I’ve yet to meet anyone with recruitment responsibilities that isn’t frustrated with the state of the industry. Finding the right people, filtering through them intelligently and keeping them happy is a top priority anywhere you look – so why is it that we’re working with tools and techniques that haven’t changed in decades?
Just last month, I reviewed over 20 resumes for a developer/architect position and could hardly differentiate between them – from the self-described $40/hr to the $90/hr, they all looked the same on paper. And I’m not sure that interviewing each and every one of them would have left me any more convinced.
We’ve all heard “the best people aren’t looking for work” cliché a dozen times but still don’t have a sense for what the remedy is. Are AdWords the solution [6]? The guys at StackOverFlow.com seem to think so: take control of the eyes – where the best people spend their time – and sell targeted ads. (You can appreciate why they’d offer money-back-guarantees under this model.)
What’s everyone else doing?
Jim Holincheck’s blog on Human Capital Management (HCM) introduced me to a project at one of the most innovative recruiting organizations on the planet [1]:
I found Dr. Sullivan's post on ERE enlightening though…It is innovative because of the breadth of factors assessed (though again that is something that has been possible) and how they were leveraging the core competencies of Google in creating this assessment approach. Also, one should not look at it the context of just this one thing that Google is doing [but] in recruitment and talent management in general. It is part of a broader innovation strategy to ensure that it can bring in quality talent to support the business strategy. Is that not what we all want to do?
(Having interviewed at both Google and Microsoft in 2004, I’ve witnessed Google’s effort first-hand.)
Dr. Sullivan’s post on the ERE Recruiting Community goes on to detail Google’s approach [2]:
More than any other organization, Google is credited with changing the game when it comes to recruiting leading-edge talent. Their approaches have forced reactions among nearly every other leading high-technology firm trying to attract the cream of the crop, and encouraged a healthy debate among functional leaders of efficiency versus effectiveness in recruiting.
…on finding the right people who aren’t looking (note that it’s not the first time, either – remember the billboard incident of 2004 [10] that received a lot of press?):
The Google recruiting team continues to come up with creative approaches. One of my favourites occurred in the spring of 2006 when they retooled their search portal to deliver a targeted recruiting message to students and faculty of targeted schools. When individuals would access the Google search portal, Google servers would identify the IP address of the visitor, look up what organization the IP address belonged to, and alter the portal appearance if the visitor was accessing the portal from one of the university campuses Google actively recruits from. The approach, while not new, was implemented in Google’s typical minimalist style. They added a single text line just below the search box that asked whether the visitor was graduating and whether they were interested in a job at Google. The micro-targeting approach was simple and unobtrusive. Another example, while again not being unique, further signifies the extent to which Google is responsive to the labor force. That approach is taking the work to where the workforce already exists, namely the University of Michigan campus. The initiative took private/public cooperation to an entirely new level, ensuring that students would have access to education inherently suited to real employer demands, and that Google would have unfettered access to some of the brightest minds.
…and on their data-driven approach to candidate assessment:
The latest innovation from Google’s recruiting function is so unique that the New York Times wrote a feature story about it. The article, written by Saul Hansell and published January 3, detailed how the search engine company is implementing a new assessment tool that relies on an algorithm to more accurately identify candidates that resemble existing top performers. While many companies seek to screen out candidates, the new Google candidate assessment approach enables Google to “include” candidates that might otherwise be overlooked. The algorithm evaluates a much wider range of potential success predictors than can normally be discerned from most resumes. This innovation recognizes and resolves a major flaw inherent to typical assessment methodologies that rely too heavily on academic grades, SAT scores, degrees from “top” schools, prior industry experience, and subjective interview results.
It’s certainly eye opening (and refreshing, I might add) to look at true innovation alongside bolted solutions of the past. For instance, in building recruitment platforms, we often look at features that enable candidate (or ‘resume’) comparisons using a product like FAST ESP. The intention is the same: if you found one that worked, can you use it find others like it? The results, though, are far less compelling. Experience teaches us that we need to be careful in making the association between a candidate and their resume – search misses the point: it’s the data that matters.
From the New York Times piece, published in Jan, 2007 [3]:
Unfortunately, most of the academic research suggests that the factors Google has put the most weight on — grades and interviews — are not an especially reliable way of hiring good people.
“Interviews are a terrible predictor of performance.”
It’s a great read – Mr.Brock, brought in from GE to improve Google’s screening process, goes on to add [3]:
We wanted to cast a very wide net,” Mr. Bock said. “It is not unusual to walk the halls here and bump into dogs. Maybe people who own dogs have some personality trait that is useful.”
…
“You have to know or at least have a hypothesis why having a dog makes a good computer programmer,” Professor Mumford said. “If you ask whether someone started a club in high school, it is a clear indicator of leadership.
Questions like “what magazines do you subscribe to?” and “what pets do you have?” might sound far fetched but are relatively mild when compared to hand-writing samples [8] and brain-scans [9].
Google’s antics remind me of similar tests that we’ve experienced first-hand [4], [5] for a related but different goal (re-aligning individuals to roles); in both cases, some struggle with accepting the connections that are made:
The OPTIMAX CHARACTER ASSESSMENT tool is a proven system that enhances the potential for optimal performance. Over 20,000 assessments have been conducted in Europe, and in excess of 7,000 assessments in North America.
The Optimax Character Assessment is the best available tool for identifying the psychocybernetical makeup of an individual for the following reasons:
- It is scientifically based - founded on a mathematical and logical theory
- It is objective and quantifiable - uses mathematical formulas and algorithms
- It is well controlled - the test taker cannot manipulate or misunderstand the questions
- It is impartial - the results are not influenced by education, experience and knowledge
- It is accurate - the accuracy of the results reaches up to +90%
- It is reliable - repeated assessments will produce the same results; the assessment will predict all the changes for more than ten years
- It is universal - the assessment is non-discriminatory on any basis such as race, religion, sex, age, or disability
- It is thorough - the interpretation of the results is based on the combination of over 500 parameters
In addition to business organizations, Dr. Guy has been applying his model with success to Canadian athletes competing in the Olympics. I was so intrigued by my own results that I met with him in person to review them – not only did I find the assessment exceptionally accurate but those who knew me well were impressed too. That “taker(s) cannot manipulate or misunderstand questions” and that “results are not influenced by education, experience and knowledge” are critical components missing in conventional psychometric tools.
In this context, I’d be interested to get his thoughts on the use of his assessment as a recruitment tool; of course, given the manual interpretation of results and the attendant cost, it’s not exactly something that most can employ for front-line (bulk) screening, but the results are nonetheless telling.
There’s no doubt that we will shift towards increasingly scientific methods for not only recruitment but evaluation too, especially in light of the inherent flaws in today’s performance reviews (Chris has a great write-up on this [7]) – as Seth puts it [11]:
“You don't have to like the coming era of hyper-measurement, but that doesn't mean it's not here.”
Interestingly enough, this post started off with the intention of exploring what it means to be successful in the software industry. An ex-colleague has an excellent series here, here and here. (I’m more or less in the Jeff Atwood minimalist camp: the best code is no code at all; most people acknowledge the importance of simplicity, but there’s no shortage of drastically different views on how to achieve it.)
If the abandonment of that track to pursue the recruitment angle thought me anything, it’s that the right person may not have any of the qualities that you’re looking for.
References:
[1] – Google's Recruiting Practices http://blogerp.typepad.com/hcm_research/2007/01/googles_recruit.html
[2] – Google Continues to Innovate in Recruiting and Candidate Assessment http://www.ere.net/2007/01/08/google-continues-to-innovate-in-recruiting-and-candidate-assessment/
[3] – Google Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/technology/03google.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
[4] – Optimax Character Assessment http://www.optimax.org/tools-character.asp
[5] – Optimax Competency Matrix http://www.optimax.org/tools-comp.asp
[6] – Using AdWords http://www.free-press-release.com/news-why-aren-t-you-using-google-advertising-for-recruitment-1251387060.html http://www.slideshare.net/mspecht/online-recruitment-the-tools-techniques-and-challenges
[7] – A Compelling argument against performance reviews http://blog.chapmanconsulting.ca/2009/09/21/A+Compelling+Argument+Against+Performance+Reviews.aspx
[8] – Knowing you from your writing http://www.deccanherald.com/content/22797/knowing-you-your-writing.html
[9] – Brain scans 'provide clue to leadership skills' http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/09/10/brain.training.leadership/
[10] – Google recruits eggheads with mystery billboard http://news.cnet.com/Google-recruits-eggheads-with-mystery-billboard/2100-1023_3-5263941.html
[11] – Everyone gets paid on commission http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/09/everyone-gets-paid-on-commission.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment