Using Behavioral Assessments to Hire Great Talent

And , um, during that time, there were kind of two problems that I saw that were consistent in people being disengaged , um, or, you know, really kind of poor hiring. And it came down to they didn't have hiring processes that, you know, produced , uh, the right hire, getting people in the right seats and even evolving them as they were with the company or the leadership was ineffective.

It's a great story because you haven't always been with Predictive Index, but we're here today of course to talk specifically about assessment tools and the tool that you are very, you have a lot of deep expertise in Predictive Index. So can you share what, for those of, for those in the audience who have not heard of Predictive Index, can you share what Predictive Index actually is?

The IP for the Predictive Index behavioral assessment is still intact, and that's key to understand about what you're using is in , is the IP still intact and what's the validity in science behind it? Um, so the behavioral assessment is still part of the Predictive Index, but Predictive Index is now a software that sits in the platform of talent optimization.

So the behavioral survey, which is called the Predictive Index, is one small component of the predictive index software.

So why is it, why would you, you know, for our audience, why is it so important for companies to have a , regardless of size, why is it so important for companies to have a tool like a predictive index, some sort of an assessment tool like the one that you're , you're , uh, work you work with now?

So why you need some type of objective data in the hiring process is to remove that bias of people that are like me or people that interview well, and really first thinking about what does the role require objectively?

And if you're using Predictive Index or something like it that does have the ability to be used for hiring, then you are comparing a baseline of what you said 80% of this role requires versus what does this person primarily want to do. Okay . So having the ability to bifurcate the human sitting in front of you from what they actually need.

And when we think about their needs, how do those needs align to the demands of the role? Because if they don't align, then we're setting that person up for, you know, a very unpleasant experience, potentially. Now, not to say we don't hire someone because they're not an exact match. You and I, I'm sure we'll get into that. Mm-Hmm.

So there's over 800 psychometrics out there, doesn't have to be predictive index, but you do wanna make sure if you're using it for both hiring and development, that it has been validated by the EEOC for hiring, and that there is a , um, construct guide that gives you insights into the validity studies that have been performed and the reliability.

But , um, how would you say, so, so PI Predictive Index, when you're looking at it , uh, another assessment tool, but when you look at that, how, you know, when you're looking at saying, let's say that's a great tool to have as a, as a solid HR strategy, some sort of an assessment, a behavioral assessment tool for, for organizations, especially around hiring.

And I know there's other things which will get into , um, beyond just the hiring facet, but what percentage of that is, what percentage of that would you say from an assessment perspective, what percentage of that is considered an overall really a good HR strategy when you're looking at predictive index assessment tools? What component is it 10%, 30%? What, what is, what are your opinions there?

You know, is it important? Do we have enough employees that it's critical to us every time we hire to get people in the right seats? If it is, well, a behavioral assessment probably should be 50% of your hiring decision. The other 50% comes from, you know, behavioral based questions, questions aligned to your core values , um, you know, and just what you're experiencing with that person. Right.

And then within retention, when you're thinking about a talent strategy and productivity, you know , is it important to us as a company that people here feel like we know who they are as individuals and that we're tapping into potential and that we're creating future opportunities for them, even if it's not upward to have growth laterally.

If that's part of a talent strategy, then again, you should have some type of behavioral data to create a language around that. And I don't know how to put a percentage in it, because it really depends on, as an organization, when you think about your talent strategy, who do you wanna be? How do you wanna stand out and what do you wanna invest in around your people?

So kind of on that note, my next question I wanted to ask you, so understanding that of course it's a critical component, something like Predictive Index would be a critical component in the hiring phase and in the recruiting cycle for , uh, for an organization.

How else can an organization use, what are the strategies are there to use Predictive Index that other, you know, that you recommend and that other companies deploy that you work with?

So if all you're wanting is a flat report that when you're hiring and these exist, that tells you yes or no. Or if I filled in these competencies here and it spit out a report that says X percent fit here, X percent here might not do this, might not do that, then PI is not the one for you. Because PI is not a yes or no .

It's behavioral data to understand alignment, but it doesn't tell you yes or no, don't hire this person. So some ways to make it more strategic would be, okay , when I'm looking at this person, the PI is telling me what behaviorally drives them that creates their needs. And behavioral science says those things are fixed when we hit our early twenties. So I've really, that's really important to know.

But in hiring them, I need to look at their heart, their cultural fit, I need to look at their briefcase, like what they bring to the table and skills and experience.

And if I'm hiring, let's say for the briefcase in the head that I know, sorry, the briefcase in the heart, okay , the culture fit and the skills, but I have the data to know there's some gaps in how they want to operate versus what I need this role to do.

Then in the onboarding, we can set guardrails and we can create clarity for both the hiring manager and the person coming on board of where there may be some differences in how this person operates from some of what the job requires. And there's clarity on what are we gonna do to support them to get them , um, productive. And for the hiring manager to have clarity of this is where I may need to monitor some things.

This is where in the first 90 days I may need to stay closer to this person. Okay. That's one way. The second way would be you're giving that new employee and their onboarding the direct leaders behavioral data.

And if you're using KI it has a relationship guide between the two people where they can see right away where they overlap and where they have differences in how they want to communicate, how they need information, how they take action. So it can prevent a lot of what we call operating friction. Okay .

As time goes on, if you're using it for development and retention, you train, and this is where I think so many things fall flat, the middle managers in a shorter actionable way, how to use that data for more than a parlor trick. That's me. That's me. Yeah. Right , right . , no , you train them in short sessions to ask coaching questions with the reports you can pull out of the PI talent optimization platform.

So it's questions that are directed on, you know, how do I, you know, when you have the employee sit down with you, what about who you are supports you in your role? And what about who you are presents roadblocks for you or challenges you?

And so now you're putting the ownership, you're training the leaders how to ask these questions with short reports, and you're putting some ownership on the employee for their own development. Okay. So that's where it can be more sophisticated. 'cause PI is designed to be holistic, going from cradle to grave. So hiring, onboarding, development, retention ultimately is a byproduct of these things. Right,

So you mentioned something earlier, I wanted to go back to that really quickly before we take a short break. But , um, you mentioned the, the factor about fit and about how, you know, because I know that some, there, there are some things that I've seen in my years of experience in human resources that sometimes, you know, people are looking for the exact match for a job profile or fit.

What , what is your opinion when you look at predictive index and how you utilize that within your clients around fit?

It's if we have a role that needs someone who's driven by their own energy to get the work done that needs very little information to operate, and we hire someone the inverse of that, that needs a lot of information to move forward, more interested in being part of something versus driving it, that's where it's very difficult for that person. If we go against that for correlation to have long-term success. Okay .

Everything else you look at, it's more understanding that if I hire someone outside of these other areas, it measures , um, it may take them longer to be productive, they may not be as productive as time goes on. But again, I'm gonna go back to the heart and the briefcase. We're in a limited talent market and it depends on the stakes in the organization and the speed they have to train someone. Mm-Hmm .

and what they're willing to live with Mark.

HR Catalyst was founded in 2013 with the goal of bringing the best in class HR practices to small and middle market companies. We are your outsourced strategic people experts. We help you solve the people issues in your business that are slowing you down. If you have HR concerns, you can schedule a complimentary call on our [email protected].

So middle market , let's define that as companies of 500 people or less.

Um, if they are using something, it typically is being used no matter what it is at , during an interview, 15 minutes max before the person shows up looking at the report, not really sure how to use it in the interview, more confused by it than anything else.

Or I see the opposite where they use it as a cut score and I'm only gonna look at someone with X. And so it's mostly one way or the other, kind of like this nebulous, like we put this in place to get more clarity, but we didn't really figure out how to use it. And I'm not saying predictive index, I'm saying any kind of hiring kind of assessment.

Uh , I think one of the biggest issues is a lot of times people get trained that probably weren't the right person to train. Uh, they leave the company, no one else picks it up. Um, the CEO wasn't as bought into it as they should have been, and they don't put accountability around usage of it. So there's a lot of reasons that something is put in place like this that it may not become sticky.

But they have to understand what is this doing within our talent strategy and holding whoever gets trained in using it accountable. Okay . Now if you wanna take it past hiring and your goal is to make it truly optimizing your talent, the third thing you have to do is educate your people leaders and how to apply it to get insights with their people, not by training them in some two-day session.

'cause those people don't have time for that. So how we've been able to do that with clients is shorter sessions that are in spaced learning where they get simple homework of how to take PI and ask the right questions of their direct reports with it to transfer really kind of ownership and accountability of their development to them, the employee asking for it.

So that's, if the goal is to optimize talent, mark, not every mid-market company's goal is to optimize talent. I would love to say that would be their goal . True . But you and I know that's not always the case,

So it's that , that is exactly, and , and it , it , it sounds, it's sad in a way, but it's true because in some companies, especially some that perhaps they have a , I don't know , I'll just, I'll just pick on if they have a large blue collar hourly workforce, they may just be looking for doers versus somebody else who may be in a professional services a much , uh, a different level of employee base.

So it's , um, but it is a , it's kind of a true thing there.

So what would you say is to, you know , mentioned it earlier, but I'll just have you see if there's, you have any other thoughts on it, but what could derail, what could derail an assessment tool like Predictive Index once it , you know, there's a lot of ex energy and passion about getting it started and then 6, 12, 24 months later, you just find there's, there's little to no utilization within , uh, using such a

powerful tool.

What I find is most companies that have large blue collar workforces, but don't have, let's say at least we're gonna go 25 professionals , um, they may not be the best fit for something like this because most of them hesitate to use it on the blue collar workers, which I'm , I don't necessarily agree with, but they don't wanna put the energy there. Okay .

They need to have enough professional staff that they're going to put the work into integrating predictive index to their culture, their vernacular, the way that they're evaluating talent, not only at the entry point, but also as they evolve through the organization. So , um, you had asked me what the best ways to use it or the pitfalls, I just started talking and forgot that part.

So as far as pitfalls, you know, I go back to , um, training one person that's already overwhelmed and sending them to a two day training and expecting them to come out of that and have time to practice using this to get insights. That has been probably the biggest pitfall I've seen. Okay . Number two, if you don't have someone that wants to own this, that's not gonna work.

We will not work with a company that can't give us someone that we've had a conversation with to understand their interest in putting the time into getting this going. Okay .

The number three pitfall would be a lot of times they have immediate critical issues to solve and they think, oh, we'll send someone to the two-day training and they'll come out and be able to do everything by themselves and still do their full-time job. That doesn't work. And then there's disappointment.

And so that's where we've found in the mid-market, what has worked best is you have one or two people, depending on the size of the company that are those PI champions initially that go through the two day training, but then you train in shorter sessions your people leaders, how to utilize the instrument so that they are using it themselves in interviewing, they're using it themselves in development.

That's where it becomes, you know, really part of the fabric of an organization and it becomes viral.

with intention you can put around them to get them to the next level? Okay. So that would be one reason , um, obvious. Another reason would be if you've had attrition and you don't have any data to look back and say, what are the commonalities of why people are leaving this organization? Or, you know, if we're having people, even we say some industries are like, oh, we we have a lot of attrition.

Well, when you look at your average time where they, you know, are not no longer with your organization, how does that compare to your peers? Because if it's a shorter period of time, there's probably something you should be doing more intentionally on the front end to better understand that.

And, you know, even if you're gonna have attrition, you get more productivity while they're there and you avoid the people that suck all of everyone's lives. Right. Right,

And by the time it gets down to the first line , nothing's really getting done in a way that feels productive.

Hopefully they have especially learned a lot about, about the, the tool itself, the , the rationale behind it. So , uh, I definitely appreciate your time. So we're gonna, we're gonna finish up and have a little bit of fun to finish up and just , uh, and give you a couple of things to just, and hopefully you've noodled over them a little bit perhaps, but maybe not.

But what would you say are three books, if you were gonna recommend three books to somebody who just graduated , um, who just graduated college and say, these are three books that are really insightful, or something along those lines . What, what three books would you recommend to them?

And it's a great starting point in his work of really understanding holistically how businesses can be healthy. I guess if you were coming out of school, the first book of his that could still be very beneficial would be the effective team player.

Um , because that very much could be how you think about what the organization might value in some of your kind of attitude and how you approach things, which is all you have when you're a new grad. Right. And then the third one, and this is very applicable to a new grad. Um, I absolutely love Adam Grant and his book that I have enjoyed the most and apply it to my whole life is Give and Take. Mm-Hmm .

So Give and Take by Adam Grant. It's the science and research behind matchers givers and takers .

And then , um, I absolutely love that Adam Grant on his podcast, which is Rethink. He brings on guests that are super interesting and, you know, really crossover in lots of other areas. Um, the other one I listened to quite a bit that I do have put in there is Greg McKeen , who wrote , um, effortless. Okay .