Data Beats Intuition at Making the Selection Decision
Can an algorithm beat the experts at hiring?
The Scientific American Article: How Data Beats Intuition says,
“When we make selection decisions - whether it is choosing a date, a potential business partner or a job candidate - we try our best to make accurate judgments about the potential of the people we are considering. These decisions, after all, have long-term consequences. A first date could turn into a long-lasting romantic relationship; a potential business partner could be a lifelong colleague; a job candidate could be someone we work with for years to come.
Yet, too often, we find ourselves asking, ‘What went wrong?’ We may have spent a lot of time with the person and conducted multiple interviews and assessments to then realize, a few months later, that the person we chose is just not right. This is no rare event. For instance, data shows that traditional hiring methods produce candidates that meet or exceed the expectations of the hiring manager only 56 percent of the time - about the same result one would get tossing a coin.”
This is a very good article and true according to Harrison Assessment International’s experience and research. The biggest reason that data works better is that there are many factors that relate to job success.
Each of these factors should be systematically weighted and scored. Job interviewers don’t tend to systematically analyze the job and formulate the key factors. In addition, interviewers don’t have a strategic and effective means to measure the factors. Consequently, their subjective judgments will be less effective.
You can see the importance of job analysis by looking at the difference between structured interviews and unstructured interviews. Structured interviews have been proven in nearly every study to be far more effective. The difference is that someone took the time to consider what was important related to the job and base the interview around those factors. This greatly improves the results.
Assessments are a systematic means of weighting and measuring the qualifications and behavioral competencies that relate to job success. However, to be effective, an assessment must be tailored to the job and not simply measuring general factors.
Another important factor is the degree to which an assessment is comprehensive. An effective assessment must weigh and assess all the factors related to job success including education, experience, technical or business skills, interpersonal skills, leadership tendencies, and motivation. There must be a sufficient number of factors measured. Unrelated factors should not be included in the analysis to avoid confusing the recruiter. An effective assessment should also measure engagement and retention issues by assessing employment preferences, task preferences, and interests. Otherwise, the assessment will not be comprehensive. To the degree that the assessment includes all the factors related to job success and only the factors related to success for the specific job is the degree to which it will be effective.
The Harrison Assessment can include strategic mechanisms that identify deception that are far more effective that an interviewer attempting to determine the degree to which a person is telling the truth related to each factor.
If the data is tailored for success in the specific job the results are likely to be more relevant. For example measuring a few general personality factors and allowing the interview to guess at which factors are important for a job is not more effective than a structured interview. The factors measured and the weightings given should be based on performance research rather than guesswork. In that case there is real data and a much greater chance of predicting job success.