COMMENTS
Dave, thanks for all the good information here. I realize this is an older post but many of the others on assessments seem to link back here.
I'm not a fan of many of the assessments you address here, but I am curious to hear how you would compare/contrast the OMG assessment to a predictive approach that companies like Profiles International or PeopleAnswers use, where they assess top performers to develop the model to hire more like those who are already succeeding (in a specific role).
By the way, I'm familiar with the standard challenges of how performance is measured to determine "top producers," but currently I'm in the (mostly) B2C insurance industry, so measuring "top producers" is not quite as skewed as it is in some B2B situations, where a poor sales person can hide behind a great producing territory or major client.
So, with that aside, what thoughts would you offer on OMG assessments vs. that sort of predictive approach?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
Mike
Okay, it might have been smart if I had watched the video first, eh? On the bright side, I had read a bunch of the other posts first. ;-) I have now
also watched the video.
On the video: I'm not sure that the "drive" example you used is as relevant if you are looking at a pattern consisting of a variety of characteristics, and comparing candidate patterns to top producer patterns. I get that by itself, assessing the drive of a candidate may not equal the ability to carry a bag. But when you are looking at an entire mix of statistically validated and reliable elements, combining them in a pattern, and comparing candidates to that pattern, I'm struggling to see how that isn't a viable model, for sales or any other profession. Maybe you can clarify that for me.
On assessing first to weed out candidates, doesn't that break the general rule (or the one I've always heard) of not using an assessment as more than one-third of the hiring decision? When I've used assessments, I've still filtered out some resumes (on commonsense elements... no sexydude@gmail.com emails, please), done a phone screen (basics of can they speak coherently and represent themselves and my company well), assessed them, and then selected thsoe to interview based on preceeding criteria and interviewed based on the assessment, and then did whatever other assessment-type activity (such as auditioning, role playing, an assignment - depending on the specific role being hired), and finally, background, criminal and reference checks.
Look forward to your thoughts,
Mike
@Mike,
Great questions and I'll try to answer them here.
1) Your first question is about benchmarking. The assessments you mentioned MUST benchmark because the assessments themselves are not predictive of sales performance. The problem though, is that benchmarking against personality and behavioral styles attributes isn't predictive either. The personality/behavioral attributes of their top performers will be found in their under achievers too, so when they go out and look for more of "those" they won't consistently get top performers. The second problem is that the company's sense of top performers is seen from within a vacuum. They're the top performers at that company, but when compared with the sales population, they could very well be in the bottom 25%!
2. I don't know about any rule that dictates how much of the hiring decision an assessment is, but I do know that if I'm hiring, I don't want to waste 10 seconds on someone that won't succeed. The beauty of using a highly accurate, predictive assessment in the front end of the recruiting process is that it will accurately filter out EVERYONE we don't want to talk with. Then, we have a filtered pool filled with candidates who will all sell successfully, from which we can further filter by experience, background, phone skills, interview effectiveness, etc. They key is, at that point, we have the right people in the final phase of the recruiting process.