Client Login - Login Here!

For A Guided
Tour Call
Eric Samuelson

Call Eric

804.798.3355

Leading to Greatly Improved Hiring Accuracy

  1. Take the application

  2. Conduct the screening interview (see separate sheet)

  3. Check the resume, call the previous employer and ask this question just prior to hanging up, “John, if anything else comes to my attention, would it be okay if I call you back?”

  4. Conduct the assessment on your candidate

  5. Call the references back and say, “Something did come to our attention and I’d like to ask you a follow-up question.” Then, ask about the negative behaviors which are predicted by the Concern and the Caution scores. The prior employer will either confirm or deny what you are saying. Usually you will hear, “Well, since you brought it up…” You will likely hear some confirmation about the Assessment’s predictions. Now you are armed for the final, or “Imprinting” interview.

  6. Bring your candidate back in and let him read the Participant’s Report. After he’s done, bring him into your office for the last interview.

  7. Show him the color charts. Mention the scores that landed in the dark green boxes, briefly describe the positive behaviors that are predicted and let him know that you appreciate what these trait scores mean about him

  8. Then show him any scores in red or yellow. Tell him, “However, if the behaviors that are predicted by these scores were to actually show up in your work, it could really prevent you from succeeding with us. I’d like to talk with you about them.” Spend time drilling into these personality traits and the behaviors they predict, and see what he has to say about them.

Now your decision should be much easier, faster and more accurate.

The Anderson Profiles employ two screening systems to ensure that participants present answers that are accurate and unbiased. Research indicates that the results of 30% of all assessments, from any testing service, are not valid for a variety of reasons. We are committed to presenting only valid, reliable results. To accomplish this goal we have built two “filtering” systems into our questionnaire: Objectivity and Accuracy.

To screen for Objectivity, we ask questions that describe common, typical human frailties that everyone has experienced. If the individual denies or minimizes the presence of these behaviors we conclude they are “positively biased”. On the other hand, we ask questions that describe superhuman behaviors that are only found in comic books and fantasy movies. If an individual ascribes a number of these traits to themselves, we realize they have biased the profile.

Typical reasons for Positive Bias include:

  • Fear – “will the results be used against me?”
  • Privacy – “I don’t like for anyone to really know me”
  • Intellectual arrogance – “That question is poorly phrased”
  • Excessive confidence – “I hung the moon in its orbit on my day off”
  • Desperation – “I really need this job”
  • Mentally rewriting the question – “What they really meant to ask…”

To screen for Accuracy, we ask questions that ensure the candidate was undistracted, that he understood the questions and replied carefully, rather than impetuously. An example would be: “The automobile was invented in 1960.” The correct answer is “Disagree”, of course, but some Participants choose another answer. Choosing two wrong answers would invalidate the assessment.

Typical reasons for Inaccuracy include:

  • Inability to comprehend the questions
  • Failure to pay attention
  • Inability to read at a 9thgrade level
  • Deliberate attempt to “fool the test”

In any instance, we discard Inaccurate results, recycle the password and invite the person to retake the assessment. This is important: We do not create results when a participant is invalid. There are no results in our system and no report is generated. This is quite different from other services which produce reports on invalid results and then add a disclaimer paragraph warning the manager against believing the results. Such a system is confusing to clients, in our opinion.

Those using our system whose results are invalid may immediately retake the profile. Fully 30% of participants will be invalid on their first attempt. However, 90% of them will be valid on their second try. We recommend not allowing a candidate to take the profile more than three times.

by Eric Samuelson

In 1981, an author in the Research and Development field, writing under the pseudonym Archibald Putt, penned this famous quote, now known as Putt’s Law:

“Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand."

Have you ever hired someone without knowing for sure if they can do the job?  Have you promoted a good salesperson to management only to realize you made a dire mistake?  The qualities needed to succeed in a technical field are quite different than for a leader.

The legendary immigrant engineer Charles Steinmetz worked at General Electric in the early 1900s.  He made phenomenal advancements in the field of electric motors.  His work was instrumental to the growth of the electric power industry.  With a goal of rewarding him, GE promoted him to a management position, but he failed miserably.  Realizing their error, and not wanting to offend this genius, GE’s leadership retitled him as a Chief Engineer, with no supervisory duties, and let him go back to his research.

Avoid the double disaster of losing a good worker by promoting him to management failure.  By using the unique Anderson Position Overlay system, you can avoid future regret by comparing your candidate’s qualities to the requirements of the position before saying “Welcome Aboard”.

Eric Samuelson is the creator of the Confident Hiring System™.  Working with Dave Anderson of Learn to Lead, he provides the Anderson Profiles and related services to clients in the automotive retail industry as well as a variety of other businesses.