Michigan State University Supports Traditional Hiring Process Ineffective

Tweet

 

According to a Michigan State University Study...

Traditional Recruitment Methods Are Too Subjective

If you are not using an effective Job Match Testing approach as an integral part of your Employee Selection Process, you are missing a tremendous opportunity to reduce turnover, and improve employee retention and morale.

• Most employers use a combination of application, interviews, resumes and employment reference checks. These methods are best described as subjective.
  
  
• Traditional recruitment methods are highly vulnerable to data distortion or falsification.
  
  
• Resumes are often exaggerated or falsified.
  
  
• Interviews are greatly influenced by "first impressions, appearance halo effects or chemistry".
• References are usually groomed or coached.
  
  
• Subjective recruitment and hiring methods provide useful, but limited information.

Modern Recruitment Methods Offer a More Objective Approach

• Modern recruitment methods use on-line applications and interviews, integrity screenings and executive personality profiles, job matching benchmarks and background verifications.
• The information collected is highly accurate and reliable.
• Objective recruitment and hiring methods make your hiring process more defendable to any EEOC and ADA challenges.
• Screenings and profiles are not as vulnerable to faking or distortion and halo effects.
• Validity indicators on assessments help to verify the authenticity or candor of the candidate's responses.

Research Shows the Relative Value of Different Hiring Methods

• Interviews alone
  14% accuracy
  
  
• Reference Checks + Interviews
  26% accuracy
• Behavior-based Personality Profile + Reference Checks + Interviews
  38% accuracy
• Abilities + Personality Profile + Reference Checks + Interviewing
  54% accuracy
  
  
• Values - Interests + Abilities + Personality Profile + Reference Checks + Interviews
  66% accuracy
• Personal Attributes - Job Matching (job benchmark) + all of the above
  75% accuracy

For more information on how you can increase your chances of successful selection and hiring Contact the Rainmaker Group today ! We're here to help and would love to hear from you!

References / Sources:
John E. Hunter and Ronda F Hunter, Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96, No. 1, 1984, p. 90; Robert. P. Tett, Douglas Jackson and Mitchell Rothstein, Personality Measures as Predictors of Job Performance: A meta-analytical review, Personnel Psychology, Winter 1991, p. 703. Michigan State University's School of Business.