“Having the most talented people in each of our businesses is the most important thing. If we don’t, we lose.” 

— Jack Welch while CEO of GE

“If you don’t invest the time to do it correctly today, you will spend more time and money in repairing mistakes tomorrow.” 

— Don Paullin

Would you describe your employees as Google-y, Apple-ish, or Microsoft-esque? In other words, what do you know about the personalities that drive performance in your workplace? Studies on personality assessments as predictors of job performance consistently demonstrate their merit, confirming a significant improvement in job match when a personality assessment is administered. 

Companies that invest in personality testing are some of the most successful in the world. One Internet search giant, for example, tests for “Googliness” through a battery of 300 questions. Despite the proven success of personality tests, many hiring protocols still do not include them.

Do you ever ask yourself, what are the ideal traits for your company or for a particular job?

A typical hiring process goes something like this: The company writes a vague job description, applicants respond, screening takes place (usually by someone with little or no training in how to do it and with no pre-scripted questions), in-person interviews are conducted, and the firm hires an applicant. The trouble is, the applicant has about a 50 percent chance of being a great hire.

A better hiring process goes something like this:

1. A desired personality is crafted using a personality assessment. If possible, successful employees in the same position are assessed, and the benchmark is created using their results.

2. A clear job description is written and includes the skills and competencies required.

3. Resumes and applications are screened.

4. Careful recruiting begins with meticulous attention to the desired competencies, skills, and personality traits required.

5. Telephone screening is done using carefully scripted interview protocols designed for the position.

6. Applicants chosen for interviewing are asked to complete a personality profile to see how they will fit with the culture of the company and the position.

7. Profiles are scored and applicants are scheduled for interviews.

8. At least two interviewers are involved, and sometimes a panel of interviewers is used.

9. Components of the interview include:

a. introductions and rapport building;

b. a careful résumé review, which means looking carefully at education and job history using a structured interview protocol carried out by well-trained interviewers;

c. areview of the personality profile to verify its accuracy and deepen understanding of the applicant’s strengths and weaknesses, and to see how close they come to the profiles of people who are currently successful in the position; and

d. discussion with the candidates about the job and any questions they might have.

10. The final team meeting to choose the best candidate takes place. Further interviewing might be required to clear-up any questions or concerns.

11. Carefully scripted reference interviews are conducted.

12. An applicant is hired.

13. The applicant has about an 80 percent to 90 percent chance of being a great hire.

Overrule the results of the profile at your own risk.

It is more common than not after a new hire does not perform well that the hiring team looks back and sees things that it missed or
ignored in the profile. 

Example: John was the lead candidate for a VP of sales position with a salary of $130,000 plus bonuses. He had good experience (verified) as a salesperson and some experience as a sales manager (not well verified). Nonetheless, he made it through the screening steps and reached me for a final review of his personality profile. 

He did not quite fit the well-designed benchmark we created for a sales manager, but did fit a sales-only benchmark. Specifically,
he came out as relatively impatient, not attentive enough to analytic thinking, not very detailed, and pretty poor at managing his time and priorities — traits often found in salespeople but usually derailing characteristics in a sales manager. Here was one of the cautionary notes in his profile report: “May not pick up on other employees’ moods, wants, or needs; may not be patient with others or tasks; may tend to procrastinate; may not follow through with paperwork.”

This sales-recruit’s personality match was only 70 percent for the success benchmark we used. However, the team loved him and was anxious to fill the position and move on. John was the best candidate the company had, and it chose to hire him rather than continue the search. Within four months, it was clear that the profile (and interview verification) was correct. He was simply the wrong hire, and our coaching was not enough to compensate — not all salespeople make good sales managers. We threw away a ton of money, made the hiring team look bad, demoralized the sales team, and John had to look for another job; all because we did not pay attention to our well-devised protocol. 

It is almost always a bad move to settle for a mediocre fit. You would not choose a spouse based on “so-so” compatibility, nor should you choose an employee, with whom you may work for decades, based on a so-so fit. Everything you do should be to get the best possible hire for each and every position.

Thomas Walsh, Ph.D. is president of Grenell Consulting Group, a regional firm specializing in maximizing the performance of closely held organizations and their key contributors. Email Walsh at tcwalshphd@grenell.com

Everybody hates Congress and its work. And, its sleazy, out-of-touch, and corrupt politicians. 

Here is a remedy: increase the size of Congress— dramatically. Both houses.

You know the politicians are out of touch. They treat themselves as royalty. Most are millionaires. Most know only politics their entire careers. Their votes are bought by big money from special interests. They need that money because their campaigns are so costly.

The problem is that our members of Congress represent too many people. The solution is to enlarge the Congress.

Our founders called for one representative for 30,000 Americans. Accordingly, we added more members to our House of Representatives at various times as our population grew. Congress halted that in the early 1900s. It froze the House at 435 seats. Today, the members represent an average of 700,000 people each. This is not very democratic. In fact, our Congress is the least democratic of all major nations. And, it shows.

If we had one member for 50,000 people, we would have 6,000 members. You may think that large number would never work. Ah, but you may be peering through lenses created by what we are accustomed to seeing.

First, we would not have to house theses representatives in one building. We could hook them up electronically from their district. And, keeping them in their district would probably be a good thing. Less power and influence would be focused in Washington, DC.

Campaigns in districts of only 50,000 would be relatively inexpensive. That alone would suck a lot of the big money out of politics. Members would not be so desperate for campaign funds. So they would be less vulnerable to pressures from big money from special interests.

Meanwhile, the special interests would find it far more difficult and costly to buy so many members.

People without money would find it easier to run for office in such small districts. We would get more average folks into Congress and fewer lifetime pols. Diverse points of view and minorities would get more representation. And, the representation would be better tailored to the districts. Agricultural areas and blue-collar areas, for instance, would get better representation than they do now.

Government would probably grow smaller. This is because the majority of Americans want less government, less government spending. They would have far more influence and control over their representatives if districts had only 50,000 voters.

Enlarging the Senate to, say, 500 seats, would dethrone a lot of royalty. Senators wield so much power because they represent far more people than they should. Only two senators from California represent 12 percent of America’s population. Eight senators from four states represent one-third of all Americans. That is far too great a concentration of power. It is way beyond what our founders envisioned. It is way beyond what’s called for by common sense.

You can read more about this idea at the website Thirty-Thousand.org. I encourage you to read and think about it. There is a good chance you will see it would sensibly deal with the issues that have made our Congress about as popular as leprosy. 

From Tom…as in Morgan.   

Tom Morgan writes about financial and other subjects from his home near Oneonta, in addition to his radio shows and new TV show. For more information about him, visit his website at www.tomasinmorgan.com