In AA there is a saying that you only wake up to the need for change when you hit rock bottom. Sometimes it feels like that is our lot in life, to not accept the facts of what’s happening until things get really dire (climate change anyone?).
COVID-19 has been a fabulous disruptor and dispeller of that old myth that people slack off when they work from home and the myth that unless you can see the worker how can you truly know if they are working? Both that old fashioned myth has been killed off but as many of us can feel and see form the experience, we are all working way longer.
We have shared already the reality of ongoing remote work and the real reason why it’s a game-changer for organisations. In one hit your talent pool becomes global or at least more global, and productivity goes up. But only if you recognise that remote work is not b2b zoom meetings. In fact, it’s precisely not that.
Instead, its about enabling work which requires asynchronous communication.
Productivity and flexibility for employees come when we don’t all have to get in a room, virtual or otherwise to do our work. That means communicating in writing, not by video.
There is as strong a ‘bias’ towards having to see someone to hire someone, as there has been to date with having to see someone working in the office to trust they are working. What will it take for that bias to be disrupted?
In the current world, websites like LinkedIn have become a great platform for people to seek out new job opportunities. Same for organisations.
Given the current COVID-19 crisis, almost daily I come across 2 or 3 posts of people seeking to find a job as their company let them go, due to the economic situation.
Such posts are very popular. The power of social media is really unravelled in these times with a clear case multiple strangers coming to rescue to the person who starts the post. This help is extended either in case of connecting for an opportunity or by simply commenting so that more and more see in their personal feeds and the post goes viral.
I am sure many prospective candidates or affected people may have found their job of choice or compulsion with this. Great effort indeed!
But this also brings out the fact that many people (and companies) may be little hasty in making the job decision.
Given that hiring is an expensive process, HR leaders and hiring managers have often struggled with the possibility of the candidate leaving the job in a few months or years from joining.
Problems become more complex with the fact that the current breed of young workers rate company loyalty relatively lower in their ranking of traits of a dream job. A better brand, a better culture or better compensation can sway them to the other side of the door.
Another study found that in some sectors, the average stay in the company is reducing rapidly due to the high attrition.
People who move from one job to the other very often are popularly known as ‘Job Hoppers’.
One study says that in 2018, the turnover cost was $680 Billion in the US economy. Here is the link to the study.
As a phenomenon, job-hopping has been an area of significant interest for both industry and academia.
Now a new study may have found the solution to this problem with the help of Artificial Intelligence techniques.
The study titled ‘Predicting job-hopping likelihood using answers to open-ended interview questions’ scanned through over 45,000+ interview responses to correlate them with personality types using multiple AI techniques to lead to conclusion.
The correlation models used for assessment of the personality types derived from the interview responses with the propensity of job-hopping are below –
The conclusion of the study is –
The full study with details of the future work prospects in the area can be found here.
Amitesh Tyagi, Grow Daily, 25/07/2020
Even with all the hiring freezes around, we are seeing many organisations use this time to get ready for the bounce back and the inevitable volumes coming from the changing employment landscape.
Gone are the days of screening CVs, followed by phone screens to find the best talent. A 5 to 10x increase in the number of people applying for jobs makes this no longer an option. And no-one’s time is served well by screening thousands of CVs.
Given that humans don’t scale, automating your screening and assessment criteria is an important job for the right technology.
And importantly – with fairness. Because an interview via chat is blind. So, everyone gets a fair go.
By embracing new technology you can change candidate experience.
And by changing candidate experience, you can change a life.
“Wow, this was not at all what I expected, a great surprise to get a reply such as this, your appraisal was absolutely correct, and the coaching tip will be utilised in many aspects of both work and private life”
You can’t argue with candidate feedback 🙂
Understand how we can help you deliver on these promises and download the 2020 Candidate Experience Playbook here.
It is widely thought that Thomas Edison invented the concept of the job interview back in the early 1900s. To screen candidates, he would ask them to join him at a restaurant and eat a bowl of soup while he watched. He could pick out the losing candidates by their tendency to season their soup before eating it. According to Edison, premature salt-and-peppering speaks to a person’s over-reliance on assumptions. If you’re a true visionary, he posited, you leap into your soup face-first.
The soup test is definitely out there. And, given what we now know about psychology and candidate experience, it is not, strictly speaking, scientifically valid. But this exercise was first tested more than 100 years ago, so maybe we can forgive Edison for filling the holes in his data with social experiments.
Funnily enough, though, things haven’t changed much since Edison souped up his hiring game. Initial face-to-face job interviews remain the predominant tool of hiring managers. There are benefits to in-person interviews, but the deficits certainly outweigh the benefits. Simply put, the practice is infused with all manner of biases, unfairnesses, inefficiencies, and oddities. In the early 1900s, we had soup – now we have inscrutable corporate-isms, and bizarre group tasks with arbitrary scoring criteria.
Let’s say you’re looking to fill a position where quick thinking and adaptability are the two most important skills. You want your candidates to think fast, and think smart, especially when faced with sudden adversity. How do you find these people?
There is no perfect answer. People are people, after all. But there are far better ways to find out than dropping a pen in the middle of an interview to see whether or not a candidate picks it up for you. The ‘pen-drop’ test assumes that the quickest candidates are the most adaptable, and are the highest in empathy. But we have more reliable predictors for these, predictors subject to far fewer variables. The quickest pen picker-upper on a given day may not be the best lateral thinker, or the most open – they may have merely been the shortest candidate, or the most flexible candidate, or the candidate closest to the pen. Because you don’t have a control, or any way to account for variables such as these, can you really trust the findings?
Yes, the pen-drop test is an extreme example of a screening exercise that is only tenuously related to its desired outcome. But we have all, at some point in our working lives, participated in strange tasks and odd jobs during interviews. The greater point is this: Even the best-planned exercises are not a viable substitute for sound scientific measurement.
The HEXACO personality inventory has at least three major dimensions relating to the test of a quick-thinking, empathic person: Extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. If you can assess a candidate using the HEXACO inventory, you might learn that the candidate is:
And that’s only the start of what you might learn. By using an Ai-based recruitment or hiring tool, with a HEXACO personality modelling function, you have a simple, trustworthy, accurate, and fair way to sort your quick thinkers from your leaders, your leaders from your long-term planners, and so on.
That’s the essence of what a smart interviewer can do, and why we developed the world’s first smart interviewer. You no longer need to think up some strange post-interview exercise where you pull unsuspecting candidates into an impromptu indoor hockey game. You can simply:
(We’re not the fun police, of course. If your approach to offering first-rate candidate experience involves a blind-folded three-legged race, count us in. Just make sure you have a smart interview waiting at the finish line. Fun, then statistical validity. Best of both worlds.)
We all want a world filled with better, fairer, simpler interviews. How will you go about it? Data, or gut-feel? Soup, or science?