When speaking about ‘getting the right people into the right place’ its mostly linked to the goal ‘to get job done’. So what does this exactly mean? People differ in their ‘talents’ – their knowledge, skills, abilities and others differences. Therefore in order to reach this ‘getting it done’ goal personnel selection should define the relationships between the needed ‘talents’ and the performance outcomes they should ideally lead to.
Viswesvaran and Ones (2000) defined job performance as “scalable actions, behaviour and outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that are linked with and contribute to organisational goals”. Performance could either be related to specific tasks and goals or be a factor that influences goal achievement maybe indirect (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
So, to make the right decision in a selection context companies should define:
- What are the company’s goals? And are they transparent communicated to the HR departments?
- What ‘talents’ are needed? Was there a proper job analysis conducted to find out?
- How are these ‘talents’ gonna be found, attracted and got on board?
- What would be a good way to identify if it’s the right ‘talent’ before being hired?
Are those elementary first steps not done this could lead to high costs of poor selection.
Furthermore shouldn’t we think one step ahead and instead of just considering what ‘talent’ is needed in this actual moment? Shouldn’t we focus on the future? Wouldn’t it be useful to define what ‘talents’ or qualities will be needed to perform effectively in more than just one future role? Shouldn’t we focus on ‘potential’ rather than ‘talent’? Shouldn’t we consider a look at what performance a candidate is maximal capable of? Or should we focus on the typically shown performance? And which environment would be needed to support maximal performance?
I am keen to get to know your thoughts about ‘Personnel Selection and Performance’.
Stephanie
