The Science of Selection

Assessment Centres [36% Accuracy] - Perhaps the most surprising result from these meta-analyses is mediocre validity of assessment centres. Surely, assessment centres should be the most effective way of hiring people!?! The reality is only certain assessment centre exercises have any validity at all, and assessment centre ratings are notoriously prone to biases and the subjective influences of assessors. Due to their high costs (1,000 / candidate) and mediocre validity (36%), assessment centres are among the least cost-effective employee selection tools commonly used by employers.

Work Sample Tests [33% Accuracy] - The relatively mediocre validity of work-samples tests is another surprise. In fact, until recently we thought that work-samples tests were among the most effective selection tools. The reality, however, is that the workplace isn’t something that can be effectively simulated, and any attempt to do so will only ever encompass a fraction of the role’s requirements. This is why most publishers have recently stopped selling or supporting in-tray and e-tray exercises.

Emotional Intelligence [32% Accuracy] - Regardless of the role or the organisation, people are required to cooperate with one another. Emotional intelligence (EQ) allows you to work more effectively with people, and thus navigate the complex interpersonal domain. Although this matters more in some roles than others, its very rare that it won’t play at least some role in employee performance. We have an emotional intelligence test as well as EQ being measured in our TPAQ tests.

Interests [31% Accuracy] - Generally speaking, people tend to develop interests in line with their abilities. When someone discovers they are bad at something, more often than not, it serves as a deterrent, limiting their interest in that topic. However, gauging whether someone is genuinely interested in particular topic is difficult, as it takes almost no effort to simply feign interest.

Job Experience [16% Accuracy] - Although in the early years, relevant work-experience can make a significant difference, after a few years in the role it ceases to be relevant. For example, if you haven’t learned how sales works after 5 years in a sales role, you simply never will, it doesn’t matter how long you stay thereafter. As a result, its rarely worth using job-experience as a selection criterion.

Emotional Stability [12% Accuracy] - Emotional stability, although overall a fairly insignificant predictor of performance, can be quite important in highly stressful work. In stressful work, it becomes a useful indicator of turnover and employee retention, whereby those scoring low on emotional stability may be at risk of leaving. Naturally, the more stressful and high pressure the work environment, the more salient the effect of emotional stability. Our TPAQ-45 complete profile and our TPAQ-27 express profile both measure emotional stability.

Years in Education [10% Accuracy] - Simply staying in education isn’t likely to influence a person’s future job performance, as made evident by its low validity. Of course, smarter people are more likely to pursue advanced degrees and spend more time in education, but this correlation isn’t perfect. Plus, if you are interested in hiring smart people, you should be using ability tests, not length of education.

Extraversion [9% Accuracy] - For the most part, extraversion isn’t a relevant predictor of performance in the majority of roles. The exception to this rule, however, is highly interpersonal roles such as sales, where extraversion becomes quite important. This is especially true from a job-fit perspective and can have a major impact on employee retention and turnover. Our TPAQ-45 complete profile and our TPAQ-27 express profile both measure extraversion.

Agreeableness [8% Accuracy] - Agreeableness for the most part isn’t very predictive of performance in the workplace, especially in roles that require a thick skin or frequent confrontation. Indeed, research suggests that agreeableness is negatively correlated with performance in managerial roles, as highly agreeable managers get taken advantage of by their staff. However, agreeableness is important in caring roles and those with high emotional load, encouraging people to go the extra mile for those in need. Our TPAQ-45 complete profile and our TPAQ-27 express profile both measure agreeableness.

Reference Checks [26% Accuracy] - I suspect (although I don’t know for sure), that the mediocre validity of reference checks is due to how truthful people are when giving references. Most people believe if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. When likeable people underperform, people are more likely to give good references in spite of their performance. Overall, fairly mediocre results for reference checks.

Situational Judgement Tests [26% Accuracy] - Situational judgement tests (SJTs) show fairly mediocre levels of validity, but their true strength is what we call “incremental validity”. Although SJTs aren’t much on their own, research suggests they complement ability very well, providing unique insight. This is because decision-making has both behavioural and cognitive components, hiring managers well advised to assess candidates on both. Our Perceptions suite of situational judgement tests are examples of these assessments.

Conscientiousness [22% Accuracy] - The extent in which conscientiousness it predicts performance varies considerably between roles. Conscientiousness is most important in very process driven work, as being organised and diligent is especially important. However, research shows that in highly complex and innovative work, conscientiousness ceases to be important and cognitive ability takes-over. Our TPAQ-45 complete profile and our TPAQ-27 express profile both measure conscientiousness.

Openness to Experience [4% Accuracy] - Openness to experience is perhaps the least important personality trait when it comes to performance. Although being open to experience is important when it comes to accepting change or being creative, only in certain roles does this translate to performance. As with many personality traits, openness to experience is more important when it comes to job-fit, employee engagement, and length of tenure. Our TPAQ-45 complete profile and our TPAQ-27 express profile both measure openness to experience.

Graphology [2% Accuracy] - Graphology is a pseudoscientific study of handwriting, whereby graphologists claim they can describe a person’s character based on their style of handwriting. Needless to say, the evidence does not support the use of graphology in employee selection.

Age [0% Accuracy] - Not only is it illegal to use age as an employee screening tool, it doesn’t work either. Best to steer clear of this one.

Random Hiring [0% Accuracy] - Although picking people at random seems ridiculous, many common employee selection tools have no validity either, and require a significant investment in either time, money, or both. For example, research shows that manual CV sifting is no better than random hiring but requires a significant investment in time and administrative effort. Although random hiring presents a massive opportunity cost, it doesn’t actually cost anything and so this option is actually more cost-effective than buying an assessment with no validity and hiring candidates with it.