selecting and developing top performance harrison assessments

Download SELECTING AND DEVELOPING TOP PERFORMANCE HARRISON ASSESSMENTS

Post on 17-Dec-2015

218 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Slide 1
  • SELECTING AND DEVELOPING TOP PERFORMANCE HARRISON ASSESSMENTS
  • Slide 2
  • Suitability & Eligibility Eligibility can the person perform. Suitability will the person perform. SUITABILITYELIGIBILITY behavioral Tendencies Experience, Training & Education
  • Slide 3
  • Accurately measure and predict behaviors that impact on success Be easily customizable for each specific job Be reliable and revealing Prevent deception Reveal self-deception Provide a overall prediction of success based on eligibility, suitability, and interview results Be easy to implement and interpret The Assessment Challenge An ideal assessment method should:
  • Slide 4
  • Traditional Attempts to Predict behavior Interviewing - Limitations Behavior is very difficult to quantify Deception is difficult to detect Interviewers are biased toward their own behavioral tendencies Good interviewees are not necessarily good performers Good performers are not necessarily good interviewees
  • Slide 5
  • Traditional Attempts to Predict behavior Personality Assessment - Limitations Easy to deceive Not job specific Have an insufficient number of dimensions (usually 4 to 20)
  • Slide 6
  • Personality Assessments have limited dimensions Limited dimensions = unclear picture 10 20 dimensions provides only a general view of personality. This is insufficient to compare to complex behavioral requirements.
  • Slide 7
  • Personality Assessment measures only some Suitability factors By increasing the personality factors and including work environment preferences (total of 30-40 dimensions), clarity is improved but it is still insufficient.
  • Slide 8
  • Enhanced Suitability Assessment By increasing the personality factors further and including work environment preferences and interests (total of 60-70 dimensions), the image is sharpened. However, there is still considerable room for improvement.
  • Slide 9
  • Comprehensive Suitability Assessment By further increasing the personality factors and including work environment preferences, interests, and task preferences (to a total of 100 dimensions) some clarity is achieved. However, it could still be improved.
  • Slide 10
  • Comprehensive Suitability Assessment with Lie Detection By increasing the personality factors further and including a complete spectrum of work environment preferences, interests, and task preferences (a total of 150 dimensions) as well as effective lie detection technology, a very clear view of behavior can be achieved.
  • Slide 11
  • High Tech Questionnaire Equal to a full day of multiple choice testing in only 30 minutes The computer cross-referencing technology provides 8103 comparisons - equivalent to 2701 multiple choice questions. Items are ranked in groups of 8. Each item appears twice
  • Slide 12
  • Lie Prevention Forced ranking (rather than rating) forces the profilee to reveal priorities and prevents exaggerated ratings. The items are equally attractive and thus the ranking given is based on actual priorities. Counter-productive tendencies are determined through the paradox methodology which is completely blind to the profilee.
  • Slide 13
  • Technological Lie Detector Tens of thousands of cross-references identify contradictory rankings and provide lie detection with 99%+ accuracy. Item 1 Item 2 Item 1 Traditional personality lie detection is less than 10% effective.
  • Slide 14
  • The Consistency Score 100 = perfectly consistent Greater than 50 = reliable results Greater than 0 = reliable results for lower level positions Below 0 - repeat the questionnaire -450 random answers -900 perfectly inconsistent The consistency score is so sensitive that even slight attempts to deceive are detected and located. The consistency score ranges from 100 to -900.
  • Slide 15
  • Reasons for Low Consistency Intention to deceive or provide the expected answer (most common) Lack of concentration (secondary factor) Lack of self-awareness
  • Slide 16
  • Position Analysis With only a general impression of the position (no formal job description), it is very difficult to determine if a person fits the position. Fit ?
  • Slide 17
  • Position Analysis A formal job description helps to determine the fit, but is usually only sufficient to provide a general idea of the required behavior. Fit ?
  • Slide 18
  • Position Analysis Job descriptions that include major responsibilities help to clarify the issues of fit, but still leave some questions. Fit ?
  • Slide 19
  • Position Analysis C lear performance expectations help clarify the behaviour requirements for the position. Fit?
  • Slide 20
  • Position Analysis By weighting the performance factors, more of the questions about person/position fit are resolved. Fit ?
  • Slide 21
  • The HA Position Analysis Wizard enables you to transform the position requirements into weighted traits. Position Analysis Fit ?
  • Slide 22
  • Position Analysis HA research has determined the traits that relate to success for different position types. This data combined with your job information will create accurate custom position templates. Fit
  • Slide 23
  • Missing the Target Using only a personality assessment combined with a basic job description provides a very unclear determination of the fit which is typically only about 10% better than a guess. Fit ?
  • Slide 24
  • Accuracy The HA integrated assessment combined with the Position Analysis Wizard provides a prediction of success with greater than 80% accuracy. Fit
  • Slide 25
  • Validation HA behavioral assessment has more than 30 validation studies, each showing a predictive accuracy of greater than 80% or.3 correlation. It is generally more accurate than assessment centres that cost thousands of dollars per person. Test re-test is greater than.8 for each scale. High construct validity correlations with standard personality methods.
  • Slide 26
  • Enjoyment Performance Theory Enjoy Activity Do it More Learn More Improve Skills Receive Recognition If you enjoy an activity, you tend to do it more. By doing it more, you tend to learn and improve the related skills. As a result, you tend to gain recognition (including self recognition) which helps you to enjoy the activity more.
  • Slide 27
  • Enjoyment Performance Theory Dont Enjoy Activity Avoid the Activity Fail to Learn or Improve Skills Negative Feedback If you dislike an activity, you tend to avoid it. Thus, you fail to learn and improve the related skills. You may illicit negative feedback as a result (or self-criticism) which contributes to disliking the activity more.
  • Slide 28
  • FRANK DIPLOMATIC Traditional Bi-polar Scale Bi-polar Scale
  • Slide 29
  • FRANK DIPLOMATIC Bi-polar Compared to Paradox Bi-polar Scale Paradox: A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. DIPLOMATICFRANK Paradox Scales
  • Slide 30
  • FRANK DIPLOMATIC Paradox Theory Paradox Scales DIPLOMATICFRANK DIPLOMATICFRANK Good CommunicatorPoor Communicator Good communicators and poor communicators look the same on a traditional bi-polar scale. Bi-polar Scale Balanced
  • Slide 31
  • Paradox Theory DIPLOMATICFRANK DIPLOMATICFRANK Good CommunicatorPoor Communicator DIPLOMATICFRANK Blunt DIPLOMATICFRANK Evasive Example of the four basic dimensions within a paradox scale Balanced VersatilityBalanced Deficiency Aggressive ImbalancePassive Imbalance
  • Slide 32
  • X-Y Representation of Paradox DIPLOMATICFRANK The four basic dimensions of a paradox can be more effectively displayed by rotating one of the scales at right angles to make an X-Y plane.
  • Slide 33
  • DIPLOMATIC FRANK X-Y Representation of Paradox The four basic dimensions of a paradox can be more effectively displayed by rotating one of the scales at right angles to make an X-Y plane.
  • Slide 34
  • DIPLOMATIC FRANK Aggressive Imbalance BluntForthright diplomacy Evasive Poor Communication High frank, low diplomatic indicates bluntness (an aggressive imbalance). The grey circle reflects an underlying passive polarity. For example, bluntness is often used a means of evading or a cover for vulnerability.
  • Slide 35
  • DIPLOMATIC FRANK Passive Imbalance BluntForthright diplomacy Evasive Poor Communication The red circle reflects the polarity of a passive imbalance. Under stress, the behavior may flip and become blunt. Low frank, high diplomatic indicates evasiveness.
  • Slide 36
  • DIPLOMATIC FRANK Balanced Deficiency BluntForthright diplomacy Evasive Poor Communication The double polarity indicates the behavior could flip to either polar extreme under stress. Low frank, low diplomatic indicates poor communication.
  • Slide 37
  • 12 HA Paradox Pairs Certain : Open/reflective Analytical : Intuitive Analyzes Pitfalls : Risking Self-Acceptance : Self-Improvement Self-Motivated : Stress Management Enforcing : Warmth/Empathy Frank : Diplomatic Persistent : Experimenting Authoritative : Collaborative Assertive : Helpful Organized : Flexible Optimistic : Analyses Pit

Recommended

View more >