Flying home from SFO with the wonders of Delta Wifi in the Sky (that’s not what they call it but should) with plenty of time to read. Found a post called “Should You Hire Staff Based on Their Klout Score?” Well worth a read.
It deals primarily with hiring for ad agencies and creative firms like that but it raises a great point as we start to look at how social influence and presence will impact talent selection.
What does a Klout score or any social profile say about somebody? It probably starts to answer a few questions that may be relevant…
How engaged in their company/industry/profession, etc. are they?
How creative/logical/well written are they?
Are these things important to know? Depends on the job. It all goes back to understanding what will drive success. What is the target against which you are hiring? If these are traits that are key to performance on the job, then yah you should be all over taking a look at that Klout score and other publically available social information. It can form a more complete picture of what the candidate may deliver and could present some value add in a difficult decision between equally strong candidates.
But, if you can’t form a real argument for job relevancy around Klout (or other social profiles) then skip it. The rules don’t change for using social media in hiring, you just need to understand what you are looking for in the successful candidate.
“No, we keep those assessment reports in HR. Otherwise our managers will use it as a crutch when they make a hire.” “Oh,” was how I responded. “What the #*@& are you thinking” was what almost came flying from my usually very harsh mouth.
This was just a part of the conversation that I recently had with a recruiting manager for a fairly large company. The rest of the chat was no more enlightening so I will spare you the details.
This HR person was honest but this same practice (or maybe mindset) is in place throughout too many companies. Each person collects information on a hire from the assessment, interview, reference check, etc. and hoards it. Maybe hoarding is a bit too strong but certainly data isn’t shared and selection turns into a set of silos. Bad hires and missed opportunity are the inevitable results.
Any statistician understands the concept of “incremental predictability”. It basically means layering complementary data to gain an exponential increase in accuracy. (I am not a statistician so, for those of you who are, please stop cringing at my simplistic explanation.) By leveraging the candidate info collected in each step, you gain this incremental advantage in decision making.
I know it all sounds academic, but it’s not that hard. Here is an example …
A large chain of dental offices moved their assessment earlier in the process and made sure that everyone involved in interviewing had a copy to review in advance of the interview. They also taught them how to use the interview questions created by the assessment (this was a feature offered by the vendor) to get to the heart of the competencies being assessed for the specific position. After the interviews were conducted, topics that needed a bit of a deeper dive were given back to HR to use in the reference checks. Again, these questions tended to be (but were not exclusively) around the competencies from the assessment. The result of this process … a fifty percent reduction in turnover and significantly higher same store year over year comps. There were really two main changes that occurred here … (1.) Getting the right tools/processes aligned around the competencies, and (2.) Sharing the information collected at each step to drive the next step. They broke the silos.
Here is your challenge … look at your selection process and answer two questions: (1.) Are we sharing data collected at each step with others involved in the selection process, and (2.) Are we really leveraging that information to drive greater predictability in the next step(s)?