idealpeople blog

So, 2008 is one month old already. It’s been non-stop here, and we hope you’ve all been enjoying the blog recently. Now that your blogmaster’s finished running around and educating the next stream of talent to come out of the local Universities, it’s time for some quiet reflection on the changing nature of recruitment - and particularly of the selection tools being available. So, over to our very own Richard Stockill, who will own the blog for the next two days with his critique and review of various selection tools. He starts with the traditional - the CV, the Application Form, Interviews and References. What are they all about? What’s the point? And where do they fall down?

Recruitment and Selection Methods Part 1: The Present

In general people spend around one third of their waking lives engaged in some form of employment. This is the product of the society we choose to live in - one based on commerce and on transaction. It has been this way since before the industrial revolution but since then the process of recruitment has become far more formalized.

One question that businesses often ask potential employers is How do we know you are right for the job? In an increasingly technical world the move towards effective methods for answering this question have become all the more prominent.

Unfortunately, selection in recruitment is generally opaque to its general user; the result of which can be painfully inaccurate perceptions surrounding recruitment and selection methods. So I thought a gentle ramble through some of the more popular methods used might offer some guidance.

There are a multitude of ways in which people are identified for roles, be it through headhunting, advertising or searching jobsites on the internet. This is the sourcing phase, sometimes carried out by in-house recruiters but more often than not done by specialist agencies or consultancies.

Once a pool of talent is sourced the pool needs to be carefully screened. This is done using selection methods designed to highlight the most suitable people. The selection methods most people will be familiar with are CVs and application forms, interviews and references.

These methods are used because they have what is known as high face validity. That’s another way of saying they look as though they work. But do they really? And what should you know about these methods to ensure you are treated fairly?

Most organisations have three general questions they look to answer:

1) Can they (the candidate applying for the role) do the job?
2) Will they do the job?
3) Will they fit in?

So how effective are the traditional screening methods?

The Application Form’s role is similar to the CV in that it gives a general overview of a person’s skills and experience. The main difference is that the application form is provided by the potential employer and will ask for specific and relevant information. Curriculum Vitaes (CVs) are obviously provided by the candidate but can quite often include information employers don’t want and be in a format that is less than clear. As a tool for initial screening, application forms are useful as they access exactly what the employer wants to know thus saving time on both sides.

However, they do have some problems - particularly their transparency and the ensuing fact that they’re quite easy to fake. This is usually dealt with by an interview where information in the form is discussed.

Curriculum Vitaes (CV) - if done correctly - can also be an effective initial means of presenting information. Probably the most traditional of all selection tools, the CV is nevertheless as open to abuse as an application form: a problem which has in fact spawned its own industry.

Of course, provided that both are applied correctly by both employer and candidate, both are established and generally repsected ways of selecting candidates.

Interviews are designed for the employer to meet the candidate and for them to get a feel for whether the candidate will be likely to do the job and fit in. They are useful from a candidate’s point of view because they allow the candidate the opportunity to asses the company. Interviews can be in several formats from initial telephone interviews to face-to-face interviews. Interviews range from a rigid set of questions to more flexible approaches where the conversation can be used to explore answers.

With interviews, it is always important to remember that they are interested in you, your experiences and what you know about the role and the industry. There are a couple of points which you should be aware of though. Studies have shown that information about the interviewee must be available to the interviewer before the interview so they can use this within the questions. So it’s worth maybe asking if the interviewer has any questions from your CV or application forms to check this. The demands of the job must be understood by the interviewer, ask questions about the job and probe to get the answers you want. After all, if they don’t know the job how can they select the right person for it? If these issues are properly addressed the process will be much more valid and fair.

While interviews are based on letting the candidate speak for themselves, the reference is based on the idea that another way to understand someone is to ask someone else who knows them. These usually come from previous employers and provide another opinion on you. If you were a good employee a reference is a useful thing, but herein, of course, lies the problem. The accuracy of references and legality has been brought into question to such a point that in the US, and increasingly in the UK, they are all but meaningless.

Why?

Because people have successfully sued previous employers over unfavorable references. This issue is compounded by the fact that it is illegal to provide an inaccurate reference and employees are entitled to view the reference. So previous employers only provide a very minimal reference. So what is the point? Well, it is another means of obtaining some form of support that the person did work where they said and that they have at least held the position they said they did. Anything beyond this relies on the quality of your work, but lets face it, who would give a name as a reference if the were not confident in a good reference?

So, with each discussed, we’ll turn the analysis onto the ever-emerging and controversial field of psychometrics. For that, you’ll have to wait until tomorrow…..

Liked this? Then click here and get new posts straight to your inbox. You know you want to…