which are summarized here. Lure Qualified Candidates The best recruiting is efficient and targeted. Using electronic methods can help satisfy candidates’ needs for quick replies and feedback. Branding your organization will enhance its appeal to candidates. But to best target your message, investigate job seekers’ motivations and align your recruiting message accordingly. Be sure to consider age, type of open position, and cultural factors. Organizations need to be aware of the critical role of hiring managers in selling the organization and its job opportunities to candidates. Only 15 percent of hiring managers said they do a lot of selling to candidates, but there is every indication that this percentage should be a lot higher. Another strategy for hiring managers is to open their minds to valuable talent, even if the fit to the open position is not ideal. They should instead consider finding a more suitable job or changing the open position to fit a good employee. Spot the Best for You There is no replacement for selection system quality. Yet many organizations are not capitalizing on scientifically developed selection methods. Tests and assessments will round out your picture of the candidate and yield more valuable information. Furthermore, they will reduce inconsistencies and the tendency of your managers to rely on their gut instincts when making hiring decisions. Selection systems can also benefit from incorporating more efficient methods. One type of applicant-pleasing efficiency takes only a small effort: giving them feedback as soon as you can. Shortening the time to hire will also help you please both hiring managers and job seekers, as will easy-to-use systems like online assessments. Land Your First Choice Make hiring managers aware of their annoying interview habits. Interactions with the interviewer can sway your preferred candidates to join or reject your organization. Interviewers need to be trained to use the interview as both a selling tool and a selection tool. Many hiring managers are probably unaware of how annoying some questions, behaviors, and habits can be to job candidates. To aid selection, interviewers need to adopt a sound, structured interviewing method, such as behavior-based interviewing, to remain objective and elicit information about competencies critical to performing the open position successfully. This technique also can uncover candidates’ misrepresentations of their experience. 36 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 LURE SPOT KEEP LAND LURE SPOT KEEP LAND LURE SPOT KEEP LAND MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:27 PM Page 36
  • 38. Keep Valuable Talent Employers are working against a trend of declining retention. To counter this trend, you will need to discover employees’ real reasons for leaving your organization and address their underlying dissatisfactions. Be sure to dig beneath the obvious external factors that are likely to be merely face-saving rationale. To optimize your chances for getting the truth, have a neutral third party conduct your exit interviews. Once you hire your preferred employees, you must be vigilant from the start of their careers to keep them on your payroll. First, focus on better on-boarding. Make the experience longer and more intensive, and use selection information to launch the development process. After on-boarding, make sure you keep following up on employee attitudes and sentiments. Train your managers on behaviors that promote retention, and make them accountable for keeping their reports satisfied and engaged. Workers loyal to their organization have strong relationships with their bosses, who provide clear expectations, honest feedback, and personal support. Reevaluate your needs for external hiring. Promotions are motivating and can drive retention. If you’re not developing people for promotion, you need to start doing so! Last, but certainly not least, invest in high-quality, thorough selection processes. Be sure to measure all aspects of your candidates, including their fit to the job and your organization’s culture. If the slippers are a comfortable fit, employees will keep on wearing them. If you’re tired of slugging through the war for talent, these and other lessons from the Selection Forecast will help you duck the punches and score a hiring system knockout. For more information, or to participate in our 2008 Selection Forecast, e-mail CABER@ddiworld.com. If you’re tired of slugging through the war for talent, these and other lessons from the Selection Forecast will help you duck the punches and score a hiring system knockout. 37 LURE SPOT KEEP LAND MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:27 PM Page 37
  • 39. DEMOGRAPHICS* Organization Information (Staffing Directors) BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION North America Other Regions 4.8 2.4 Aerospace & Defense 0.5 2.0 Agriculture 4.8 5.2 Automotive & Transport—Leasing/Manufacturing 6.9 5.2 Banking 2.4 8.8 Beverages 10.8 12.0 Business Services 1.9 5.6 Chemicals 3.7 1.2 Computer Hardware 8.5 6.8 Computer Services 7.4 4.8 Computer Software—Development & Sales 5.3 3.2 Construction—Services & Materials 5.6 6.0 Consumer Products Manufacturers 1.1 4.4 Consumer Services 0.3 0.4 Cultural Institutions 2.1 2.8 Education 4.0 4.8 Electronics 4.8 4.4 Energy & Utilities 0.5 2.0 Environmental Services & Equipment 18.5 9.6 Financial Services/Insurance 3.4 8.4 Food 2.4 1.6 Foundations & Charitable Organizations 6.1 2.8 Government * All numbers in tables, unless otherwise noted, represent percentages. 16.4 5.2 Health Care—Products & Services 9.0 8.4 Industrial Manufacturing 3.2 14.8 Leisure 2.6 0.4 Media 1.6 0.8 Membership Organizations 1.3 3.6 Metals & Mining 4.2 7.6 Pharmaceuticals 4.0 2.8 Real Estate—Commercial & Residential 4.5 6.4 Retail 1.3 1.6 Security Products & Services 3.7 3.2 Telecommunications—Equipment & Services 4.2 6.0 Transportation Services GLOBAL VS. NATIONAL North America Other Regions 50.0 25.4 National company—Does not own, operate, or have affiliate offices outside home office country. 50.0 74.6 Multinational company—Owns, operates, or has affiliate offices in multiple countries. 38 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 APPENDIX MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:27 PM Page 38
  • 40. PUBLIC VS. PRIVATELY HELD North America Other Regions 36.0 34.8 Public (U.S. market) 6.5 22.0 Public (non-U.S. market) 57.5 43.2 Private APPROXIMATE REVENUE FOR MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR North America Other Regions 1.9 3.4 Less than $1 million 23.0 28.6 $1 million up to $50 million 6.7 8.2 $50 million up to $100 million 18.5 18.4 $100 million up to $500 million 10.4 8.8 $500 million up to $1 billion 20.0 12.9 $1 billion up to $5 billion 7.4 7.5 $5 billion up to $10 billion 4.8 4.1 $10 billion up to $25 billion 7.4 8.2 $25 billion or more NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION North America Other Regions 1.1 0.8 1–10 4.5 2.9 11–50 4.5 6.1 51–100 9.0 6.9 101–200 12.8 14.3 201–500 9.6 17.1 501–1,000 24.2 21.2 1,001–5,000 9.6 7.8 5,001–10,000 6.6 7.3 10,001–20,000 10.1 9.0 20,001–50,000 8.0 6.5 50,001 or more GEOGRAPHIC REGION N 53 Europe (United Kingdom, France, Germany, The Netherlands) 378 North America (USA, Canada, Puerto Rico) 56 Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Panama) 99 Asia (China, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, UAE) 23 Australia & New Zealand 39 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:27 PM Page 39
  • 41. Hiring Managers NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU DIRECTLY SUPERVISE OR MANAGE North America Other Regions 3.8 2.6 None 31.3 31.0 5 or fewer 28.7 25.3 6–10 18.0 19.8 11–20 10.7 12.9 21–50 7.6 8.3 More than 50 LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT LEVEL North America Other Regions 41.9 28.9 First-level leader—supervisor, group leader, foreman, etc. 45.6 59.2 Mid-level leader—manager of other managers (division manager, district managers, etc.) 12.5 11.9 Executive—people in policy-making positions (CEO, COO, CFO, executive VP, senior VP, plant manager, etc.) FUNCTIONAL AREA North America Other Regions 11.6 14.3 Accounting/Finance 21.2 25.4 Administrative Support/Clerical 21.9 21.0 Customer Service and Support 3.5 5.9 Distribution 5.7 9.0 Engineering 20.8 2.8 Health Care 26.6 25.9 Human Resources/Personnel 6.9 12.1 Information Systems 2.7 3.6 Legal 2.8 6.4 Maintenance/Facilities 2.8 5.9 Manufacturing/Production/General Labor 7.7 12.9 Marketing 15.3 24.4 Operations 2.0 1.5 Publications/Graphic Design 3.8 6.2 Purchasing 6.3 7.0 Quality Assurance 4.4 7.7 Research/Development 1.6 4.2 Retail 9.9 13.2 Sales 40 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:28 PM Page 40
  • 42. Job Seekers HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION North America Other Regions 24.0 35.4 Technical, trade, or other specialized education 44.7 20.8 College or university graduate 10.8 25.6 Advanced degree beyond college or university 20.4 18.2 None of the above TYPE OF JOBS APPLIED FOR North America Other Regions 11.1 8.7 Accounting/Finance 47.7 32.9 Administrative Support/Clerical 31.3 12.5 Customer Service and Support 5.1 8.2 Distribution 6.0 6.9 Engineering 9.7 3.7 Health Care 14.1 9.6 Human Resources/Personnel 7.9 6.8 Information Systems 3.3 0.9 Legal 6.4 3.8 Maintenance/Facilities 8.9 4.9 Manufacturing/Production/General Labor 13.9 10.0 Marketing 9.6 3.9 Operations 3.8 2.3 Publications/Graphic Design 4.3 3.8 Purchasing 4.3 3.1 Quality Assurance 6.3 4.9 Research/Development 14.8 6.4 Retail 19.9 18.0 Sales AGE North America Other Regions 5.6 4.1 20 or under 28.7 38.4 21–30 23.4 26.7 31–40 26.1 20.4 41–50 14.5 9.8 51–60 1.7 0.7 61 or older LOWEST LEVEL OF JOBS APPLIED FOR North America Other Regions 61.9 68.1 Individual Contributor—administrative, support, service, machine operators, technicians, craft workers, etc. 17.3 13.0 Professional—engineers, lawyers, physicians, consultants, accountants, etc. 11.4 11.1 First-level leader—supervisor, group leader, foreman, etc. 7.8 6.0 Mid-level leader—manager of other managers (division manager, district manager, etc.) 1.5 1.8 Executive—people in policy-making positions (CEO, COO, CFO, executive VP, senior VP, plant manager, etc.) 41 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:28 PM Page 41
  • 43. PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS All organizations listed completed the staffing director survey. Some (denoted with *) also completed leader surveys. 3M 24/7 Customer Incorporated (Philippines) Abbott Laboratories ABIJCSUD Advance Auto Parts Advanced Health Media Advanced Input Systems Advanced Solutions International AEGON Aeroperlas Airlines Aflac AIRES, Inc. Alberta Advanced Education ALSTOM Transport Amcor American Bank of the North American Express Company* ANTON Research AOL Canada, Inc. APFORT Aristocrat Technologies ARM Aronson & Company Art.com, Inc. Aspiring Solutions Assédic de Basse-Normandie Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. Assurant Inc. AstraZeneca International* AT&T ATA Solutions Atlantic Lottery Corporation Australian Liquor Marketers Australian Paper Avecia Biologics Limited Avid Resource Corp. AXA General Insurance Hong Kong Limited* AXA Pacific Insurance Company Ballina Beverages Banco Popular Banner Health BBVA Bancomer BCI BDC Becton Dickinson Medical* Bellco Credit Union Berger Lahr Bharat Electronics Limited BHP Billiton* Biovail Corporation Bisk Education, Inc. BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina BlueScope Steel Limited* Boeing - Delta Decatur Operations Bombardier Aeronautique Boston Centerless Inc. Boys & Girls Clubs of America bpi British Columbia Public Service Agency BRTRC, Inc.* Brunner Mond Business Objects* Cabot Microelectronics Corporation Campbell Soup Company* Canadian National Railway Company Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited CARE USA Carhartt, Inc. Carilion Health System Catalyst International Caterpillar Mexico CCC Information Services Inc. Cenlar FSB Centier Bank CertainTeed Cervecería Cuauhtemoc Moctezuma, S.A. de C.V., FEMSA* The Chamberlain Group, Inc.* CHAN Healthcare Auditors Charter Global Inc. Chicago Board Options Exchange Children’s Health System of Alabama Children’s Hospital Boston* The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia China Vanke Co., Ltd* China World Hotel Christiana Care Health System Cia Bras de Distribuição CIBC* Ciment St-Laurent Cingular Wireless* CIT Group Inc. Citigroup CLTF Collection Office CMR Partners, LLP Coca-Cola FEMSA* Colgate-Palmolive Company (Philippines) Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec* Comprehensive Therapeutics, Ltd. Computershare Limited ConnectiCare, Inc. Conservation International Construction Specialties, Inc. Construrama La Santa Cruz COPA Airlines, Incorporated* Cornell University Corrpro Companies, Inc. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital Costain Group PLC* Covance Inc. Covestic Inc.* 42 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:28 PM Page 42
  • 44. 43 Crane Materials International CSA Group CTI Group CTS Corporation Cummins Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.* Cummins Inc. (Mid-South) Curbell, Inc. DaimlerChrysler Corporation DAK Americas LLC Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport DBTS, Inc. Deloitte & Touche USA LLP DENSO International America Department of Trade and Industry (Philippines) Despacho Vázquez y Asociados SA de CV Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG DHL International, Ltd. Diageo plc Diehl Controls North America, Inc. Dofasco Inc. Dole Pacific General Services, Ltd. Douglas County, Colorado DRS Technologies, Inc. DTSI Dubai Port World Dun & Bradstreet (Australia) Pty Ltd DWP (Private) Limited E.A.G. Services, Inc. E&A Consulting Group, Inc. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. The Edge Companies eHealthPartners, Inc. Elan Embraer Liebherr Equipamentos do Brasil S.A. Emdeon Corporation Emerson Network Power Emory University Empaques Plegadizos Modernos SA de CV Emron Enterprise Community Partners Enterprise Financial EPCOR Utilities Inc. Equity Residential Erie Insurance Group* Ernst & Young ERP Search Essential Group, Inc. Eurotiles Industrial Corporation Evangelical Christian Credit Union* Evenflo México S.A. de C.V. Express Check Advance LLC Factiva, Inc. FastCargo Logistics Corporation FedEx Custom Critical* FEMSA Empaque F. Hoffmann-La Roche LTD Financial Partners Credit Union FinanciaLinx Corporation FinishMaster, Inc. The First American Corporation First United Travel, Inc. Fisher Scientific International FLEXPIPE Systems Inc. Fonterra Co-operative Group Fortis Franklin Templeton Investments* Fresenius Medical Care North America Frost GeoSciences, Inc. Fujitsu Limited GASAG Berliner Gaswerke Aktiengesellschaft Gate Gourmet, Inc.* GCC Cemento S.A. de C.V.* GDKN Corporation Gemmy Industries Corporation General Electric Company—Financial Services General Motors de Mexico Complejo Silao* Gestion Humana GFI – Romcarbon Giant Eagle Inc. GKN plc Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance* GMAC Insurance Goodrich Corporation Sensor Systems Gouvernement du Canada Great Lakes Computer Source Greenville Hospital System Greif, Inc. Griffin Canada, Inc. Groupe Roullier Grupo Celanese, S.A. Grupo Scotiabank* Grupo Tycoon Guardian Industries Gulf Coast Medical Center GXS, Inc. (Philippines) Habit Management Habitat France Hallmark Rehabilitation Halpern Eye Associates Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates Haworth, Inc. Heineken USA Henkel International Hewlett-Packard Hill Physicians Medical Group, Inc. Hill-Rom, Inc. Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC* HireRight, Inc. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Inc. (Philippines) Honda Cars Philippines, Inc. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited* Hormel Foods Corporation Shanghai Huhtamaki Australia Limited IBIDEN Philippines, Inc. Idaho Power Company IDC Research, Inc. MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:28 PM Page 43
  • 45. 44 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 iGate Mastech IKON Office Solutions, Inc. iLearn Forum Ltd illy caffe North America, Inc. INCAT International* inCode Wireless* Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation Infogix, Inc. Infopark AG ING Direct Ingram Micro Inc. in-integrierte informationssysteme GmbH Inner Eastern Group Training Integral Nuclear Associates, LLC Intellectual Property Office Interpharma Asia Pacific IntraLase Corporation INTRIA Items Inc. Investance Group IS3, Inc. ISD Corporation Ivax Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mexico) Janssen-Cilag J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.* Jekyll Island Authority* Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. Johnson & Johnson (Caribbean) Jollibee Foods Corporation Group Kansas Gas Service KaVo Dental Corporation Kellogg Canada Inc.* Kendrick Farmaceutica KeyCorp Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc.* Kimura Inc. Kindred Healthcare, Inc.* Kohler Mix Specialties* Konzerta Lane Company LANXESS (Sarnia) Liberty Bell Equipment Lifetouch Inc. LifeWay Christian Resources Lisi Aerospace Liz Claiborne Inc. (Canada) Lockheed Martin Corporation* Lojas Riachuelo S.A. L’Oréal SA LSI Logic Corporation LuK – Aftermarket Service Lundbeck Brasil Ltda. MAAF Assurances The Main Street America Group Manila Adventist Medical Center Manila Pavilion Hotel* Mann+Hummel Group Marcedian S.C. Maritz Inc. Marriott International Inc. MCM Technologies Berhad McMount Consulting Services, Inc. MeadWestvaco Corporation MediCorp Health System MediServe Information Systems, Inc. Meeder Financial Mercer, Inc. Merck & Co., Inc. Merck Frosst Canada LTD Merck Sharp & Dohme (Asia) Ltd. Merion Publications, Inc. The MERIT Companies Mervyn’s LLC Metcash Trading Limited* Methodist Healthcare System Miami County, Kansas Milgard Windows, Inc (Chicago) Mirant Corporation (Philippines)* MOL (America) Inc. Monsanto Company Moog Inc. NASD National Instruments Corporation NAV Canada Navitaire Inc. NCS Pte. Ltd. NELSON Nestlé Group* New Dimensions in Learning New York Hospital Queens New York Power Authority* Niji Nokia Northern Alberta Institute of Technology* Northrop Grumman Corporation* Novo Nordisk A/S* NVR, Inc. NYK Line (Japan) O&A Investment Services ODL, Inc. Oerlikon Balzers Coating Office of the Arizona Attorney General Ohio Permanente Medical Group ON Semiconductor* One Network Bank Ontario Hospital Association OrthoCarolina Owens Corning* Oxford Industries, Inc. Oxford Instruments plc Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. Panasonic de México S.A. de C.V. PAR Springer-Miller Systems Patheon Inc.* Patriot Energy Group, Inc. Peopleclick, Inc. PeopleSupport, Inc. Perot Systems* Perum BULOG* Pfizer Inc.* MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:28 PM Page 44
  • 46. 45 Pitney Bowes Inc. Plastipak Packaging Inc.* Pond & Company PPG Industries Premier Farnell plc Premiere Global Services Priority Health Proeza Propal S.A.* PSCU Financial Services, Inc.* PT Bank Niaga Tbk.* PT Holcim Indonesia Tbk* PT PAM Lyonaisse Jaya* PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk PT Trakindo Utama* PT United Tractor Tbk* PUUL GmbH PZ Cussons Australia Pty Ltd Qioptiq Imaging Solutions Quantum Foods Incorporated Quintiles Transnational Corporation Randstad Randy’s Ring & Pinion Ready Bake Foods RealtyTrac Inc. Red Hat, Inc. The Regus Group plc Rent-A-Center Réseau de transport de la Capitale, Quebec, Canada Réseau de transport de Longueuil, Quebec, Canada Respironics, Inc. Rich Products Corporation Ripley S.A.* Risk Management Solutions, Inc. Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd Rock-Tenn Company Rodelag Rohm and Haas (Scotland) Ltd. Roto-Rooter Inc. Royal Caribbean International Rydex Investments SABMiller plc SAGA GWG Saint Francis Medical Center Saint Joseph’s Hospital* St. Louis Children’s Hospital SAP America Inc. SAS Autosystemtechnik Verwaltungs GmbH Schenck Business Solutions Schering-Plough Corporation* Schneider Electric S.A. Schreiber Foods Inc. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Scott Jardine Ltd. Sears Holdings Corporation Secured Funding Corporation* Shangri-La Hotels & Resorts* Siemens Corporation* SILOGIC Simplot Australia Pty Ltd The Situs Companies SK Comercial Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics GmbH Smiths Aerospace Smiths Medical Smolin Lupin & Company Smorgon Steel Group Ltd Société Pierre Boucher Software ONE, Inc. Solutions Emploi Southlake Regional Health Centre SPi Stabilit S.A. de C.V. (Mexico) Standard Life plc* Sterling Commerce Sterling Equities Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. Sucre Arias & Reyes Sun Life Inc. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.* Swissport International Ltd. Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated* Symbol Technologies, Inc. Syncrude Canada Ltd SYSCO Corporation T&T Consulting Tarong Energy* TeleTech Holdings, Inc. TELUS Corporation Temple University Health System Tenaris Texas Children’s Hospital* Thermotech, S.A. de C.V. Thomas Kinkade Company The Thomson Corporation (Philippines) Toga Hospitality* Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Total E&P USA Inc. Total Interior Systems—America, LLC Toyota Motor Philippines* Tozzini, Freire, Texeira e Silva Advogados Traders Hotels* Trane Systems TRANZACT Trend Micro Incorporated* Triton Systems, Inc. Turbomeca USA Tyco Healthcare Group LP UCI Medical Center* UFS Dispensaries Ltd Unified Western Grocers, Inc. Unilever* Union Switch & Signal Inc.* United Recovery Systems, LP United Way of Greater Rochester Unitus Community Credit Union University of Technology Sydney* UNM Hospitals MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:28 PM Page 45
  • 47. 46 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 URS Corporation Utah Retirement Systems Vanke Co., Ltd.* Velsicol Chemical Corporation ViewPoint Bank* Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services Virtual Causeway Vytec Corporation Waterfront Philippines Incorporated Watson Wyatt Asia-Pacific Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. The Weather Channel Interactive, Inc.* Weidmüller GmbH & Co. KG Wellmark, Inc. Westfield Ltd. Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research WhiteWave Foods Company Who’s Calling, Inc. Wilhelm Karmann GmbH Wireless Generation, Inc. Wizard Home Loans Wolverine World Wide, Inc. Workforce Safety & Insurance* World Relief WorleyParsons LTD Worthington Industries Worthyjobs Pte Ltd WPS Resources Corporation Wyeth Pharmaceuticals* Wyndham Hotel Group Xperianz Yankee Group Research, Inc. YMCA du Grand Montréal YMCA of Greater Rochester Zenith Insurance Company Zetec, Inc. Zimmer, Inc. Zimmer MedizinSysteme GmbH The Zitter Group Note: When completing the HR survey, each respondent was asked to type the full name of the organization he or she represented. In publishing the list of participating organizations, DDI cannot assume responsibility for errors in spelling or other errors in the information provided by these individuals. This list does not include organizations that wish to remain anonymous. MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:28 PM Page 46
  • 48. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ann Howard, Ph.D., is DDI’s Chief Scientist. As the leader of DDI’s Center for Applied Behavioral Research (CABER), she evaluates the validity and impact of DDI programs and uncovers global trends and issues in human talent management. Ann has more than 30 years’ experience as an industrial-organizational psychologist, specializing in assessment centers and managerial careers. She is a recognized author, researcher, and speaker in her field. She has held leadership roles in a variety of professional organizations and is a past president of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). Scott Erker, Ph.D., is the Senior Vice President of Selection Solutions for DDI. He oversees the design and implementation of comprehensive selection systems that improve the speed and quality of hiring decisions. He has worked with many Fortune 500 companies, including General Motors, Microsoft, Marriott, and Coca-Cola. He has been a featured speaker at SIOP, the Human Capital Institute Summit, and the Global Workforce Leadership Summit. Scott is quoted frequently in business and trade publications, including The Wall Street Journal and Sales & Marketing Management. Neal Bruce is the Vice President of Alliances at Monster. He has been in the recruiting industry for the past 14 years. His first 11 years were spent as a practitioner, moving from recruiter to recruiting manager to director of staffing for a global software organization. In his current position Neal is responsible for creating and executing Monster’s HR Vendor Alliances strategies. He is a member of the Human Capital Institute’s National Advisory Board and is a frequent speaker at HR industry conferences. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Project Management: Jennifer Pesci-Kelly, Jeffrey Quinn, Bradford Thomas Recruitment: Dwiputri Adimuktini, Sonia Allard, Malu Arredondo, Mathieu Belli, Bronwyn Bower, Mark Busine, Alejandro Del Moral, Nikki Dy-Liacco, Barbara Endemann, Peter Harris, Sandy Hill, Jean-Paul Isson, Matthias Klappenbach, Annabelle Maury, Christen McCabe, Lucy McGee, Yvonne McGowan, Magali Personnier, Allison Picciano, Rehana Sharma, Karine Skobinsky, Lily Sun, Jon Swedberg, Steve Sylven Research Team: Paul Bernthal, Jason Bondra, Alexander Davis, Jazmine Espejo, Carla Fogle, Julia Peters Editorial: Mike Crawmer, Shawn Garry Graphic Design: Patrice Andres, Susan Ryan, Janet Wiard 47 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:29 PM Page 47
  • 49. ENDNOTES 1. “Jobless Rate Off: 97,000 Added to Payrolls,” by J.W. Peters, March 10, 2007, The New York Times, pp. B1–B4. 2. (2007, Mar. 16). Labour force survey by OECD Statistics http://stats.oecd.org/wbos 3. “Rapid Recruiting in China Undercuts Predictions of a Looming Talent Shortage,” by F. Nansen, Nov. 20, 2006, Workforce Management, 85(22), pp. 36–37. 4. “To Have and to Hold,” March 2006, New Zealand Management, 53(2), p. 14. 5. “Job Sharing Key to Solving Skills Shortage,” April 2006, In the Black, 76(3), p. 12. 6. “Reaching Out from Down Under,” by T. Hoffman, December 18, 2006, Computerworld, 40(51), p. 30. 7. Selection Forecast: Recruiting and Hiring Talent, by P.R. Bernthal and S. Erker, 2005, Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International. 8. “Seven Major Job Trends for 2007,” by M. Ferguson, 2007. Available online at http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/ careerbytes/CBArticle.aspx?articleID=610&cbsid= 2cbd036fc7a44e1e8f2e9b9318755937-226930056-TE-4&mine=-1 9. 2007 Sales Outlook Snapshot Survey, by D.J. Cichelli, 2007, Scottsdale, AZ: The Alexander Group. 10.“If You’re On Time and Breathing, You’re Hired,” by C. Gillis, October 16, 2006, Maclean’s, 119(41), p. 20. 11. “Personnel Selection,” by I.T. Robertson & M. Smith, 2001, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(4), pp. 441+. 12.“War for Talent, Part Two,” by E.L. Axelrod, J. Handfield-Jones, & T.A. Welsh, 2001, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, pp.9–11. 13.“Best Practices in Leader Selection,” by A. Howard, 2006. In J.A. Conger & R.E. Riggio (Eds.), The Practice of Leadership: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 14.Ibid. 15.“Getting Wise to Lies,” by L.T. Cullen, May 1, 2006, Time Canada, 167(28), p. 27. 16.In “Brickbats,” by C. Oliver, April 2006, Reason, p. 8. 17.Landing the Job You Want: How to Have the Best Job Interview of Your Life, by W.C. Byham & D. Pickett, 1999, New York: Three Rivers Press. 18.“Identifying, Assessing, and Selecting Senior Leaders,” by A. Howard, 2001, in S.J. Zaccaro & R. Kilmoski (Eds.), The Nature and Context of Organizational Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 19.Cited in Ferguson (see note 8). 20.“Why Your Employees are Losing Motivation,” by D. Sirota, L.A. Mischkind, & M.I. Meltzer, April 10, 2006, Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. Available online at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5289.html 21.“Retention Strategies for 2006 and Beyond,” Monster Intelligence, Winter 2006. Available online at http://media.monster.com/a/i/intelligence/pdf/ Monster_Research_Retention_Strategies_for_2006.pdf 48 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007 MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:29 PM Page 48
  • 50. © Development Dimensions International, Inc., MMVII. All rights reserved. MICABERSR14 *HJFC* HJFC $50 THE AMERICAS WORLD HEADQUARTERS PITTSBURGH 412.257.0600 MEXICO CITY 52.55.1253.9000 TORONTO 416.601.5500 Other offices include Atlanta, Calgary, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Monterrey, Montreal, New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, Santiago, and São Paulo EUROPE/AFRICA DÜSSELDORF 49.2159.91680 LONDON 44.1.753.616.000 PARIS 33.1.41.9686.86 Other offices include Johannesburg and Warsaw ASIA-PACIFIC SHANGHAI 86.21.6113.2525 SINGAPORE 65.6226.5335 SYDNEY 61.2.9466.0300 Other offices include Auckland, Bangkok, Beijing, Brisbane, Dubai, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Melbourne, Mumbai, Perth, Seoul, Taipei, and Tokyo TO LEARN MORE: EMAIL: INFO@DDIWORLD.COM WWW.DDIWORLD.COM MICABERSR14_CV.qxp 4/26/2007 3:02 PM Page 2