A QUESTION OF STAFF
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
In the search for the right employees companies can be surprisingly lax. More popular techniques often have their drawbacks, but can there ever be any guarantees?
• Employees are the key resource of any enterprise, but employers who often go to considerable expense and trouble when investing in new capital equipment, all too frequently neglect the important task of selecting the right staff.
Placing the wrong person in the wrong job can have harmful consequences on both the individual concerned and on the efficient running of a business. The consequences can be extremely serious if, for example, staff are so unhappy that they deliberately sabotage the running of a business. More commonly, time will have to be spent helping a misplaced staff member and rectifying mistakes, leading to an additional burden on other staff, The Japanese, in particular, are well aware of this problem. Many Japanese companies spend a great deal of time and money in their selection procedures and the success of these companies bears testimony to the effectiveness of this sort of investment in recruitment techniques.
The basic methods for selecting staff are well established. The starting point is to obtain information about the prospective employee, through application forms and interviews. The idea behind this is to find out as much as possible about the individuals concerned, in connection with their past experience and any personal attributes they have that might help in the job expected of them.
APPLICATION FORM
An application form should be a prime source of information about applicants. It should show, for example, if they have the necessary qualifications or experience to carry out the job in question.
The obvious problem with an application form is that it is completed by the applicant, so in effect applicants are being asked to write their own references. They are only likely to put down information that they believe will be helpful to them and are likely to gloss over or omit any aspects of their career that they think will not be viewed favourably. They will certainly also leave out anything that might make a prospective employer think they are dishonest. Thus, application forms should be studied carefully and not taken at face value.
Another problem is that in many cases applicants are unlikely to have done the precise job for which they are applying. Even if they have carried out a similar job with another firm, there are still bound to be many differences in the way each job is carried out in different companies.
REFERENCES
The usual method to try to overcome some of these problems is to apply for a confidential reference from a former employer, but still there are several problems here. For example, an employer might refuse to give references, or applicants might not want you to approach their current employers. Even when references are forthcoming it is not always possible to know what motives a previous employer might have when giving a reference, favourable or unfavourable.
It is a standing joke in many organisa
tions and institutions — and one with a kernel of truth — that unwanted employees will get glowing references in order to help them move out, while employees well thought of might not get such good references if their existing employers want to hang on to them. Application forms and references can only provide a very rough and ready indication of assessing an applicant's suitability and should not be the sole guide.
INTERVIEWS
Most companies call likely prospects in for interviews before making a selection — some employers rely exclusively on these interviews, believing that face-to-face contact is the best method of assessing an applicant's suitability.
Surprisingly, all the research that has been done in this field — and there have been thousands of studies — have shown that the interview is a very poor indicator of an applicant's likely future performance in a particular task. Though an applicant can appear to be "right for the job", there are no guarantees.
Interviews are extremely useful in circumstances when it is important that an applicant should fit in in a job working closely with others, particularly in a small team, but just because someone can fit in well, from a personality point of view, does not mean they will be good at the job in hand.
TESTS
The idea of giving someone a job test is so obvious that it seems amazing such a technique is not in universal use, yet few employers make use of what must be one of the most effective ways of testing out an applicant's suitability.
Most jobs require a wide range of abilities and skills which are specific to the particular tasks involved in those jobs.
If particular mental skills are required there is a wide range of psychological tests available that have proved to be very effective in ascertaining the ability of an applicant.
Such tests are easy and simple to administer: there are many commercial test agencies who will either run the tests themselves or train employers in how to administer them. The costs involved are well worthwhile in that a higher calibre and more suitable type of employee is likely to result.
Tests can be carried out for a wide range of jobs, from secretarial posts to senior management appointments. Their great advantage is that they provide a genuinely objective measure of an applicant's ability and suitability to carry out certain predetermined tasks.
Work sample tests, as the name implies, are designed to test, under standard conditions, a range of tasks that an employer would expect an applicant to be able to carry out. A copy typist, for example would be set a piece of work to complete; a driver might be asked to complete a sample course and load and unload a vehicle; mechanics could be given a short trade test, and so on. Such tests are ideal for most jobs requiring practical skills.
It should be relatively simple for even the smallest operator to devise a work sample test for the jobs to be filled and such tests offer important benefits. They provide a very accurate assessment of the potential of an applicant, and applicants feel they have had a fair opportunity to display their abilities. On the other hand it has been shown that applicants who do not do well on such tests often decline the offer of a job, even if one is made.
CONCLUSION
There has never been — and probably never will be — an infallible method of selecting staff for jobs. Yet the fact is that most employers are simply failing to use the techniques that are available, many of which are cheap and simple to administer. Serious errors are made and money is lost because of the slack attitude of employers in this important field.
Those employers who do make use of relevant techniques have nothing to lose — and are likely to end up with a happier, more efficient workforce.
E by John McQueen