Sheryl Stephen

Every day, organizational decision makers struggle to find ways to affect the “bottom line.” Having a desire to find better ways of selecting employees is one of these struggles. According to recent research the cost of hiring the wrong person could be as high as ten times their annual salary. Today labor costs constitute the largest cost category for most businesses. Furthermore, these personnel costs are rising at a record rate. Fringe benefits allocated to employees are making up a larger and larger share of an individual’s compensation. Fringe benefits now account for 30 percent of payroll cost for organizations. Moreover, this form of compensation is generally unrelated to a person’s productivity. Typically, employers compensate employees for their time and not for what they produce. Only 14 percent of U.S. workers receive piece-rate wages or commissions in which compensation is computed directly on the basis of output.

The vast majority of workers are paid by the hour, week or month. They are paid, in short, to show up for work and to follow orders. This form of compensation requires that employers give careful attention to worker motivation and dependability and the selection of productive workers will undoubtedly continue to increase. Equal Employment Opportunity concerns also indirectly affect the need for better, more valid personnel selection techniques. “The attack on psychological testing has accelerated the search for both improved and alternative means of assessment.” As the guidelines for selection tests become more stringent, organizations will increasingly seek methods that will allow them to hire those who will be the most productive to the organization.

While organizational decision makers are concerned about getting the “right” people into their organizations, they are also concerned with promoting the kind of people who will be beneficial to the organization in the long run. From the organization’s viewpoint, effective management promotions are central to the efficient utilization of its human resources and are likely to affect future strategic decisions. However, unlike employment selection decisions which are often conducted by personnel professionals, promotion decisions are often made by managers in all types of departments and at all levels of management.

History of Psychological Testing for Pre-employment Selection
The use of psychological testing for pre-employment evaluation of individuals has a long history. The first use of psychological testing as an aid in employment decisions has been traced to ancient China. The Chinese developed an extensive system of civil service examinations to determine which individuals were qualified for positions in government. The use of behavioral assessments in personnel decisions in the U.S. began very early in the century. By 1909, for example, Parsons and Musterberg were doing vocational assessments for industries. The massive army recruit screening program during World War I legitimized behavioral measurement in the public’s mind. During the 1920’s and 1930’s there was an upsurge in the use of behavioral assessments in industry. Special interest centered on the assessment of sales personnel. During the economically troubled 1930’s tests were used to identify stable and cooperative employees. World War II brought the Office of Strategic Services selection program, and “selection was a primary, if not the prime concern of Industrial/Organizational psychologists through World War II.” The post-World War II period saw a virtual explosion in behavioral inventory construction, and in the 1950’s the use of assessment centers began to grow rapidly. Personnel testing, in general, rose to a peak in the early 1960’s. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC’s, “Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures” started a new era of selection/promotion procedures. Indeed, many court cases and much debate regarding tests and other methods used in making selections decisions ensued.

The ability to interact effectively with people may be the difference between success and failure in our work and personal life. People are hired for their education, knowledge, experience and technical expertise and most often are fired, reassigned or passed over for promotions because of a lack of appropriate interpersonal skills. Success Insights™ provides a tool for increasing personal awareness and improving individual and group communications. Effective interaction begins with an accurate perception of oneself.

All Success Insights™ behavioral analysis reports are generated from individuals’ responses to a web-based on-line assessment that quantifies information on how we perceive others and ourselves. Through personalized information, respondents have the opportunity to immediately increase their knowledge of self and others resulting in increased effectiveness and productivity. An Action Plan for Professional Development and an Action Plan for Personal Development conclude the reports.

Behavioral analysis is a process that identifies work preferences and associated behavior and emotions. Unlike interests, attitudes and values, behaviors and emotions are observable. They are the “how” of communicating (voice, words, body language and pace) and are the doorway to effective communication and understanding. The Success Insights™ tool identifies four basic behavioral factors (often called styles): Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance.

Success Insights have given managers much needed tools for hiring and developing performance strategies specific to individuals and teams.
Adverse Impact: There is no evidence to suggest that the Success Insights assessments could cause adverse impact with regard to race, gender, disability or veteran status.  Are you hiring safely under the law?