Selection: Choosing the Right People
‘Did you ever know a fool to choose a wise [council]?’
—Edmund Waller
9.1 Introduction
There is always the fundamental question about whether to put effort into finding (recruiting, sifting, selecting) talented, high flyers (who are nearly ‘fully formed’) as opposed to coaching, training and teaching (ordinary) people to become high flyers. It is a question about how much people can and do develop if they want to. Most, however, agree that there are some crucial features that one needs to select for to ensure that those with potential are able to realise it.
There is really one simple question: Do you have the resources to identify foundational potential, to train the corresponding skills and competencies, and impart the required knowledge? Or, do you need someone to be high performing right away? Recruiting top performers is expensive. Recruiting high potential, and developing that potential into high performance, is expensive, time consuming, and may involve considerable personal investment. Neither is guaranteed; both stem from the question potential to do what?
There are three key stages for developing an appropriate employee selection process (Berger and Berger, 2004)
First, identify the competencies: These are the skills, behaviour and attributes that are necessary for performance. These competencies should be what all selection techniques aim to measure, and then subsequently can be used for performance appraisals and reviews, provide a clear framework for employees to understand what their responsibilities are, and align staff with organisational values.
Second, define how to measure the competencies: These may be particular rating scales for interviews, tests of individual characteristics or behaviours observed in an assessment centre. The measurement definitions describe exactly what is meant by the competencies, and how best to assess them. The measure should use the best available evidence to appropriately measure the competencies.
Third, develop the assessment processes: This may involve using the scales to structure the interview, but, interviews are far from the optimal selection method, and different competencies are best measured in different ways. The third key step is designing the selection process, from how the tests will be administered, who will be doing the interviewing, how interviewers will be instructed, trained, and supervised and where and when the selection process will occur. The first and second steps were primarily reviewed in Section 2; this chapter will discuss the third and final step in detail.
9.2 The Ubiquitous Interview
We have already mentioned interviews in the ‘self-report’ section of Chapter 8. The issues are relevant to all chapters, but most pertinent to selection because selection tends to be the most biased towards using self-report methods to assess candidates, so we will discuss the interview at length here and revisit it only briefly in subsequent chapters.
Interviews have the dubious honour of being one of the mostly commonly used and least reliable selection techniques. There are many variations on the job interview: how long they last; how many interviewers they have; whether they are panel or board interviews; and most importantly whether they are structured or not. Structured interviews are predesigned, formulaic, and ask specific questions of every candidate. Unstructured interviews are guided by the skill, judgement and focus of the interviewer.
There are many sources of inconsistency and uncertainty in the conclusion people make from job interview data. The question is do interviewers agree? How similar would the judgement of two different interviewers be about the same job candidate? The most well-structured interviews have about 50 per cent overlap between ratings of interviewers. Ratings between unstructured interviewers of the same candidate overlap only about 11 per cent.
This is hardly reliable enough to be used as a sole source of information for hiring into a pivotal position. In an unstructured interview, there is little similarity between how many different interviewers would judge the same person. This means that interviewers of the same person do not agree very much on their assessments.
The major implication for this is that job interviews are not very useful at predicting success (or failure) on the job. If two different people come up with wildly different evaluations of a person, it is not reliable, and not a great way to learn about people. Only planned, structured interviews conducted by skilled interviewers offer relatively good data, but even those require skilled interviewers, and can still vary significantly between interviewers.
Essentially, interviews are not very effective alone for assessing potential, particularly for important positions. Interviews are popular and widespread. They seem to be the easiest – schedule a conversation with each job candidate, see which one appears the most impressive. It’s not surprising that they don’t consistently predict potential when there is not a clear definition of potential, or no framework for asking questions. Few employers go through the processes that are really necessary to design a good job interview. There are many different things interviewers should look for, which create many sources of error in the interview process. Sources of error in the interview process include:
• Interviewers have different values, motivations, beliefs and preferences. Interviewers with common values or beliefs or preferences may prefer certain candidates, despite their actual ability. It is not uncommon for job candidates to establish rapport over shared interest in sports teams, television shows, or recreational activities, and suddenly become the preferred candidate;
• Interviewers vary in skill. Getting information from people is not always easy, and some interviewers are better at detecting deception, are more skilled at making job candidates feel at ease and getting honest, truthful answers. A quick joke and a kind comment can change an entire interview. Similarly, a bad joke and an awkward comment can change an entire interview;
• Interviewers’ motives, attention and need for justification of their decisions differ. While some interviews are dedicated to the selection process, and its success, others may be disinterested or disengaged. Some interviewers may want the highest performers, some managers look for employees they can control, they find likeable, interesting or attractive. There are many reasons interviewers choose people, many of those reasons unrelated to potential at work;
• Interviewees try hard to manage a positive (not totally realistic) impression by self-promotion and self-enhancement. Some interviewers are better at detecting self-promotion or deception; others can be caught up in real or feigned enthusiasm, self-aggrandisement or flattery. Likewise, some interviewees are much more skilled persuaders;
• Interviewees may be coached by a range of different sources on how to behave in interviews. This could be from friends, coaches, mentors, education, or even interviewers. Many jobs skills courses teach interview skills;
• Interviewees (and interviewers and referees) can lie. Better liars are harder to detect and come with more severe consequences;
• Variations occur in how interviewers use rating scales, or other measurement techniques. Variations can be innocuous and unintentional (misunderstanding) or, when criteria are not clearly documented some interviewers will use more creative criteria;
• The interviewer is trying to predict how the interviewee will perform in an entirely different setting than the interview, under different conditions and circumstances. People who find unfamiliar situations and people challenging or stressful may perform very differently in the role compared with in the interview or test;
• Interviewers tend to rate interviewees within a more limited range than is really necessary. They do not discriminate/differentiate clearly enough between the different candidates. In other words, if each interviewee is scored between 1 and 100, it is extremely unlikely the lowest performing interviewee will be scored one, and the highest 100;
• Interviewers can, and do, make up their mind before the interview. Sometimes there is already a preferred candidate before the interviews begin. Interviews may be a mandatory pre-requisite to hiring, but are not always conducted with an open mind;
• Interviewers are susceptible to forming a first impression and ignoring subsequent information (or view all subsequent information through their initial perspective);
• Reasons to reject (i.e. select out) factors have disproportionate weight compared to select-in factors. This is particularly true when characteristics are salient and easily dislikeable, like bad breath, awkward behaviour, or other social errors;
• Interviewers have their own (wrong, unproven, bizarre) implicit personality theories. These could include factors such as people with a background in sports work well in teams; a person’s date of birth predicts their personality and compatibility with a job.
Interviews can be improved to increase their reliability and validity by relatively simple steps, but anyone who is conducting interviews or relying on information from interviews must remember that interviews are not the best assessment method. Interviews should rarely (or never) be relied on as the sole method to obtain information about hiring, development or retention decisions; the more important the decision, the greater the importance of including other sources of information to make decisions.
Below are a few recommendations to improve interviews as an assessment method:
Define potential. As is a common theme in this book, define exactly what qualities, traits, and competencies are required to successfully perform the work. Make sure the advertised job description is clear about the requirements, and that any interviewers or assessors have a clear and precise understanding of what is required, and how to evaluate it. If there are multiple desired criteria, define and rank their importance up front.
Increase objectivity. It is impossible to completely remove subjectivity in the assessment process. Every job and company has slightly different requirements and different positions, different potential career trajectories. Yet all possible efforts should be made to ensure the process is as objective as possible. Once potential is clearly defined, this should lead to a few, clear, assessment methods. If the job involves selling a product, a mock sales call is a better assessment measure than a standard interview.
A one-size-fits-all approach to selection is a quick way to get the right people into the wrong jobs. Finding better ways to assess the actual skills and abilities should be of constant interest to those in charge of selection. For an administrative position, give a brief administrative task before the interview. Then spend the interview discussing the process and results of the task.
Establish reliability. Make sure assessments are consistent between interviewers and interviewees. If multiple interviewers are being used, make sure all interviewers are briefed in the same way, have all the same information and are interviewing based on the same assumptions and criteria. It may seem simple, but make sure every interviewer has read and understood the job description, and is evaluating based on the job description (it is surprisingly common for interviewers to make assumptions about the position that are unrelated to the actual, official job description).
People interview based on what they want or what they think they want at the time. If there are multiple interviewers or evaluators, it can be useful to split the interview/assessment process into multiple steps. For example, if candidates complete a practical skills evaluation, followed by an interview with questions, it can be useful for a different assessor to evaluate a different assessment method related to their area of expertise. When possible, candidates should be assessed the same way, by the same person or people so scores or rankings are fair between interviewees.
Remove barriers. Remove all barriers to employment that are unrelated to actual job performance. This has the dual advantage of promoting employment equity and increasing the potential talent pool (making sure high potential candidates are not overlooked). Barriers can be anything from gender, class, ethnicity, geographical distance, nepotism or others. For example, most companies overlook the possibility of hiring someone who cannot have a physical presence in the office. Evolving information technology means there are more jobs that can be done remotely.
Some jobs do still require a physical presence, but not all do. If communication is viable, proper oversight and quality controls are in place, geography should not be a barrier to work. This is, of course, not true of every job. A mechanic or surgeon cannot telecommute. Yet, more competitive companies are finding ways of finding and hiring the highest potential person, even if they never meet.
Develop validity. Validity, in this sense, means optimising the process to make sure the highest potential person or people are successfully identified. The more valid the process is, the better able to discern a person’s actual potential. Validity encompasses all of the above steps along with the subtleties and peculiarities that will arise from a process that involves working with people. It means adapting approaches to fit within the business context, the requirements of the job and what potential means for a particular position or career path. It means constantly considering and re-evaluating the question ‘potential to do what?’
Twelve tips for best practice:
1. Base questions on a thorough job analysis: Make sure the clear, desirable traits and behaviours are identified ahead of time, and are true indicators of performance and potential.
2. Ask exactly the same questions of each candidate: Don’t give ‘hints’ to certain people, use follow-up questions, and make sure all candidates are provided with the same questions, with the same amount of information.
3. Use relevant questions: Design questions as situational, competency-based, biographical, or knowledge questions. Make sure questions are assessing valid skills in the best possible way. Ask people to demonstrate their knowledge or understanding, instead of asking whether or not they have the skills.
4. Use longer interviews or a larger number of questions: Make sure information from other sources does not influence the interviews. For example, it can be useful to have different people reading CVs and references, so interviewers are making decisions solely on the basis of interview performance. Those who have reviewed other information can compare evaluations once all interviews are complete.
5. Do not allow questions from the candidate until after the interview: That is when the data has already been collected. That way all candidates can be given consistent information and proper feedback (if it is to be provided), based on their relative performance.
6. Use detailed anchored rating scales and take detailed notes: (e.g. 1–10). That way candidate responses can be rated numerically and can be compared more objectively with other candidates.
7. Rate each answer using multiple rating scales: Particular questions may have multiple desired criteria. A line of questioning about a person’s knowledge may be rated on accuracy of knowledge, ability to apply knowledge to the work, or both.
8. Use multiple interviewers where possible: Multiple interviewers can compare evaluations, and see which candidates they rated similarly or differently and why;
9. Consistency: Use the same interviewer(s) across all candidates and provide extensive training to enhance reliability. Well-trained interviewers will be better able to compare candidates when they interviewed all candidates. Furthermore, when possible, keep interview times consistent. The same interviewer may have different feelings about people Monday morning, Wednesday at midday and Friday evening.
10. Use statistical rather than clinical prediction: Use research and evidence instead of your own personal experience to make decisions about potential. Both are valuable, but individual experiences (your own, or anecdotes from others) are far less reliable than large-scale, high quality studies.
11. Don’t ask unrelated or inane questions: If you were a fish, no one cares what type of fish you would be. There may be the temptation to surprise or embarrass interview candidates with ridiculous questions. Your time, and the interview candidate’s time, is valuable. Ask questions that are specific, relevant and targeted to the job.
12. Be kind: Many interviewees put time, effort, and personal energy into the application. Acknowledge unsuccessful applicants and be respectful to all. Present the same consideration you expect from the successful applicant.
The main advantage of an interview is also its greatest weakness. Interviews provide a setting where the interviewer can interact with the interviewee and probe certain areas and ask more specific questions based on a person’s responses. This can be helpful for a skilled interviewer who is able to stay focused, and can ask appropriate and relevant questions. This may allow a more in-depth, nuanced evaluation especially when there are many interview candidates with very similar suitability. The drawback is interviews can quickly go astray, interviewers can ask irrelevant questions and mislead or even confuse the interviewee. It is common for interviewers to get side-tracked by common interests or beliefs. Getting slightly side-tracked in an interview to discuss areas of interest is not always bad, but unskilled or uncritical interviewers may be easily swayed by people with common interests or values.
Other selection methods, such as CVs or job application forms, use standardised questions or formats that may leave the applicants with limited freedom, but it makes responses easier to compare. But there are many sensitive or difficult questions to ask that are answered in an interview. Some would argue interview questions are not always explicit, and interviews are a great way to make judgements about potential employees that are beyond the scope of the questions being asked, or the basic requirements outlined. There are many ways interviewers make judgements on the suitability of a potential employee. The most important task for the interviewer is making decisions based on judgements and criteria that are valid predictors of potential.
Making the interview process both valid and reliable should include asking oneself the question, ‘How can I reduce bias in the selection process?’ This question is equivalent to asking: how can I make the selection process more valid and reliable? Anyone responsible for hiring will (and definitely should) consider bias and discrimination in employee selection. Concern about bias in selection can take two forms. Either it is concern about actually biasing the selection process (or concern for employment equity and valid selection criteria). Or it is concern with appearing unbiased in employee selection which is really a concern with the legal integrity of the selection process, of self-preservation and corporate impression management.
The primary concern in selection should be finding the most effective employee in the most cost effective way. This obviously means there are social and legal considerations for anyone involved in selecting employees. Selection procedures should be fair, but they also need to be perceived as fair. If many people feel they are being evaluated based on criteria that are not relevant to the job, they may consider a legal challenge. Specific examples aside, legal disputes are costly. Overly cautious selection procedures may be frustrating, but frequently the perceived benefit of avoiding a legal challenge outweighs most other benefits. Unfortunately, face validity (how good it looks) and content validity (how good it is) are distinct – a selection process with the strongest content validity may superficially appear to be biased if it is poorly presented, and the reverse can also be true.
9.3 Equity Briefly Revisited
It is tempting, and desirable, to believe that discrimination at work has been eliminated, or that rules, regulations, and laws have gone too far. However, there are still significant differences in how and why people are hired. An excellent example of this is illustrated in a recent study from a major research university which showed this when a group of potential employees were randomly given male or female names (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).
Over 100 faculties from a science-intensive university were given CVs for a laboratory manager position. It was a double-blind experiment, so neither the experimenters nor the employee evaluators knew which applicants were ‘really’ male or female. Actual skills and achievements were randomly assigned, there was no overall difference between the male group and female group. Yet, there was significant hiring bias.
There was no difference between the men and women who were given the responsibility for hiring. That is, the men and women made essentially the same decisions. However, there was a significant difference in who was hired. Men were significantly more likely to be hired, were offered higher wages, and were judged to be more skilled. Remember, gendered names were randomly assigned; overall the only difference between the CVs was the gender of the names. So the science faculty judged applicants to be superior based on gender, irrespective of skills and qualifications.
That means just the name on a CV influences people’s judgement, but during an interview one can detect many more subtle cues about a person’s characteristics, cultural, ethnic or religious background. And it is easy to make judgements based on the characteristics we believe are there, even if the beliefs are unconscious. It is very unlikely in the previous study that the science faculty were deliberately looking for men because they explicitly believed men would be more suited for the job. The table below lists similar key findings on bias:
Bias is something that should be considered in all the following sections and throughout this section. In the next section on references, think how much impact the name, or simply the title of the referee, can have on the reference: Doctor, Professor, Sir, Reverend, CEO, Clerk.
9.4 Personal or Professional References
References are an attempt to get some objective, independent evaluation of a person’s skills. References are commonly used, requested, and are rarely checked. Furthermore, although references give a perspective that is external to the applicant, they are rarely independent and never objective. People choose referees based on what they think (or know) the referee will say. When people provide references, they select people who will be most complimentary, and least likely to be aware of or describe the applicant’s weaknesses.
There are advantages to references, but there are equally serious drawbacks. References, like interviews, can be open-ended, where references are provided, and interviewers or assessors can contact the referee and ask questions. Closed references ask the referees to rate or describe a person’s skills or characteristics. They can be helpful to provide some reference point for a person’s skills or experience (and also their ability to develop positive relationships) but there are serious limitations. Typically references involve free response or ratings that an observer reports on another. The person giving the reference is providing an observation based on what they know of the candidate. They are both common and popular in both the worst and best senses of the word.
Essentially, it should be simple to find a positive reference. Anyone who has ever met (and made a positive impression on) another human should be able to get a positive reference. References are massively subject to experience, social position and personality. References are supposedly dependent on performance, but the ability to get positive references is based on persuasiveness, connections, charm and assertiveness.
The critical evaluator of references tends to be more sceptical of references and believe they are unreliable and of poor validity. The main concern with references is that they require the evaluator to evaluate many more aspects than just the attributes of the candidate relevant to the potential job position. References require an evaluation of the candidate, the referee, the relationship between candidate and referee, and the information provided. This evaluation involves far more complex analysis than most assessors really have the time or resources for. The most frequent errors made when examining references are:
• Leniency. Most references are indiscriminately positive. Candidates select who they believe will give the most positive references; referees worry about the interpersonal or legal implications of giving a bad reference; respondents have no incentive to take the time or tell the truth.
• Idiosyncrasy. People can describe and evaluate others in strange ways, and on wildly different criteria. This can make it difficult to apply some references to specific definitions of potential at work.
• Free-form references. Reference writers are often offered no guidelines or requirements. In many cases, references are listed just as a name, title and contact details, or as testimonials. These can vary wildly when referees are not provided guidelines.
It is possible to improve the validity of the reference by explaining fully the purpose of the reference; using rating scales or a forced choice format. Using well designed rating scales also helps a great deal. For example, ask referees to rate the candidates using the following chart: the candidate is applying for a job where they have to meet with many clients around the country and promote our services. Please rate the characteristics of the candidate as they relate to this job.
The information in the chart is useful because it can be compared with other people. Although referees are likely to give high ratings, and may be happy to exaggerate, the chart above shows a clearly lower rating on punctuality than sales ability or interpersonal skills. This type of rating system also can allow for referees to say they don’t know about certain skills a candidate may or may not possess. Referees are best when the employer chooses the referees; those referees are peers who know the candidate well; the referees are asked specific questions and are guaranteed anonymity.
9.5 The Web and Social Networks
Switching to the internet has been argued to provide quicker, cheaper selection and assessment with wider access for many people. It saves time and travel costs, even leading to the possibility of ‘same day offers’. Organisations thus now make job offers (recruitment advertisements) on their website. Electronic application forms can be used to collect data and do a simple first-filter. Thus those without certain qualifications may quickly be rejected; software can be written to do a matching task between answers to questions and the ‘ideal’ profile. But not everyone has access to the internet. There are geographic, age, educational, ethnic, income, and gender differences that are associated with internet access. This has equity and legal implications.
Electronic methods have similar complications as in-person methods such as faking (social desirability), impression management as well as omissions and commissions. Chapman and Webster (2003) have pointed out that the new assessment technologies, predominantly on the web, are changing assessment and selection processes. They can potentially, improve efficiency, enable new screening tools, reduce costs, standardise the HR system, expand the applicant pool, promote the organisational image and increase applicant convenience.
However, there are also unintended and uncontrollable effects that arise from internet selection. Thus, the use of the internet does expand the applicant pool, but may increase the number of under-qualified and out-of-country applicants. It is easy to be flooded with inappropriate applicants. There is also the loss of personal touch that both assessor and assessed value and respect. There are also concerns about cheating if tests are used – and online testing is a field unto itself. Finally, there are still concerns about adverse impact which means that certain groups simply do not have access to the technology.
But can one conduct valid assessment via the Internet? Does this exclude certain groups? Are the results different from pen and paper tests?
Yes. The answers are as complex as the questions. But the important thing to remember is the stable, foundational traits do not change. The internet and information technology can affect values, culture, social interaction – but foundational characteristics remain the same. Even in a seemingly variable world where the cultural mediums change, there are key elements, psychological traits, that are as true and consistent now as they will ever be.
Social Network Evaluation
The use of social networking websites (SNWs) has boomed over the past decade. Facebook was started in 2004, as a small, digital way for university students to connect online. As of March, 2013 Facebook reported that it had 1.11 billion active users. Facebook is the largest social networking site and has the broadest user base (there are many niche social networking services). Over 90 per cent of American college students are on Facebook (Wilson et al., 2012).
The advantage of SNWs for assessing potential is that the social networks have large amounts of information about people interacting, posting information about themselves, photos, and other information. Social networks are designed to be interactive, so there can be a rich amount of interpersonal communication and behaviour. Many users post their information publicly, so it is easily accessible. Furthermore, SNWs have a standardised format, with biographical information in one section, posts of ‘real-time’ events, thoughts, and behaviour. Photos are organised in a specific section, based on who is ‘tagged’ as appearing in the photos.
Because people are behaving and interacting, and posting (in some cases) large amounts of information about themselves, it is a good way of evaluating characteristics such as personality traits that are shown in how people behave. Research has found, for example, that extroverted people tend to have more Facebook ‘friend’ connections with other people (Karl, Peluchette and Schaegel, 2010). Other research by Amichai-Hamburger and Vinitzky (2010) found that people with lower conscientiousness were more likely to post more questionable or controversial behaviour like sexual activity or drug taking.
Kluemper, Rosen and Mossholder (2012) found assessors could determine personality traits quite accurately from analysing people’s Facebook profiles. They found that independent evaluations of personality were actually better predictors of performance than when people evaluated their own personality. Kluemper and colleagues found that, when accounting for intelligence, the independent ratings of people’s personality based on their Facebook profile predicted performance: eight per cent for openness, six per cent for conscientiousness, and four per cent for emotional stability.
Other online platforms have attempted to quantify performance online, using standardised calculations instead of human judgement. Klout, for example, is a website that combines all of a person’s or business’s social network activity (from a range of sources including Facebook, Twitter and various other social media). It gives a score, ranging from zero to 100, judging how influential the individual is in social media, as well as how influential the person is in key areas, such as business, fashion, politics, television, etc.
There are, however, problems with assigning a specific number to a person’s influence – particularly when the formula for generating the number is not disclosed. It means that although we have a general idea of how the number is determined, it’s impossible to know exactly why specific actions, behaviour and connections are weighed in to contribute to the number. As SNWs grow in both numbers of users and magnitude of information shared, we will see many more companies quantifying packages and selling bundles of this information, and making judgements based on the information collected. These, of course, are interesting indicators but should be interpreted cautiously.
While expert assessments can be useful for making hiring decisions, one should always be cautious about using ratings like Klout, which is equally true of using headhunters or assessment centres without proper understanding of their function. While there are certainly some jobs where a strong online presence and social media influence is desirable, actual evidence about its utility and validity may not be readily available for measures and calculations that are private property. There are also drawbacks to using information from SNWs. Privacy concerns are a key and recurrent theme in digital media and online communication. While some have little concern for keeping their information private online, others feel information they post online should be private, secure and do not (paradoxically) want it to be used by companies or organisations. Although there has not been extensive research on the topic (yet), early studies show that as Facebook has grown, and privacy issues have been a matter of personal and media attention, people are putting less personal information online. For example, a large study of 4,000 students by Gross and Acquisti in 2005 found more than 50 per cent of students publicly displayed their home address, and over 40 per cent showed their phone number. One study showed only 10 per cent showed their home address (Fogel and Nehmad, 2009). Another study showed about one-third of students had recently revised their privacy settings (Dey, Jelvehand Ross, 2012).
Although some people are becoming more concerned with privacy, it is still common for people to have completely open, public profiles with detailed personal information, photos, and regular, personal, updates. These still can be useful for recruiters, but there are still a few key points to consider:
• There may be significantly different characteristics, values, and personality traits that mean there are differences between those who have open, public profiles and those who have closed or private profiles;
• While some people may be unaware, or unconcerned with sharing their information publicly, some may also deliberately use social networks for positive self-presentation. Narcissists are particularly prone to positive self-presentation and aggrandisement. It is quite easy to set up a public profile to make one appealing to prospective employers;
• Different social networking sites have very different purposes, which lead to very different behaviour. The primary reason people use Facebook is to connect with friends (Wilson, Gosling and Graham, 2012), whereas other SNWs are intended for dating, sharing mutual interests, or may be deliberately for self-presentation to prospective employers or colleagues, such as LinkedIn. Just like in the real world, social context and environments affect behaviour;
• While some may not make efforts to make their information private online, they may feel employers who assess prospective or current employee’s online behaviour to be an invasion of privacy;
• The more employers, or other interested parties, use Facebook to gather information about people, the more concerned people can become with protecting their privacy online. This may result in people providing incorrect or misleading information, more positive self-promotion and/or restricting public access to their information. This may create difficult situations where the more useful the data is, the more people who access it, which leads to users being more protective and less public about sharing their information.
9.6 Conclusion
Selection is commonly associated with assessment, and selection tends to be used for hiring new people. However, selection is ongoing in many ways. Good selection involves the selection of people for development, for retention or redundancy.
Basic methods like interviews and references are both the least reliable and the most common. That does not mean they should be scrapped outright, but more sophisticated tools should be used, particularly in high value positions and when the risks of derailment could be severe. Build a list of desirable characteristics and competencies, and then choose the best assessment methods. Proper selection processes can be difficult, expensive or time consuming, but greater accuracy brings greater rewards. Besides, letting the wrong person through with ‘dark side’ or derailing traits has severe consequences, as everyone who has worked with one of these people knows.