Why aren’t we using selection data in development?

Dr. Richard A. MacKinnon Head of Learning & Development Solutions, Talent Q

About Talent Q

We provide innovative online psychometric assessments, training and consultancy, to help organisations make better, more informed decisions about their people.

The Talent Q way §  Open, committed and passionate

§  A strong technical and psychometric pedigree

§  An unrelenting focus on customer service

§  Practical and competitively priced solutions

Our global footprint §  A network of partners in over 25 countries

§  Assessments in over 40 languages

Supporting you across the talent lifecycle

Selected clients

Overview: Key Questions

§  Why don’t we use selection data to inform development? §  What are we looking for in graduates? §  Personality: can you have too much of a good thing? §  What can we do to ensure development is informed by selection?

What are we looking for in graduates?

What are employers looking for?

Our analysis of graduate role profile templates illustrates that graduate recruiters consistently emphasise some personality traits over others

Most important Moderately Important Least Important

Conscientious Methodical Supportive Communicative Decisive Consultative

Influencing Achievement-oriented Relaxed Socially Confident Flexible Resilient

Analytical Conceptual Creative

What are the implications of this?

•  Over-emphasising some traits over others means organisations run the risk of selecting against an unhelpful profile.

•  If these traits are also emphasised in the competency-based assessment exercises, organisations will fail to assess for a more rounded graduate.

•  As a result, they may fail to identify key development needs.

•  Simultaneously, behaviour associated with the emphasised traits may be encouraged and rewarded, setting graduates up for later issues.

Are there any differences by sector?

•  Our research looked at 290 graduate role profiles and found that:

•  Organisations in the Banking, Insurance and Financial sector consistently set lower “danger zone” limits on their profiles.

•  The implication of this is the possible selection of graduates with more ‘extreme’ personality preferences

Personality: Can you have “too much” of a good thing?

Can you have too much of a good thing?

•  Employers typically adopt a threshold approach to selecting employees.

•  This is represented by looking for “just enough” or “more than” on a range of personality traits.

•  This neglects the risks associated with “too much” of some aspects of personality.

•  These form the basis for either career limiters or derailers.

“Career Limiters” and “Derailers”

•  Certain clusters of behavioural preferences can be actively encouraged by organisations, but can simultaneously represent “double-edged swords”.

•  Our model posits two ends of each scale:

•  “Career limiters” represent clusters of behaviour which can serve to delay or even prevent career advancement

•  “Derailers” are behavioural which can bring a promising career to an early end

Derailment risks

Hyper-sensitivity Isolation Eccentricity Iconoclasm

Exhibitionism Over-confidence

Over-dependence

Micro-Management

Hyper-sensitivity

Lacking sensitivity and subtlety of perception

Shrewd perception and

judgment

Emotional fragility, anxiety, paranoia

Isolation

Afraid to make tough decisions, can’t work

alone

Works well alone, can make difficult decisions

Finds teamwork difficult, poor

communicator, works in isolation

Eccentricity

Conservative thinking, sticks to convention,

“lazy” thinking

Unconventional, creative,

develops novel ideas

Poor listeners, focused on novelty over substance

Iconoclasm

Too passive and complacent, swayed by majority, focused

on others’ opinions

Tough-minded, able to break with convention, make difficult decisions

Excessive rule-breaking, intolerant and insensitive to

others

Exhibitionism

Lacking social confidence, passive, lacking interest in

others’ behaviour and motivation

Socially confident, charismatic, open

with feelings, active and fast-moving

Need the limelight, craving variety and

speed, prone to exaggeration, over-

optimism

Over-confidence

Modest, avoiding leadership roles, avoiding competition

and negotiation

Confidence, self-belief, drive and competitiveness,

positive self-concept

Arrogance, lack of self-awareness or own limitations, need to win and eclipse others

Over-dependence

Push back against the leadership of others. Avoid consulting, taking risky

decisions, avoiding reflection

Agreeable, keen to consult and get along

with others, risk-avoidant

Unable to cope with risk or decision-making,

avoiding competition, compliance with others

Micro-management

Unreliable and careless in detail, rules and processes. Rely on spontaneity rather

than planning

Highly methodical and structured,

paying attention to data and evidence.

Conscientious.

Inflexible adherence to rules,

details and processes.

Analysis paralysis.

Derailment doesn’t occur in a vacuum

Derailment is facilitated by three factors: •  Individual personality •  The work environment •  Other people

In a graduate context…

Derailment could be facilitated by:

•  Ignoring clear behavioural issues while “performance” is excellent

•  Encouraging development and focus on a sub-set of traits, rather than a more rounded development plan

•  Rewarding attainment of KPIs and ignoring “softer” development needs

•  Waiting until too late before engaging in development or addressing unhelpful behaviours

A key challenge for graduate development…

Graduates may have lots of the required domain knowledge and even technical skills, but many have yet to learn how to work with others. Learning how to implement their knowledge and skills cooperatively and carefully is a key development need for many graduates.

So what?

What are the implications for graduate recruiters?

How can we avoid derailment? •  Consider your “ideal profile” for grads

•  Are you seeking extremes of personality?

•  What behaviours are you explicitly encouraging?

•  What behaviours are you implicitly rewarding?

•  Are you challenging negative behaviour soon enough?

•  Are you offering balanced development activity?

In reviewing your selection criteria

•  Are your selection criteria re. personality evidence-based?

•  Have you validated your criteria against performance?

•  Have you included broader behavioural measures in this validation?

•  Are any patterns emerging in your graduate cohorts?

•  What sort of feedback do you receive about them once they start?

To facilitate a focus on development

•  Contemporary trait-based personality measures will give you an indication of where to pay attention.

•  Consider where personality profiles indicate very strong or even extreme preferences.

•  Reflect on the potential downside of the attributes you are seeking.

•  Include a development needs analysis discussion as part of the onboarding process.

•  Illustrate that nobody is a 100% fit for any role.

For example

You want: •  Confident, self-starters •  Future leaders •  Driven and motivated

You may get: •  Over-confident mavericks •  Exhibitionist tendencies •  Insensitive iconoclasts

But… don’t people change?

•  Employers often express the worry that graduate selection data has a short shelf life due to the significant development that graduates undergo once selected.

•  Our data illustrates strong test-retest reliability of personality data.

•  Of course, the focus should be on changing behaviour not personality.

•  This is where solid competency frameworks and use of 360-degree feedback are useful.

Key take-aways

•  Selection data should inform development activities

•  Ensure you are selecting against validated criteria

•  Ensure you are not sowing the seeds for later derailment

•  Engage with development activity at the point of onboarding

•  Review selection and performance data for patterns

•  Understand that you can have too much of a good thing!