{"id":1306,"date":"2018-09-17T09:45:01","date_gmt":"2018-09-17T09:45:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/?p=1306"},"modified":"2018-09-20T05:34:37","modified_gmt":"2018-09-20T05:34:37","slug":"recruiting-best-fit-people-is-not-difficult-if-you-concentrate-on-the-whole-person","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/rwc-blog\/recruiting-best-fit-people-is-not-difficult-if-you-concentrate-on-the-whole-person\/","title":{"rendered":"Recruiting “Best Fit” People Is Not Difficult – If You Concentrate on the “Whole Person”"},"content":{"rendered":"

I read with some amusement some of the debates that take place via LinkedIn which concentrate on best ways of knowing that you’re appointing the right person for a role. I’m not sure who the bright spark was who invented psychoanalysis, but they sure influenced a flourishing recruitment industry as a consequence.<\/span><\/p>\n

This post\/ blog is an earnest attempt on my part to try and inject a serious dose of realism into the practice of recruiting people; for I can see that recruitment has been permitted to become regarded as a “science” of a sort…when it is most certainly not. It is in fact about “humanities”. <\/span><\/p>\n

Psychometric tests are an unnecessary invasive attempt to elicit particular responses to particular questions – which are then judged by some supposedly qualified expert as being either “right” or “wrong” relative to a prescriptive “ideal candidate profile”.\u00a0<\/span>I have been involved in employing people for 20 + years, and haven’t resorted to using any form of psychometric test during this time. Instead, I ask simple questions of candidates, which are designed to reveal each candidate’s traits, attributes, attitude and strengths and weaknesses…all relative to the specific role in question.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nowadays, it seems to me that many recruiters are more concerned with candidate “personality”, sociability, age and gender than they are with:<\/span><\/p>\n

a) Relevant qualification.<\/span><\/p>\n

b) Proven experience (most importantly, achievements) relevant for the role in question.<\/span><\/p>\n

c) Natural abilities – strengths in particular.<\/span><\/p>\n

d) Proven capabilities that are relevant for the role in question.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Once upon a time, less than a decade ago, the above 4 x criteria used to be the all important criteria used to determine the “best candidate for the position”. I still use these…with much success.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sadly, in the current era, I see evidence of “best fit” appointments being made more in relation to personality attributes than any other criteria. “Are they a nice person ?”, “Will they mix well with so and so ?”, etc. Recruiters who practice this “social acceptance\/ alignment” approach to selecting the “best candidate” need to re-think their practice in my view; for the consequences of taking this approach are clear to see, and include workplaces being filled with “nice people” who unfortunately fall short on capability and experience in particular.<\/span><\/p>\n

Remember, “the best candidate” is “the best candidate”, not because of their gender, age or personality; but because they scored the highest overall rating (if you like, points value assignment) against the 4 x well proven (age old) appointee selection criteria stated above. For me, I will place people with “proven substance\/ depth\/ capabilities” into roles ahead of “nice personalities”, every time.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I read with some amusement some of the debates that take place via LinkedIn which concentrate on best ways of knowing that you’re appointing the right person for a role. I’m not sure who the bright spark was who invented psychoanalysis, but they sure influenced a flourishing recruitment industry as a consequence. This post\/ blog is an earnest attempt on my part to try and inject a serious dose of realism into the practice of recruiting people; for I can…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1306"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1309,"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1306\/revisions\/1309"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realworldconsulting.kiwi\/rwc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}