Sadly, the issue of low employee engagement has become increasingly pervasive, affecting companies across all industries and all around the globe. According to research by Gallup, over the past two decades, the portion of fully engaged employees has consistently hovered around one-third of the workforce, with fluctuations largely attributed to economic conditions. This indicates a systemic issue that transcends individual organizational cultures or sectors, pointing to a deeper, more widespread problem.
The "Win-Win" Performance-based Hiring Articles, Insights and Podcasts
I’ve written a number of books about hiring, Hire with Your Head and The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired, and a bunch of cool courses on LinkedIn Learning covering the basics of Performance-based Hiring.
I must have prepped over a thousand candidates for different roles from professional staff to senior executive positions in all types of industries. During my in-depth interview with the candidate I wanted to be sure they were first competent and motivated to do the actual work and second they would also see the role as a worthy career move. Once I was confident about their ability I then prepped them to ensure they were properly assessed by the hiring manager.
In the rapidly evolving job market, the principles laid out a decade ago in The Essential Guide for Hiring & Guideremain fundamental – making the right hiring decisions requires long-term analysis, not short-term transactional thinking. As I told one job candidate long ago, “Don’t make long-term strategic decisions using short-term tactical information.” The advice changed his life. It will change yours, too. This image pretty much describes how hiring decisions need to be made.
Hiring a new team member always carries its risks, especially when the candidate is someone you’ve never worked with before.
Hiring for skills is a popular trend among employers who want to broaden the talent pool to include more diverse and fully qualified candidates. Instead of relying on credentials, such as degrees, certificates, or years of experience, skills-based hiring focuses on the abilities and competencies that are relevant for the job. This approach can have many benefits, such as expanding the talent pool, reducing bias, and improving retention. However, it also comes with some challenges that need to be addressed in order to make it effective and fair.
On my first search assignment for a plant manager for an automotive products company the President of the group handed me an almost traditional job description. The almost part was that it was hand-written. The traditional part was that it was filled with the standard jargon listing skills, experience, academic requirements and the omnipresent “must have” competency, “be results driven.”
I just asked ChatGPT if Performance-based Hiring could be used to measure Quality of Hire. Its response is below.
Last week at our Hire with Your Head book club event I proclaimed that it was easy to predict a new hire’s first year success and satisfaction on the start date based on the person’s answer to this one question.
ChatGPT considers Performance-based Hiring a game-changer for raising the talent bar with stronger and more diverse talent for every critical position from staff level to senior executive. It begins with how job descriptions are written and posted and ends on the first year anniversary date when the new person and the hiring manager both agree they made the right decision.
Note: I asked ChatGPT to write a short story about this new course just released on LinkedIn Learning about how to launch major HR change programs. Too often these projects get started without enough cross functional support and as a result fail to get traction. The...
Lydia greeted Alex with a concerned look, the hum of the coffee shop blending with the gravity of their conversation. Lydia, once his boss and now a mentor figure, was someone who could help him figure out how to make important career decisions.
Sherlock Holmes is a master of deduction: Using evidence to determine the crime and the criminal. Surprisingly, this same objective evidence-based approach can be used to interview a candidate for just about any skill, trait or competency. In an earlier post, I...
It turns out that the actual cost of hiring people who wind up in the bottom half is at least $100 thousand per bad decision and for managers it’s a big multiple of that! This is based on the fact that the average revenue per employee for those in the Fortune 500 is $1 million with a variable margin about 40% or $400 thousand.
For a quarter of a century, Human Resources departments have grappled with quantifying the elusive ‘Quality of Hire’—a metric that, until recently, seemed more like a mirage than a measurable figure. It’s often been considered the Holy Grail of HR metrics due to its direct impact on an organization’s success. But why is Quality of Hire so critical, and how has it remained so evasive over the years?
After tracking the 10-year performance of 100s of candidates I placed in mid-management roles from 1980 to 2000, I finally figured out how to measure Quality of Hire. It’s described in detail in Chapter 16 of Hire with Your Head (4th edition, 2021, Wiley). The other day I asked ChatGPT if the approach was still accurate or now flawed. Here’s the full dialogue. Below is the short summary.
I asked ChatGPT to write a story about the legal and diversity hiring implications of using Performance-based Hiring based on this whitepaper from Littler. I was shocked by the story it wrote with such a simple prompt.
Using a single sentence prompt I asked ChatGPT to convert this LinkedIn Learning course on embedding post-hire success into the pre-hire process into a compelling super short story. It follows below. Send us a link to one of your open job descriptions and we’ll show you how to make Amelia’s story yours.
When you consider that the top 25% is a definition of outstanding performance rather than a statistic, it’s possible for everyone to meet this threshold of performance:
With AI, there’s a new math for hiring. It turns out everyone can now be in the top half of the top half. To get there candidates and hiring managers both need to be more discriminating and make wiser decisions. Getting to the top 10% takes a little more effort. For some it’s worth it.