Text Box: While it’s possible my Grandpa’s memory is playing tricks on him, employers are confirming that some of the things Grandpa says about “the way things were” are true — and important. For example, Grandpa said that a long time ago people just expected to show up for work, on time, every day. But today? Eric Durr, writing in the Albany (N.Y.) Business Review, says, “Finding people who show up on time for work is a problem that has been getting worse for New York’s manufacturers.” He quotes a Federal Reserve Bank survey of employers, indicating nearly one-fourth of those responding described their top concern as “finding workers who were punctual and reliable.” A manufacturer of complex machinery, when discussing this issue, indicated their cost accounting process had identified another hidden cost of absenteeism and its little brother, tardiness: When the person who was supposed to be performing a specific task was gone and replaced by someone else, the average cost of the process itself increased by an average of 23 percent. That’s not too surprising. They also found the cost of warranty claims Text Box: Basic Behaviors in Short Supply: Showing Up, Working Hard...Opinion by John W. Howard Text Box: As the job market tightens, approaching some theoretical low limit in certain areas of the country, the challenge of being selective grows. As it becomes more difficult, the importance also grows. Consider the competitive edge you can acquire if you are selectively hiring only the best of the available crop because you (and not your competition) know who they are, through the use of assessments! —Editor Text Box: attributable to the process increased by about the same amount, 25 percent. (Not surprising either.) The revelation, though, came when their figures showed the process cost and the warranty cost of the nearest upstream process on the line and the nearest downstream process both increased by about half that number, 11 percent … and the next stage upstream and downstream also increased, by about 7 percent! This “ripple effect” in a production environment means for every minute a worker is not doing the job assigned to him or her, for whatever reason, the cost of the production process in their care increases by a net amount approaching 100 percent! Not many manufacturers in our competitive world can graciously accept a 100 percent increase in costs of production processes, so it is not surprising that the problem of absenteeism/tardiness looms large in manufacturers’ concerns. If the perceived value of “showing up on time” leads the work values declining over the past two generations, “working hard” must be close behind. In our own surveys of employers attending our seminars on hiring and retention, Text Box: leading concerns have been “finding enough good people who will show up when scheduled and work hard when they are at work.” In addition to the production costs discussed earlier, lack of reliability and work ethic dramatically increases hiring costs when those factors are not measured in the hiring process. In Durr’s article, he quotes a manufacturer of furniture: “When we go to new hires, we may hire five people to get one good person.” Presumably, the other four go through hiring, training, failing to live up to expectations, termination and possibly unemployment...a very costly process indeed, to get “one good worker.” Now obviously, not every worker who has entered the job market in the last 10 years suffers from lack of these values, or we would not be finding even that one in five. To find enough good workers, an employer’s task is difficult but not impossible, and the payoffs are substantial: Expand your recruitment pool, so you have enough applicants to be selective: Use a valid and reliable assessment to predict reliability and work ethic; avoid hiring those who are unlikely to work out on those dimensions; and work to keep those good people you do hire. Text Box: In this issue: Basic work behaviors Background checks are up “Our assessment program isn’t working…” “and it won’t unless…” Quote: Motion and progress—Montapert

Volume 3, Issue  11

Edited by John W. Howard, Ph.D.                                                              Annual Subscription Rate  $ 36.00

 ©2006, Performance Resources, LLC,  and Profiles International

More Employers Are Checking Backgrounds

ADP reports that for 2005, employer background checks increased by 12 percent. According to their figures, 49 percent of the checks showed a “data inconsistency” in education, employment or credentials, compared to information provided by the applicants. Five percent of the criminal record checks showed criminal records in the last seven years, and 24 percent showed one or more driving violations.
Text Box: “Designing and implementing an assessment program is a process, not a single action. Constant review, continuing measurement and an open mind are the hallmarks…”

Volume 3, Issue 11

been hired in spite of their scores being below the required criterion level! Hiring managers, under tremendous pressure to “fill the seats,” had been bypassing the system in a variety of ways, and the result was apparent in the failure statistics.

The company reviewed and modified the process, making it nearly impossible for any hiring manager to bypass the system, and simultaneously provided additional training on the system, its logic and its proven track record. The increased buy-in of the hiring managers, combined with the process modifications, has already begun to noticeably reduce the hire failures, and early data analysis indicates this new call center, like the others, is likely to reach the company’s standards for retention and
productivity.

 

 

·