Proving value
1. Direct Financial Return. If high performance in an assessment is shown to correlate well with some financial outcome, this will be a persuasive argument for most stakeholders. Ways of measuring this include:
> Measurable financial outcomes (e.g. increased value of sales made since the new call centre assessment process was introduced) can be persuasive. For roles with a less tangible link to financial outcomes, then there is a statistical technique known as the ‘utility equation’ that excites academics (but yet often fails to convince in the real world).
> Emma Rees, ex-Global Talent Manager at Tate & Lyle, favours working out the cash value of efficiencies introduced: for example, time saved (e.g. if a new automated tool saves 20 days of recruiter’s time, work out what this means in salary terms) or reduced materials / venue cost by moving assessments online.
> Calculate the recruitment and on boarding costs saved over the course of a year by improving employee retention.
If you
are trying to sell-in the concept before introducing a new process, there is a wealth of both academic and practitioner research that demonstrates this link: simply find one from a similar enough context to your own.
• The candidate themselves • The hiring manager / recruiter • The candidate’s future colleagues / customers (internal or external) • The organisation.
Ways of proving value To help you measure the value of an assessment process within your organisation, here are eight methods to consider:
2. Improved Job Performance. This method looks at whether an assessment accurately predicts how someone is going to behave and apply their skills once in the role. This will be particularly convincing for Hiring Managers, and a simple of way of proving this is to ask Hiring Managers if they feel they know more about the candidates since the new assessment has been introduced.
Ways of measuring this include comparing the average job performance level before and after a new assessment process is introduced; or by correlating assessment scores with job performance scores and judging the strength of the relationship (called ‘validation’).
If high
performance in an assessment is shown to correlate well with some financial outcome, this will be a persuasive argument for most stakeholders…
The key here is to establish job performance measures. ‘Hard’ criteria include things like rate of production (speed of work / amount of work done) and rejection rate for work produced (quality). ‘Soft criteria’ could include aspects such as manager performance appraisal ratings or client feedback surveys.
If you are trying to sell-in the concept before introducing a new process, there is a wealth of both academic and practitioner research that demonstrates this link: simply find one from a similar enough context to your own. A good place to start is the 2001 meta-analysis study by Smith and Robertson from UMIST for academic proof of validity. Business Psychologist Justin McNamara, ex-BT and Network Rail, likes to share examples of where similar clients have achieved positive results – obtained either from his past experience or from reviewing places such as the Graduate Recruiter magazine or HR Consultancy websites for case studies.
3. More Efficient Process. If an assessment tool allows recruitment to move at a faster pace, with a lower resource requirements, this will be music to the ears of most recruiters. This could also give an organisation a competitive edge in the war for talent, by being quicker to move to offer. This can be predicted prior to an assessment being introduced or measured post-introduction by measuring things like total elapsed time or number of hours taken before and after. >>>
www.agr.org.uk | Graduate Recruiter 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40