Is More Always Better?

Organizations have two kinds of problems – system problems and people problems … and it’s the people who ultimately fix the system problems. Historically, organizations have been much more successful at solving their systems problems than their people problems. With system problems, there is the benefit of dealing with objective information, quantified information, and a common frame of reference.

But, with people problems, managers generally base their actions on much less reliable sources such as observation, opinion, and emotion.

Observation is problematical because the frenzied, long hours of the disorganized worker can appear more dedicated than the relaxed, even casual, approach of some top performers.

Advise base on opinion is valid only to the degree that the circumstances and the people involved are the same as the ones of past experience.

When it comes to emotions, human beings ride the waves of emotion and, unfortunately, organizations, which are made up of people, do no better.

Bottom line, system problems are simply easier to solve because historically better information is available. But, that’s no longer the case today. Organizations are discovering that integrating assessments into the selection process will increase the level of information available for making better decisions. The question I often hear is, “Is More Always Better?”

“Is More Always Better?”

If you’re asking about “supersizing” your fast food order, chances are more isn’t better.

But, if you’re asking about getting more (and better) information during the selection process, then the answer is absolutely “yes, more is better”.

Today, information is literally at our fingertips. We can access our checking account with our phone and within seconds transfer money from one account to another. Using a group text, we can instantly reach out to any number of people regardless of where they’re located. While in a meeting we can access pertinent information real time and share it with the other participants.

So, is it any wonder that companies want faster ways to process and onboard employees? This is especially the case for entry-level employees where Human Resource staffs fear that if things take too long they will lose out on quality candidates. In some cases this is very true, instant feedback is important and scheduling for the next stage in the process should be done real-time, if possible.

However, when it comes to trying to determine if an individual has the right knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform well in the role, saving a few extra minutes will hurt significantly in the long run. Using a longer assessment to make the correct hiring decision will certainly be a better solution than using a shorter assessment to potentially make a poor decision.

So, why do companies want shorter assessments? A common fear that we hear is that individuals will not complete the whole assessment and they will opt out of the process. Interestingly, after being in this business for twenty-five years, our experience is that whether the assessment is 20 minutes or 2 hours, once the individual begins the assessment they are likely to finish it (roughly 99% of candidates finish). Consequently, the real question is, would you rather have sufficient measurement to know you are making an appropriate hiring decision or would you rather have that 1% of people who were not interested enough to take a 1 hour assessment?

I suggest making an investment in knowing your candidates and you will reap the “best interest”. For more information on assessments, CLICK HERE, where you will find a full complement of assessments for your hiring, development, and retention needs.