Selecting and Developing Top Performers

599 views

Published on

A guide to using talent assessments

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Selecting and Developing Top Performers

  1. 1. SELECTING AND DEVELOPING TOP PERFORMANCE HARRISON ASSESSMENTS
  2. 2. Suitability & Eligibility <ul><li>Eligibility – can the person perform. </li></ul><ul><li>Suitability – will the person perform. </li></ul>SUITABILITY ELIGIBILITY Behavioural Tendencies Experience, Training & Education
  3. 3. <ul><li>Accurately measure and predict Behaviours </li></ul><ul><li>that impact on success </li></ul><ul><li>Be easily customisable for each specific job </li></ul><ul><li>Be reliable and revealing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prevent deception </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reveal self-deception </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Provide a overall prediction of success based on eligibility, suitability, and interview results </li></ul><ul><li>Be easy to implement and interpret </li></ul>The Assessment Challenge An ideal assessment method should:
  4. 4. Traditional Attempts to Predict Behaviour Interviewing - Limitations <ul><li>Behaviour is very difficult to quantify </li></ul><ul><li>Deception is difficult to detect </li></ul><ul><li>Interviewers are biased toward their own Behavioural tendencies </li></ul><ul><li>Good interviewees are not necessarily good performers </li></ul><ul><li>Good performers are not necessarily good interviewees </li></ul>
  5. 5. Traditional Attempts to Predict Behaviour Personality Assessment - Limitations <ul><li>Easy to deceive </li></ul><ul><li>Not job specific </li></ul><ul><li>Have an insufficient number of dimensions (usually 4 to 20) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Personality Assessments have limited dimensions Limited dimensions = unclear picture 4 – 20 dimensions provides only a general view of personality. This is insufficient to compare to complex behavioural requirements.
  7. 7. Personality Assessment measures only some Suitability factors By increasing the personality factors and including work environment preferences (total of 30-40 dimensions), clarity is improved but it is still insufficient.
  8. 8. Enhanced Suitability Assessment By increasing the personality factors further and including work environment preferences and interests (total of 60-70 dimensions), the image is sharpened. However, there is still considerable room for improvement.
  9. 9. Comprehensive Suitability Assessment By further increasing the personality factors and including work environment preferences, interests, and task preferences (to a total of 100 dimensions) some clarity is achieved. However, it could still be improved.
  10. 10. Comprehensive Suitability Assessment with Inconsistency Detection By increasing the personality factors further and including a complete spectrum of work environment preferences, interests, and task preferences (a total of 155 dimensions) as well as effective inconsistency detection technology, a very clear view of Behaviour can be achieved.
  11. 11. High Tech Questionnaire Equal to a full day of multiple choice testing… in only 30 minutes Items are ranked in groups of 8. Each item appears twice The computer cross-referencing technology provides 8103 comparisons - equivalent to 2701 multiple choice questions.
  12. 12. Lie Prevention <ul><li>Forced ranking (rather than rating) forces the profilee to reveal priorities and prevents exaggerated ratings. </li></ul><ul><li>The items are equally attractive and thus the ranking given is based on actual priorities. </li></ul><ul><li>Counter-productive tendencies are determined through the paradox methodology which is completely “blind” to the profilee. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Technological Lie Detector Traditional personality lie detection is less than 10% effective. Tens of thousands of cross-references identify contradictory rankings and verify that the answers are honest.
  14. 14. The Consistency Score <ul><li>100 = perfectly consistent </li></ul><ul><li>Greater than 50 = reliable results </li></ul><ul><li>Greater than 0 = reliable results for lower level positions </li></ul><ul><li>Below 0 - repeat the questionnaire </li></ul><ul><li>-450 – random answers </li></ul><ul><li>-900 – perfectly inconsistent </li></ul>The consistency score is so sensitive that even slight attempts to deceive are detected and located. The consistency score ranges from 100 to -900 .
  15. 15. Reasons for Low Consistency <ul><li>Intention to deceive or provide the “expected” answer (most common) </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of concentration (secondary factor) </li></ul><ul><li>Trying to complete the questionnaire too quickly </li></ul><ul><li>Poor Literacy </li></ul>
  16. 16. Position Analysis <ul><li>With only a general impression of the position (no formal job description), it is very difficult to determine if a person fits the position. </li></ul>Fit ?
  17. 17. Position Analysis <ul><li>A formal job description helps to determine the fit, but is usually only sufficient to provide a general idea of the required behaviour. </li></ul>Fit ?
  18. 18. Position Analysis <ul><li>Job descriptions that include major responsibilities help to clarify the issues of fit, but still leave some questions. </li></ul>Fit ?
  19. 19. Position Analysis <ul><li>Clear performance expectations help clarify the behaviour requirements for the position. </li></ul>Fit ?
  20. 20. Position Analysis <ul><li>By weighting the performance factors, more of the questions about person/position fit are resolved. </li></ul>Fit ?
  21. 21. <ul><li>The HA Position Analysis Wizard enables you to transform the position requirements into weighted traits. </li></ul>Position Analysis Fit ?
  22. 22. Position Analysis HA research has determined the traits that relate to success for different position types. This data combined with your job information will create accurate custom position templates. Fit
  23. 23. Missing the Target <ul><li>Using only a personality assessment combined with a basic job description provides a very unclear determination of the fit which is typically only about 10% better than a guess. </li></ul>Fit ?
  24. 24. Accuracy <ul><li>The HA integrated assessment combined with the Position Analysis Wizard provides a prediction of success with greater than 80% accuracy. </li></ul>Fit
  25. 25. Validation <ul><li>HA Behavioural assessment has more than 30 validation studies, each showing a predictive accuracy of greater than 80%. </li></ul><ul><li>It is generally more accurate than assessment centres that cost thousands of dollars per person. </li></ul><ul><li>Test re-test is greater than .8 for each scale. </li></ul><ul><li>High construct validity correlations with standard personality methods. </li></ul>
  26. 26. Enjoyment Performance Theory <ul><li>If you enjoy an activity, you tend to do it more. By doing it more, you tend to learn and improve the related skills. As a result, you tend to gain recognition (including self recognition) which helps you to enjoy the activity more. </li></ul>Enjoy Activity Do it More Learn More – Improve Skills Receive Recognition
  27. 27. Enjoyment Performance Theory <ul><li>If you dislike an activity, you tend to avoid it. Thus, you fail to learn and improve the related skills. You may illicit negative feedback as a result (or self-criticism) which contributes to disliking the activity more. </li></ul>Don’t Enjoy Activity Avoid the Activity Fail to Learn or Improve Skills Negative Feedback
  28. 28. Traditional Bi-polar Scale FRANK DIPLOMATIC Bi-polar Scale
  29. 29. Bi-polar Compared to Paradox FRANK DIPLOMATIC Bi-polar Scale Paradox: “ A seemingly contradictory statement which nonetheless may be true .” DIPLOMATIC FRANK Paradox Scales
  30. 30. Paradox Theory FRANK DIPLOMATIC Paradox Scales DIPLOMATIC FRANK DIPLOMATIC FRANK Good Communicator Poor Communicator Good communicators and poor communicators look the same on a traditional bi-polar scale. Bi-polar Scale Balanced
  31. 31. Paradox Theory DIPLOMATIC FRANK DIPLOMATIC FRANK Good Communicator Poor Communicator DIPLOMATIC FRANK Blunt DIPLOMATIC FRANK Evasive Example of the four basic dimensions within a paradox scale Balanced Versatility Balanced Deficiency Aggressive Imbalance Passive Imbalance
  32. 32. X-Y Representation of Paradox DIPLOMATIC FRANK The four basic dimensions of a paradox can be more effectively displayed by rotating one of the scales at right angles to make an X-Y plane.
  33. 33. X-Y Representation of Paradox DIPLOMATIC FRANK The four basic dimensions of a paradox can be more effectively displayed by rotating one of the scales at right angles to make an X-Y plane.
  34. 34. X-Y Representation of Paradox DIPLOMATIC FRANK The four basic dimensions of a paradox can be more effectively displayed by rotating one of the scales at right angles to make an X-Y plane.
  35. 35. Balanced Versatility DIPLOMATIC FRANK Blunt Forthright diplomacy Evasive Avoids Communication Combination of traits predicting good communication as portrayed in an X-Y plane. The dark blue circle indicates the normal range of Behaviour.
  36. 36. Aggressive Imbalance DIPLOMATIC FRANK Blunt Forthright diplomacy Evasive Avoids Communication High frank, low diplomatic indicates bluntness (an aggressive imbalance). The grey circle reflects an underlying passive polarity. For example, bluntness is often used a means of evading or a cover for vulnerability.
  37. 37. Passive Imbalance DIPLOMATIC FRANK Blunt Forthright diplomacy Evasive Avoids Communication The red circle reflects the polarity of a passive imbalance. Under stress, the behavior may “flip” and become blunt. Low frank, high diplomatic indicates evasiveness.
  38. 38. Balanced Deficiency DIPLOMATIC FRANK Blunt Forthright diplomacy Evasive Avoids Communication The double polarity indicates the behavior could flip to either polar extreme under stress. Low frank, low diplomatic indicates poor communication .
  39. 39. 12 HA Paradox Pairs Certain : Open/Reflective Analytical : Intuitive Risking : Analyzes Pitfalls Self-Acceptance : Self-Improvement Self-Motivated : Stress Management Enforcing : Warmth/Empathy Frank : Diplomatic Persistent : Experimenting Authoritative : Collaborative Assertive : Helpful Organised : Flexible Optimistic : Analyses Pitfalls
  40. 40. The Secret of Success Success is the result of integrating two seemingly contradictory Behaviours. HA is the only assessment method that harnesses the power of paradox.
  41. 41. Integrating Behavioural Assessment with Eligibility Behavioural Assessment Interview Score Eligibility Score Assessment types are weighted & integrated Final prediction of success for a given position By weighting each assessment type and integrating them into a final score, you gain a complete picture and accurate prediction.
  42. 42. Unique Reports Generated to Your Specific Requirements <ul><li>Each HA report is unique. It considers: </li></ul><ul><li>The behavioural tendencies of the person </li></ul><ul><li>The work preferences of the person </li></ul><ul><li>The specific requirements of the position </li></ul><ul><li>The reports are in layman’s terms and require no professional interpretation. This is achieved by: </li></ul><ul><li>Expert system technology </li></ul><ul><li>Tailor made assessment integration incorporating eligibility and suitability. </li></ul>
  43. 43. One of a Kind <ul><li>Uses a full spectrum of Behavioural assessments, including personality, interests, work environment preferences and task preferences. </li></ul><ul><li>Uses a high-tech questionnaire that provides the equivalent of a full day of testing in only 30 minutes. </li></ul><ul><li>Uses a technological consistency detector that provides an extremely reliable validation of the authenticity of the answers. </li></ul><ul><li>Can be effectively applied without professional interpretation. </li></ul><ul><li>Uses the power of paradox to decipher subtleties and complexities of personality related to job performance. </li></ul><ul><li>Offers complete customisation to specific job requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>Offers a complete research data base of success traits for different position types. </li></ul><ul><li>Delivers cost effective high correlation with actual job performance. </li></ul>HA is the only assessment method that:
  44. 44. How HA is Used <ul><li>Recruitment and Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Coaching, Retaining & Developing </li></ul><ul><li>Team Development </li></ul><ul><li>Organisational Development </li></ul>
  45. 45. Selection and Recruitment <ul><li>Set the position criteria in the software </li></ul><ul><li>Applicants complete HA questionnaire </li></ul><ul><li>Generate suitability report and interviewing guide for each applicant </li></ul><ul><li>Interview suitable applicants </li></ul><ul><li>Rate eligibility and interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Enter results in software </li></ul><ul><li>Generate final reports </li></ul><ul><li>Use the “How to Attract This Candidate” report to convince the candidate to accept employment. </li></ul>
  46. 46. Coaching, Retaining & Developing <ul><li>Use the “Job Comparison” reports to coach performance. </li></ul><ul><li>Use the “Paradox” reports to coach individual employees to develop constructive traits. </li></ul><ul><li>Use the “How to Manage, Develop & Retain” report to improve supervision and performance. </li></ul><ul><li>Use the “Developing Traits” report to implement a development plan </li></ul>
  47. 47. Team Development <ul><li>Use the “Team Main” graph and/or “Team Paradox” graph to: </li></ul><ul><li>Illuminate team dynamics </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate team effectiveness </li></ul>
  48. 48. Organisational Development <ul><li>Use the HA methodology to: </li></ul><ul><li>Formulate position requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Implement core values and assess Behavioural competencies </li></ul><ul><li>Integrate selection and development </li></ul>

×