We have been using psychometric reports, reference checking and behavioural interviewing tools for screening candidates for over 15 years.

In many instances they were INCONCLUSIVE.
One of the most common issues is the Recruiter or the hiring manager wanting to hear what they want.

We have also found that a good Production Check gives a better success rate than all the other methods we use.

Behavioural Interviewing, like Production Checking, works on the principle that “past performance in a similar setting is the best predictor of future performance.”
Behavioural Interviewing asks for SPECIFIC examples of how the candidate solved a challenge.
Typical Behavioural Interviewing questions are “Describe a recent unpopular decision you made and what the result was” or “Tell me about a situation when you had to speak up in order to get a point across that was important to you”.

Production Checks evaluate the candidates’ ability to PRODUCE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
A Production Check asks “what did you produce?”, “In what time frame?” and “who can verify?”
The interviewer should then apply a comparison of what is a reasonable to be expected in that role in the market at the time.

Ideally all four methods should be employed.
So far we have been involved in placing over 1700 candidates using the production check as the litmus test.
Only 11 did not pass probation.

What are your thoughts?

I asked him about his experiences with sourcing staff via referrals from internal staff. His feedback related to his experience in hiring unskilled labour for the production line.

He stated that it worked well for some business cultures, especially the cultures that promote achievement and excellence. However, for low level roles in his experience it can create a “jobs for family members” culture.  Stephan also stated that hiring staff only from internal referals can quickly lead to only hiring staff from certain nationalities.

The pros are that everyone understands what is going on faster; the cons are that change management is extremely hard as the supervisor pushes back and the team backs the supervisor instead of management. It also leads to favoritism for overtime and rewards.

He had found that when there was a disturbance in the workplace the team would clamp mouths shut and refuse to comment on the situation. When the problem did get aired it became a “he said she said” debate instead of a useful resolution.

What is your experience on this?