I just read, for exceptionally boring reasons, a paper about the fact that hiring managers and HR reps don’t know the research and facts about their job.
For example, most of those surveyed believed the following, apparently incorrect, things:
1. Giving employees a bigger say in decision-making leads to better performance than giving them clear goals to achieve.
2. On average, conscientiousness predicts job performance better than intelligence.
3. Higher intelligence is a negative factor when the job requires little or no skill.
There were a lot more, but these three are pretty good examples. These are basic things that managers (and especially HR people) should know.
The researchers who wrote the paper were trying to figure out why companies routinely ignore the data. Was it because the managers didn’t know the research, or that they weren’t able to put the research into action for some reason? In the end, they determined that it’s the former.
By the way, the number one predictor for high performance: Intelligence. And it’s never a negative factor, whether the job is grave digger or CEO.
By the way again, drug testing actually seems to be worth something. A quote:
Norman et al. (1990) drug tested more than 4,000 applicants and then followed them through more than 1 year of employment. Those who tested positive had a 59% higher absenteeism rate and a 47% higher involuntary turnover rate. Parish (1989) found significant results for disciplinary actions, and Winkler & Sheridan(1989) for vehicular accidents, absenteeism, and medical costs. See also McDaniel et al. (1988).
Hmmm, interesting that the data shows that managers and HR reps believe these statements. 1- I totally disagree. Employees can’t perform well if they don’t know what “well” looks like. 2- I’m not sure how I would have answered this one. Intelligence seems to be a pretty good indicator of performance, but I’d want a conscientious employee too. I think number 3 sounds ridiculous. Of course higher intelligence is a positive thing regardless of the job. Seems to me that a manager or HR person who thinks otherwise is insecure themselves.
I think the point is simply that conscientiousness is not as good a predictor of job performance as intelligence. Not to say it’s not a good thing.
On a numerical scale, it correlates to performance less. Conscientiousness is .31, whereas intelligence is the highest factor, at .51.
Of course, I can’t vouch for the studies, but if you believe the studies and are hiring for performance, then there ya go.