“一面定终生”不合适

武夷山

“一考定终生”是不对的，“一面定终生”（根据面试印象做出聘用决定）也是不对的。在我国，两者都相当普遍。

2002年1月号的USA Today杂志发表人力资源管理专家Jim Sirbasku的文章，Secrets of Finding and Keeping Good Employees（ 发现和留用好员工的秘密）。他有35年的人力资源管理经验，面试、挑选过上万名销售岗位员工。文章说：

实证研究发现，面试时说得好 ( deliver well) 和今后干得好 ( perform well) 的相关性只有14％。换句话说，新聘7个人中，只有1个人是日后干得好的。可以说聘用成功率是14％。

如果应试者通过了背景检查，则聘用成功率可提高到26％。

采用个性特征评估，可将聘用成功率提高到38％。

再加上能力评估，聘用成功率可提高到54％。

再加上兴趣评估，聘用准确率可改善到66％。

采用综合评估，聘用准确率可提高到75％以上。

 

聘用之后，如何留住人才？有三条简单的措施。第一，通过单位内部的简讯刊物开展“每月一员工”表彰活动。每月表彰一个人，配合以物质奖励。第二，员工过生日那天，给他们放一天假。第三，每周用一个晚上的时间搞业务培训，提高员工的能力。

 

原文如下（http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2680_130/ai_82012996/）：

 

EVERY JOB IN A COMPANY is important, or it wouldn't exist. In other words, there is a good job for everyone--one where each individual makes a valuable contribution, regardless of where that job is in a company's structure. Finding that person, though, requires a scientific process. That conviction comes from over 35 years experience recruiting, interviewing, and selecting nearly 10,000 sales-people.

Many people believe gut instinct works like magic in selecting key personnel. This is especially true when the person doing the hiring is also successful at doing the job. For example, a top sales producer may think that he or she is the best person to pick other people who will be able to sell successfully. In reality, that likelihood results in less than a 50% success ratio. With stats like that, a toss of the coin could save recruiters a lot of time, energy, and money.

In most job searches, those responsible for doing the hiring sell the job before they select a candidate. This approach is backwards. Why sell the job to someone who isn't a candidate? After all, a savvy applicant may be a good "interview"--well-groomed, friendly, professional, enthusiastic, interested, a good listener, etc. What happens in this case is the recruiter starts doing the talking, telling about the job requirements before the interview starts. It's the candidate who's doing the listening, learning how to appeal to the recruiter. The result is that, since most individuals can mask their true tendencies for at least 45 minutes, the interviewer rarely gets an accurate picture of the job candidate. Alternatively, why not learn profiles of interviewees before taking the time to sell the job? Then, it may not be necessary to disclose job specifics once this information is gathered if the candidate doesn't represent a good fit.

By selling the job before selecting a candidate, the individuals responsible for hiring often fall prey to pre- and postselection variables. It's a sink-or-swim philosophy that says, "Recruit them in masses; train them in classes; and roll them out on their hockey skates" That is postselection. This method is not effective, so some people camouflage it to make it look different. Preselection is when one tries to learn about the candidates and gather information before putting them on the job. For instance, accountants typically have personalities that are relatively high-energy, usually indicate a good learning pace, and show an interest in working with numbers and data in general. Yet, these traits cannot be assumed simply because a person is interviewing for an accountant position. The only way to really determine, at the end of an interview, if a job candidate is a potential match is to take the time up front to learn about an interviewee.

The mistake to avoid goes beyond just having hired the wrong type of person. The real error comes from not realizing that, by simply moving that individual into a more-appropriate position within the company, the problem could easily be fixed. Otherwise, it's very difficult to move the wrong people out of the right jobs--especially if they are putting forth great effort in an ongoing attempt to succeed at what they are not meant to be doing anyway.

This can become a vicious circle that inevitably results in a lose-lose situation for all parties involved. If at all possible, the sensible solution is to relocate a mismatched employee elsewhere in the company. As the saying goes, "For every pot, there's a cover." For every job, there's a person who will perform it with excellence.

What works, what doesn't

Group interviews don't work. They are superficial and more like a game of tag. Selections based on first impressions are flawed. Recruiters' personal biases get in the way. What does work is testing. To understand why, consider a brief chronology of the industry's progress with identifiable components of the hiring process:

Interviews. For far too long, the most important factor in deciding whom to hire was the interview. Experience has shown only a coincidental correlation between the ability to deliver well in an interview and to do so on the job. Studies have pegged this correlation at 14%, or one good employee out of every seven hires. This number increases to 26% if the candidate can pass a background check.

Personality characteristics assessments. The first assessments used to improve the selection process measured personality characteristics. They helped raise the hiring success percentage to 38%.

Abilities assessments. When applicants were assessed for abilities as well as personality, employers found they were hiring the right people approximately 54% of the time.

Interests assessments. Becoming more sophisticated, interests assessment was added to the mix, improving results to 66%.

Integrated assessments. Most impressive to date, these measure a combination of factors, as well as introduce the component of "job match." Cutting-edge technology coupled with empirical data evaluate "The Total Person" in such a way as to measure how much candidates are like the employees who are exemplary in performing their duties. These assessments have increased an employer's ability to identify potentially excellent employees better than 75% of the time.

Assessment vehicles dramatically facilitate the hiring process. The job-match function is the most valuable feature of this process. It refers to the assessment's approach to analyzing a person's job-related attributes and compares them to the qualities required to perform successfully in a given job. By measuring thinking styles, occupational interests, and behavioral traits, the combination allows for a visualization of "The Total Person."

In an interview capacity, people only let you see what they want you to see. Therefore, it's tree that individuals can be compared to icebergs in that what you don't see is more significant than what you do. In typical interviews, employers see/scan resumes for work history and education. They observe the way prospects dress, accessorize, and how they carry and conduct themselves. On the other hand, there are significant blind spots for interviewers who choose to ignore assessment testing.

Take, for instance, thinking styles. Evaluating how quickly people can solve problems or absorb information and how capable they are at dealing with simple numbers or comprehending written language are examples of these thinking styles. Occupational interests, as they relate to a particular job or position, are a significant factor in the results and productivity achieved by an individual. Essentially, this part of assessing means learning what will stimulate excitement and commitment from workers. Finally, the assessment of behavior tendencies, as they relate to a particular position, is a significant factor in the results and productivity achieved by an individual:

* Accommodating measures a person's general tendency to be friendly, helpful, and agreeable, to be a team person.

* Assertiveness measures a tendency to take charge, to be a leader.

* Attitude measures a tendency to have a positive attitude.

* Energy level measures a tendency to be self-motivated, energetic, to show a high sense of urgency and a capacity for a fast pace.

* Independence measures a tendency to make decisions, be self-reliant, and take independent action.

* Objective judgment measures a tendency to be objective in decisionmaking.

* Sociability measures a tendency to be people-oriented, to be socially active and outgoing.

* Manageability measures the tendency to follow policies, accept external controls and supervision, and work within the rules.

* Decisiveness measures the tendency to utilize available information to make decisions quickly.

For a general indication of what happens "behind the scenes" with assessment testing, consider a firm that needs to hire salespeople. A tool is created that matches current top producers from a pattern of their behavioral traits, occupational interests, and learning styles. The combined pattern created is called a Job Match Pattern.

Dig further into the job's requirements by interviewing the people who will be managing the new hires. Ask these managers questions that will uncover their true expectations of the position that needs to be filled. A Job Profile Survey is then filled out and the results are combined with the Job Match Pattern, which ultimately produces a profile of the characteristics required to do the task successfully. In cases where there isn't an incumbent, those who know the job best determine the traits required by the position.

A war for talent is currently under way. This includes a price war, which CEOs need to avoid at all costs. One positive alternative to salary hikes is to offer opportunities for personal growth. In addition, companies should create a culture where employee recognition and appreciation are built into it. These steps will keep worker retention rates high. Here are some effective tools for accomplishing these goals:

* Use a newsletter to recognize an employee-of-the-month. This motivates everyone to get involved. Whether a person is hoping to be nominated or doing the nominating, the process is exciting and meaningful. Consider giving each month's winner a monetary bonus.

* Create an ambience where staff is comfortable. If offices have large windows, plants, outdoor patios, a pleasant dining area, etc., people can take a break and relax.

* Give employees the day off on their birthdays, and celebrate those birthdays at the office with a cake and/or other refreshments.

* Conduct a weekly training session, one night per week. At these meetings, allow each company executive the opportunity to lead a 30-to-60-minute discussion on whatever subject he or she chooses. In some cases, these might be emotional/personal stories. They can be serious or fun. At other times, an executive might want to discuss a recently read book, an industry event, or leadership and management topics. In addition to the presentations, set aside time for exchanging ideas and always include a segment for bringing employees up to date and up to speed, which is when all important company information is announced.

* For computer programmers, consider giving them keys to the building so they can have control over their specific areas. Allow them to work any hours they select and dress however they choose. It works for them. Many like staying up all night and working in little conclaves.

Remember, though, that the value and success of these opportunities are dependent on selecting the fight person for the position and creating the right corporate culture.

As a company grows, CEOs have to be cautious about their span of control. It is very hard to know 100 people very well, but not so difficult to know 10 very well. This means knowing that group's spouses, children, birthdays, what makes them happy, and what discourages them. Most importantly, it means understanding the three key characteristics--occupational interests, thinking styles, and behavioral traits.

When these characteristics are known, it helps managers to learn how certain workers will respond to stress, frustration, and conflict very differently than others. Some react by leaping into action, while others fold like a cheap suitcase. Therefore, the answer to learning what rewards and incentives work best is getting to know employees. Some are motivated by time off, others by freedom to come and go as they please. There is no alternative to and no advantage like getting to know what makes employees tick.

The importance of hiring the right people for the job cannot be overstated. That's why CEOs and managers can't become lazy in the hiring process. As the saying goes, "there's fish in every pond," so a constant stream of applicants coming through the door should be maintained. Doing this requires using nontraditional avenues to find them. The reality is that the classified section isn't the prevailing starting point for hiring anyone. Getting the message out means advertising on radio, television, including local cable, and the Internet. Since it is estimated that well over 50% of people aren't happy with their current jobs, it is likely that they are looking at these media for a stab at self-improvement or upward mobility.

Once the likely candidates are gathered, the importance of using assessments in the hiring process is critical. Be sure that all the assessments utilized have job-match concepts and that any tool used has been tested for validity and reliability. Don't be afraid to ask applicants to take a test that runs as long as an hour. It's their time, and you are not paying them for it.

In the end, this process creates a win-win situation for everyone. People are happier, produce more, and experience less stress. Every company needs more individuals who are able to get up in the morning, go to work, and enjoy what they do all day long. People need to think of ways they can do things instead of reasons they cannot. They have to look to their strengths over their weaknesses and their power over their problems. When companies focus on a good job match, by finding the best human capital available for the job, the real benefit goes to the employees. Employers owe it to society to match the fight people to the right jobs.

Jim Sirbasku is CEO, Profiles International, a Waco, Tex.-based employment evaluation filth.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Society for the Advancement of Education

COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group  

 

 

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自武夷山科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-1557-467470.html

上一篇：[转载]我国高影响力科技论文数量近五年快速增长
下一篇：《中国学术思想史随笔》摘抄