|
Background
Harrison InnerView and the employment agency developed a custom template to select Account Managers. Although that template was quite successful, we intended to increase the accuracy by assessing the current employees. We analyzed the traits that are related to effective and ineffective performance. Twenty-nine profiles of current employees were provided by the employment agency. Three of the profiles had a consistency score of less than zero and were thus thrown out of the sample.
The employees in the sample were employed for approximately 1-2 years and each were rated by supervisors according to their job performance. The performance ratings were based upon the following criteria:
1. Brings in new business
2. Works effectively with colleagues and supervisors: and
3. High customer satisfaction and loyalty
Performance ratings
Each employee in the sample was rated or each criteria according to the following scale:
| 90-100 |
Excellent to Best |
| 80-89 |
Very Good |
| 70-79 |
Average to Good |
| 60-69 |
Below average |
| 40-59 |
Poor |
| Below 40 |
Failed or will soon fail in the position |
The ratings were given for each category. Since the organization considered the categories to be equal in importance, the average of the three categories was considered to be the overall performance rating for each employee.
The aim of the research
The aim of the research is to determine the exact traits that make Account Managers successful at the employment agency and formulate those “essential traits” into a “template”. The template is then used to measure future applicants and serve as a developmental guide for current employees. The template is shown by a graph that indicates how a person scores against each of the required traits and then offers a final “bottom line” score between zero and one-hundred that represents the individual’s level of “total suitability” for a particular position. A score of one hundred represents a person who is completely suitable for that position. Assuming the person is eligible for a position (has the education, experience and technical skills), a suitability score of 75 or greater represents a person who has a good probability of performing effectively in that position. A score of 74 or less represents a person who is considered to be unlikely to perform well in that position.
Accuracy level
The results show a strong correlation between the InnerView suitability score and the actual job performance. The results also show a very high predictive accuracy. These indicate that the template includes a comprehensive set of traits related to suitability for this position.
Analysis of the results showed that if the template were used to select the current employees, it would have had an accuracy rating of 92%. There were only two employees that scored 75 or above on the template (passing level) who were performing below average. All the remaining employees who scored 75 or above were performing effectively in the position. All of the employees who failed the template (below 75) were performing ineffectively.
The correlation between the suitability scores and the performance scores was .68.
The average variation between the suitability score and the performance score was 5.44 points on the rating scale of 100. This indicates that the two scores were extremely similar.
Follow-up study
A follow-up study analyzing the employee turnover rates was conducted over a two-year period. It showed a 50% reduction of employee turnover rates through the use of InnerView.
Employee turnover rates were compared in three different regions of the country. The first region used InnerView as a means of selecting employees for this position. The second region used no selection instrument as a means of selecting employees for this position. The third region used a leading competitor to InnerView as a means of selecting employees for this position. The region using InnerView reduced its employee turnover by 50% when compared to both the region with no instrument and the region using the other instrument.
| 
