In the current jobs climate candidates are more likely to lie?

With The UK struggling through recession there are 2.46m people searching for employment at the moment. With 7.8% of the UK work force out of a job there is stiff competition for each and every vacancy, today’s job seekers are more likely to become risk-takers, fuelled by the desperation to secure that all-important role at whatever cost.

Research shows almost a quarter of potential job seekers (24pc) are prepared to stretch the truth to secure a job in this tough economic climate. Many candidates feel they have no choice but to bend the facts to keep up with fellow candidates who they believe will be exaggerating skills and qualifications on their CVs and in interviews.

While this should come as a warning to recruiters, this revelation from candidates is not surprising. People cheat in all walks of life and as long as they think what’s on offer is worth it in comparison with the risks, it is likely they always will.

Cheating is a global issue and recruiters are facing new challenges for which most are simply not prepared. Many are being inundated by applications so the process of sifting through to find the best people is becoming far more difficult and as the research figures show, relying on CVs and interviews to hire the right people is no longer enough.

But what can recruiters do? One way to save time sifting through applications and decrease the chance of cheating is through the use of online assessments. All Psychometric assessments claim to create a level playing field for all candidates and ensure all job seekers have an equal and honest chance to shine, but with a proliferation of books available helping candidates to ‘make themselves more employable’ how do you know your test is not being cheated?

One great litmus test is to see if the questionnaire requires the respondent to answer questions about themselves or to describe their own actions in given situations, as noted recent research shows 24 % of people will stretch the truth or get assistance from books written specifically to manipulate these types of test. Even unknowingly are you ever totally objective when answering questions about yourself, or like most of us, a bit biased and subjective?

So is there an alternative? With the Axia Profile you are never asked to describe yourself, you are never asked to describe what you would or might do given a set of circumstances, and you are never asked what others might expect you to do – this double subjectivity used in psychometric tests is supposedly a way of getting you to describe what you are really like. In fact there are no questions at in the Axia Profile, there are two sets of 18 statements and you simply rank them from best to worst. The Axia profile is not subjective, you are not asked to describe yourself or how you would perform. You are actually performing a task, making a totally objective measurement, and with over 6 quadrillion ways that you can order each set of 18 statements it is incredibly detailed and accurate. For more information on how the Axia Profile will improve your hiring decisions

Developing the Right Environment for Success

In the post-Credit Crunch world, no sector is going to have to adjust more to the fiscal challenges to come than Defence. With Government procurement programmes facing their greatest challenges yet, he reality for many is that the status quo is no longer an option – at AxiaMetrics we are working with experienced firm s in the sector by using the Axia Profile as to identify the ‘people issues’ which hold organisations back. This is part of a suite of services jointly established to offer procurement teams a suite of proven tools, skills and resources to help organisations – large or small, Government or industry – to work at the peak of their effectiveness and efficiency.

In the current environment, firms may feel beleaguered, but they have to ask themselves the following question, “What stops success”?

Below are things that we hear day in, day out which stop firms achieving the desired results:-

“There is no real vision and no strong, clear leadership.”

“The customer isn’t clear about what he wants, or indeed what we need to know, in order to be able to help.”

“We’ve measured everything that you can measure, but we don’t have the right skills and resources to address the evidence.”

“Relationships are not good, there is little trust and as a result, behaviours are not constructive.”

“Dialogue! What dialogue? Communications are none existent.”

If any of these statements apply, progress is often slow, excessive staff turnover and cost overrun can be at epidemic proportions.

AxiaMetrics together with its key partners – Christopher Lewis Associates, Digital Meeting and Precision Leadership offer an end to end solution to provide procurement teams with a range of services that help build relationships, confidence and communication. This includes the development of bid and delivery teams, plus the provision of the best collaborative working environments for successful defence projects and programmes.

Through implementation of the right skills, tools and resources on the soft issues, the right environment for success is created – it’s about going beyond commercial agreements, process, governance and above all, measurement. Through delivering the right culture, attitudes, behaviours, leadership and communication, goals are understood and achieved. It’s about creating a sense of shared ownership aided through timely, transparent information; it’s about the individual and team and psychological contract providing the ability and agility to sustain the right environment through the life of the contract.

With proven success in delivering sustainable improvement throughout the supply chain, our specialist skills will help procurement teams identify where and what critical issues need to be addressed, when they need to be addressed and will deliver the appropriate solutions.

Did you know that in the 1950‘s—in an effort to determine whether soldiers were mentally fit to handle deadly weapons—psychometric testing was created by the U.S. Military? (Actually, a more accurate term would be ‘pathology’ tests).

In the years that followed, a few enterprising entrepreneurs decided these pathology tests (with minor adjustments) could provide them with valuable insights into how people work together to bring about common business goals. After fifty years of testing, we now know the level of accuracy of these tests. We know where they are helpful and where they fall short.

How can you know if the assessment you are using measures up? This Blog provides you with the first of 11 questions you should ask to determine what tool you should use in your recruitment process and to determine the true accuracy.

1: What ‘norm’ are your job candidates being compared to?

Most assessments measure personality and behaviour.

Here’s the simple version of how personality and behaviour based tests are created. As you will see, created is the key word here.

These profiles are created by psychologists who observe the behaviour of a particular group of people. They then create questions designed to show where a person scores in relation to the observed ‘norm’ of that group. In other words, their goal is to match the questions they’ve created to fit the ‘norm’ they are creating.

Every assessment tool in the market place is “culture” driven. When an assessment tool is to be taken in a different culture, they must, again, find the standard of measure, or ‘norm’, for that culture. While this process has some value, there is a massive element of subjective bias involved. Clearly, these tools are affected by many factors including the geography, culture, income, age or gender that group of individuals.

Just know this … subjective bias significantly lowers the accuracy of these tests. Perhaps this is why – after 70 years of trial and error in the hiring process, research clearly shows that typical assessment tools are just not accurate.

Business leaders find it difficult if not impossible to trust the typical hiring assessment. Have you found this to be true for you?

There is a better way…

In the years before the outbreak of the Second World War an amazingly accurate way to measure performance in people was discovered by Robert S. Hartman. He was nominated for a Nobel Prize for his research in 1973. His approach was NOT based on simply observing behaviour or personality.

Hartman’s theory was that we all think and make decisions in the same way—that there are three core decision making dimensions. He called this, “The Structure of Thought.” Hartman spent the next 40 years of his life proving his theory scientifically (not the few few days or hours some take to establish a new norm!).

He proved his theory with a totally objective mathematical formula. This formula measures how people think and how they make decisions.

This was a major discovery because unlike “subjective norms” that come as a result of observing behaviour and personality, Hartman discovered that the structure of thought has it’s own norm. This norm is the same for people all over the world – regardless of culture, geography, income, age, gender, or other factors. We all have the same structure of thought.

Hartman didn’t create subjective norms. His science validation confirms a norm—an objective norm that already exists in all of us. That’s extremely important because when the measurement is totally objective—you can trust it’s accuracy!

The Axia profile scientifically measures how you think and how you make a decision—what Hartman called your ‘structure of thought’. It directly measures skills, competencies, attitudes, talent, whether or not you are accessing your talent, and much more. The Axia profile will quickly identify precisely who will and will not perform in your company with greater accuracy than other human metrics systems.

A growing list of top business leaders are using our system to make more accurate selection decisions and significantly improve business results.

Not my words, but those of Bertrand Russell! He summed up in one sentence what many of us know to be very true, a phenomenon that causes endless problems when interviewing for new staff as the more able candidate is less likely to be as confident or push their abilities compared to the less able who may come across better and more confident at interview.

This has been scientifically proven and is now known as the Dunning–Kruger effect. It is a cognitive bias in which “people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it”.

The less competent therefore suffer from ‘Illusory superiority’, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than in actuality; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from ‘illusory inferiority’. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. “Thus, the mis-calibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the mis-calibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.

So if you can not rely on past performance, interview testing or educational background to assess skills competencies what can you rely on. The smart money has completed framework assessment to define the required skills competencies required for each role in their organization. Despite much work to enable them to define competency the difficulty is that many of the required competencies are softer skills that are harder to define and measure.

The Axia Profile competency modeling process helps organisations develop a framework competency. For larger organisations and teams this can be created on a bespoke basis clearly identifying the competencies of elite performers that are missing in the less productive team members. For smaller teams and organisations our generic reports have been developed over many years and already specify the key competencies for general roles such as management competencies and sales competencies. Using the Axia profile not only identifies these competencies but provides a measure of your existing team and a benchmark for all new potential hires.

So to find the most cost effective route to developing your own framework competency and avoid being the victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect at interview contact AxiaMetrics today