Deloitte's Point Of View On Pre-hire Assessments 4l5mb

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Deloitte’s Point of View Pre-Hire Assessments

An overview of pre-hire assessments By Deloitte April 2015

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Table of Contents

1.0 Foreword ....................................................................................................................................... 02

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 03

3.0 Background on Pre-Hire Assessment ........................................................................................ 04 3.1 The Basics ............................................................................................................................... 04 3.2 History of Employment Testing ................................................................................................ 04 4.0 Purpose of Pre-Hire Assessment ............................................................................................... 05 4.1 To Make Good Decisions, and Avoid Bad Ones ..................................................................... 05 4.2 Why Should an Organization Use Pre-Hire Assessments? ..................................................... 05 4.3 Which Organizations Should Use Pre-Hire Assessments? ..................................................... 06 4.4 When Should a Pre-Hire Assessment be Used? ..................................................................... 07 5.0 Using Pre-Hire Assessment ........................................................................................................ 08 5.1 What Types of Pre-Hire Assessments are There, and Which One Should You Use? ............ 08 5.2 istering Pre-Hire Assessments ...................................................................................... 09 5.3 Pre-Hire Assessment Trends ................................................................................................... 10 5.4 Leading Practices..................................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Legal Challenges and Resources ............................................................................................... 12 6.1 Good Intentions are Simply Not Good Enough ........................................................................ 12 7.0 Overview of the Pre-Hire Market ................................................................................................. 17 7.1 The Baby Elephant in the Room .............................................................................................. 17 7.2 Vendor Selection Criteria ......................................................................................................... 18 7.3 Deloitte’s Pre-Hire Assessment Services ................................................................................ 19 8.0 Key s & Contributors ...................................................................................................... 20 9.0 Sources.......................................................................................................................................... 21

1|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Foreword

Imagine this: you are talking to the CHRO at one of your clients. She is facing pressure to keep up with the hiring demands of the business and wants to know if Deloitte can help. During the conversation the following question comes up, “Do you think we should be testing candidates?” She continues, “If so, what type of tests should we use? Are tests really any better than the interviews we do today? I’ve heard some companies use assessments, but I have also heard that the legal risks outweigh the benefits? What do you think?” What do you say? Our Principals, Directors, and Senior Managers are asked these questions today more often than any time in the past. Frequently the response is that Deloitte doesn’t provide advice related to pre-hire employment testing. Or worse, the response leaves the client with the impression that we don’t know much about this topic—which hurts our chances of selling a talent acquisition project. We want to arm our Principals, Directors, and Senior Managers with the information they need to respond to these questions in a way that demonstrates our credibility, reinforces our brand, and helps us win that talent acquisition project. This is the reason we wrote this paper. Why the recent increase in questions related to pre-hire assessments? Human Resources is not immune to the explosion in analytics and those who take an analytical approach to decision making eventually ask the question—can we improve hiring decisions with data? If so, how? Many don’t know the answer, so they seek out someone who does. That is where I come in, because they often end up connecting to me. My name is CorDell Larkin and I’m the Employee Assessment Service Offering Lead for the Talent Strategies Community of Practice for Deloitte Consulting

LLP. Prior to Deloitte, I worked for a leading global provider of employee assessment solutions. And, as an executive search consultant, I conducted over 100 executive searches and personally assessed over 300 executives. Here is what I would tell that CHRO. Yes, you should be ‘assessing’ candidates. But, I don’t think you should use assessments for every position because the value gained in the decision-making process does not always outweigh the cost. What type of assessments you use depends on the position and what factors contribute the most to high performance. Interviews are assessments, but if your interviewers are not properly trained then they are about as effective as flipping a coin: No, the risks do not outweigh the benefits! Of course, I would then ask if they would like me to help them identify the positions they should be using assessments for, what assessments they should use, and how to implement them? The good news is that you don’t have to just take my word for it. We assembled a team, read the research, interviewed experts, and wrote this paper—all to provide you with an independent Point of View (POV) on this topic. We want you to have more than just an opinion. We want you to be fully informed, with all the information necessary to provide sound, objective advice to your client—and don’t forget the “would you like our help?” part. Thank you,

CorDell Larkin

Human Capital – Employee Assessment Service Offering Lead

2|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Introduction Background of this Paper

Pre-hire assessments are a hot topic within human resources and are often part of the discussion with clients who are interested in our Talent Acquisition solutions. In order to better equip our client service leadership for discussions on pre-hire assessments, we have developed this body of knowledge to answer key questions about the purpose, selection, and use of pre-hire assessments.

Objectives of this Paper

• Define pre-hire assessments • Clarify why pre-hire assessments are used, as • •

•

•

well as their potential benefits and risks Define when, what, and how pre-hire assessment should be used Answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to the use and selection of pre-hire assessment Provide an overview of current trends in prehire assessment needs, solutions, and leading practices Provide an overview of vendors who offer pre-hire assessment content, solution platforms, or other related services

The Internet has made prehire assessment more accessible than ever, accelerating its adoption and making it easier for companies to realize its benefits. - Bersin by Deloitte, Deloitte Consulting LLP The Prehire Assessment Primer (2012)

3|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Background on Pre-Hire Assessment The Basics

Deloitte Consulting LLP’s Bersin by Deloitte defines pre-hire assessment as any method used to provide data/information about a candidate’s qualifications and potential for performing a specific job or his/her ability to fit and develop a career within the organization in which the job will be performed. 1

Pre-hire assessments are primarily focused on skill level (i.e., whether someone can do a specific work task) and work style (i.e., how they are likely to do a specific work task). The goal of the assessment is to determine how likely a candidate is to perform a work task well or at an acceptable level. In theory, the better a candidate scores the better the performance rating they should receive. Pre-hire assessments are distinctly different from post-hire assessments, which are most often meant to identify development needs or opportunities. Pre-hire assessments may include: • Measures of cognitive (mental) ability • Measures of work skills • Measures of physical and motor abilities • Tests on specific knowledge areas • Personality indicators • Language proficiency • Ethics/integrity indicators

History of Employment Testing

Employee testing dates back to the early 1900’s2

After World War I, involved psychologists in military personnel affairs to 1

Handler & Lamoureux, 2012 (presented by Bersin by Deloitte)

evaluate the overall leadership skills of officers. These practices were carried over to the United States and applied to industry by a number of forefathers including Hugo Munsterberg and Walter Bingham. Munsterberg was a GermanAmerican psychologist acclaimed for his works Vocation and Learning (1912) and Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (1913) that advocated hiring workers who had personalities and mental abilities that best fit selected vocations. Bingham is best known for his contributions to personnel selection, interviewing techniques, and psychological testing, including Aptitudes and Aptitude Testing (1937).

Prehire assessment has been around in various forms since the second world war. - Bersin by Deloitte, Deloitte Consulting LLP The Prehire Assessment Primer (2012) In the 1960’s, assessments became more popular with businesses. For example, the works of Douglass Bray adapted multiple assessment procedures to business organizations and through his work, Management Process Study (1964), he documented the validity of psychological assessment to predict management career advancement. Over the past few decades, employee assessments have continued to grow in popularity and have been adapted to a multitude of organizational and personal areas of activity.

2

See Jenneret & Silzer, 1998, for an expanded discussion on the history of psychological assessment for predicting fit and performance 4|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Purpose of Pre-Hire Assessment

To Make Good Decisions, and Avoid Bad Ones

Hiring new employees is a tricky business. Many argue that employees are an organization’s most valuable asset, and that hiring mistakes are very costly. We tend to agree. But, there are demonstrated tools and techniques that can help organizations identify good hires and avoid bad ones–collectively we call these pre-hire assessments. Why don’t more organizations use them? Perhaps because most don’t know the answer to one fundamental question. What is the purpose of pre-hire assessment? Typically it is to make money. Let us explain.

Why Should an Organization Use Pre-Hire Assessments?

Executives Who Fit” (2009), estimated the net cost of losing a CEO after 18 months at $12 million to $50 million in the United States. 4

The second reason most organizations use prehire assessments is to maintain or (even better) improve workforce performance. The speed and dynamic nature of today’s business has compressed the “ramp-up time” (i.e., the time it takes a new hire to reach full productivity) for employees at all levels. Organizations need new hires to be productive immediately, oftentimes just to maintain their current sales and margins. To help improve sales and margins they need more productive employees. One way to do this is to use valid pre-hire assessments, so you can predict likely performance before you hire.

There are two main reasons most organizations use pre-hire assessments. The first is cost avoidance. Most often the goal is to avoid the costs associated with a bad hire, or replacement costs. The direct financial costs for sourcing, recruiting, onboarding, and training a new employee can be upwards of 60% of the position’s compensation. However, the indirect costs can be upwards of 200% of the position’s compensation. 3 Indirect costs include loss of productive time as a new employee is sourced, hired, and onboarded, but can also include reduced sales, lost customers, and lower employee morale and engagement. For example, bad hires into customer service roles can lead to erosion of customer confidence, higher customer attrition, and lack of follow-on sales. For senior level positions, the costs can skyrocket. In a 2008 article in Chief Executive magazine, Nat Stoddard and Claire Wyckoff, authors of “The Right Leader: Selecting

Take the following example. Internal metrics at a consumer products company that sells luxury goods confirm a strong association between new product advertising/merchandising and the respective product’s performance in the market. Historically, the company annually budgeted millions of dollars for advertising agencies to develop compelling ad campaigns. Although there is a significant payoff from this investment, ad agency fees eat into product margins. More recently, the company has started to redirect funds that were traditionally budgeted for ad agencies and instead is “buying talent” (i.e., hiring for skills and fit) to vertically integrate marketing capabilities for its tier two products (these products are designed and priced for a slightly broader market appeal than the company’s premier lines). To tier two performance, the company is leveraging pre-hire assessments that measure creativity, collaboration, and customer orientation, all characteristics linked to advertising job performance. Over half of the campaigns staffed with these newly hired associates are

3

4

Allen, 2008 (presented by SHRM Foundation)

Stoddard & Wyckoff, 2008 5|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

found to meet or beat the performance of premier product lines in three key areas: time to market, customer loyalty, and most importantly, ROI on advertising dollars. You don’t have to just take our word on this. Jac Fitz-enz, founder of the Saratoga Institute (acquired by PwC in 2013), pioneered modern human capital benchmarking and performance assessment. Fitz-enz developed multiple methods for measuring the value of human capital, one of which he called HCROI. Through research and examples, Fitz-enz demonstrated the close relationship between human capital and organizational productivity and profitability. 5 Valid pre-hire assessments can improve quality of hire, which directly links to the HCROI measures that Fitz-enz developed. So, if an organization is experiencing negative impacts from employee turnover, is looking for ways to improve workforce productivity, or both, then pre-hire assessment is likely one of the solutions it should be exploring.

Which Organizations Should Use Pre-Hire Assessments?

Nearly every organization has the potential to benefit from pre-hire assessments. But, for some small organizations pre-hire assessments may not make sense. This is not because assessments are not effective for small companies, but because the cost of the assessment may exceed the potential benefit. Organizations should use only validated pre-hire assessments, and validation can be costly. Validating for small and large organizations costs about the same, but larger organizations tend to hire more people, so they stand to benefit more. This is why pre-hire assessments may not make sense for small organizations.

every job, rather for the most critical and riskiest ones. These are typically the positions that have the greatest opportunity to impact company performance, positively or negatively, and positions that are key to effectively executing an organization’s business strategy. Why? Again, this comes back to cost vs. benefit. In most cases, identifying critical positions that warrant the use of pre-hire assessments is intuitive. Executives can have a large impact on whether or not the business strategy is executed successfully. Salespeople can have a large impact on the attainment of revenue targets, as can customer service personnel. But, sometimes critical positions are not so intuitive. For example, some workforce segments that do not have big impacts on revenues or strategy execution can still have big impacts on costs. Those involved in the operation of heavy equipment (e.g., airplane pilots or crane operators), protection of the public (e.g., police officers or food and water safety inspectors), or health care delivery (e.g., doctors or nurses) can create significant costs in the form of equipment damage, property damage, or personal injury if they perform poorly. Another less intuitive example comes from large homogeneous workforce segments. Retail store associates are a great example of this. While better service from any one store associate may not make a big difference, multiply better service over a store associate workforce of 10,000 or 20,000 and you could have a huge impact. In summary, medium and large organizations should consider using pre-hire assessments. But, in most cases, they should only consider using pre-hire assessments for critical, risky, and large volume positions.

Even if a company is large enough, pre-hire assessments should not necessarily be used for 5

Fitz-enz, 2009 6|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

When Should a Pre-Hire Assessment be Used?

Once the decision to use a pre-hire assessment has been made (i.e., it’s determined that the anticipated benefits outweigh the costs), the next decision is when in the recruiting process to use it. This should be based on applicant volumes and whether the pre-hire assessment is used to screen out vs. identify the best fit. If applicant volumes are high, a screen-out approach can be used early in the process, specifically right after resume or application submission. This can help the organization minimize the time and money spent dealing with applicants that are unlikely to get hired. Using a pre-hire assessment at this stage also can help reduce resume spamming as only applicants with high enough interest in the job are likely to complete the assessment. Case in Point Mountain States Health Alliance (MSHA) is a locally owned and managed healthcare system based in Tennessee. MSHA uses pre-hire assessments to improve recruiting. During the first eight months of the fiscal year starting July 1, 2010, the organization onboarded 1,105 new hires. In preparation for the rapid pace of hiring, HR leaders took a hard look at their recruiting processes. In many cases, managers had misjudged a candidate’s fit for a role, leading to 30 percent turnover among new hires in the first 12 months. In an effort to reduce new-hire attrition, HR leaders implemented a new recruiting process, utilizing a pre-hire assessment tool. The new assessment tool saved them a great deal of time and resources in the recruiting process. The 12-month turnover rate among new hires was cut by a half—from 33 percent to 15 percent—leading to substantial savings in recruiting, onboarding, and development costs.

If applicant volumes are low an organization may benefit more from an identify-the-best-fit approach to pre-hire assessments. Here, using the pre-hire assessment later in the process, before the last round of interviews, is likely most effective. This is because at this point the hiring organization and candidate are likely to have established enough mutual interest to invest in a more comprehensive and timeconsuming assessment. This also helps build confidence that the organization has objectively chosen a person who is the best fit for the job. Roles that require substantial experience (e.g., senior leadership) or an extensive depth of knowledge or education (e.g., research and development) are banner examples of this. Consider an R&D role for a Senior Research Chemist at a diversified material sciences company with end markets in military applications, the automotive industry, and extreme sports. The role requires an advanced degree in chemistry or biochemistry with a minimum of a thesis bearing master’s degree or a Ph.D.—the latter strongly preferred. There are likely to be few available candidates meeting this criteria, allowing for better use of pre-hire assessments towards the end of the review. Given the scholarly aspects of the role, a cognitive assessment focused on knowledge of chemistry, statistics, and research methods may be in order. Additionally, an assessment of organizational fit for long-term independent research and a security clearance for federal contracts can be loaded on the tail-end of the assessment process. In summary, if applicant volumes are high and/or the pre-hire assessment is being used in a screen-out manner, consider using the assessment early in the process. This can reduce unnecessary time and money spent on poorly qualified applicants. If applicant volumes are low and/or the pre-hire assessment is being used in an identify-the-best-fit manner, it may be most effective to use it near the end of the process.

7|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Using Pre-Hire Assessment What Types of Pre-Hire Assessments are there, and Which One Should You Use?

There are a variety of different types of pre-hire assessments. The Corporate Executive Board conducted a global survey in 2013 to determine assessment usage and found the most popular assessments to be skill or knowledge tests (91% usage), personality tests (84% usage), and cognitive ability or general problem solving tests (84% usage). 6 These assessments measure job-related factors ranging from reading or language abilities, math skills, or even the ability to lift a certain amount of weight or type a set number of words per minute. An effective assessment is tied to the technical knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) for a specific role and can provide valid inferences for performance outcomes. We will define each of the assessment types and discuss when they should be istered. 7

Skill/Knowledge Tests

A skills test evaluates an individual’s level of proficiency with performing a specific action, whereas a knowledge test evaluates the person’s level of familiarity or understanding of a given topic area. These assessments focus on a person’s depth of ability or knowledge. Skill or knowledge assessments should be used where there is a direct correlation between the factor(s) being assessed and the factor’s impact on the role’s day-to-day performance. For example, a stenographer may be required to take a typing test prior to hire where the 6 7

Fallaw & Kantrowitz, 2013 (presented by CEB)

Also see Pulakos (2005), presented by SHRM Foundation, for more coverage on selection assessment methods,

greater degree of typing speed and accuracy is directly correlated to on-the-job performance. Similarly, a candidate applying for a computer help desk position may be required to a computer knowledge test on the most common problems the help desk experiences to determine if they have the required baseline computer understanding to perform the role. These types of assessments may require frequent updates if the role requirements change regularly. Additionally, skill or knowledge tests may not be as valuable for roles where knowledge transfer can occur in a short period of time.

Personality Assessments

These types of assessments measure a person’s work-related behavioral traits and attempt to infer their role and/or cultural fit. For example, an organization may feel that employees in its sales roles may be more successful with extraverted traits and may get along better with the sales team if they have a competitive mindset. An organization may also feel that its customer service staff would need to have a higher tolerance for frustration and the ability to handle difficult customers patiently and courteously. To measure these traits, organizations may use a personality assessment to determine the degree to which a candidate exhibits each characteristic. Personality assessments should be used when a particular behavioral trait is highly desired for the role and linked to on-the-job performance and organizational fit. However, these types of assessments rely on interpretation and should be used in combination with other assessments or inputs, rather than as a stand-alone when making hiring decisions. including their comparative validity, adverse impact, costs, and applicant reactions

8|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

selection process will help to filter out candidates for high application volume roles. Using pre-hire assessments later in the selection process will allow the assessment to provide added context to information gained from interviews.

Cognitive Ability or General Problem Solving Assessments

Cognitive testing assesses applicants’ aptitude for learning, logical thinking, reading comprehension, and other mental capabilities that are required for success on the job.

•

Delivery Method – Assessment mediums will vary by type. Many can be done online and remotely by the candidate, but this may provide opportunities for candidates to fake or cheat (e.g., allowing candidates to have someone else complete the assessment on their behalf, or the inability to control candidates' access to third party information during the assessment). Alternatively, onsite assessments may require the employer to provide travel costs, set aside a suitable testing environment, monitor the test, or pay a third party to manage the process.

•

Technology Integration – Depending on the type of assessment and how it is configured, pre-hire assessment results can be integrated into post-hire talent management inputs for ongoing development. The value of having an integrated technology platform for talent assessment depends on the organization’s overall pre and post-hire talent strategy, the degree to which talent is a key performance driver for the business (versus proprietary processes or technology), and the organization’s ability to transform data into actionable insights.

For example, a candidate for a marketing associate role may be presented with a description of a product and asked a series of multiple choice questions related to the role, such as who would be the target audience for the described product. Another example may be the use of the Criteria Cognitive Aptitude Test, a 15-minute assessment used to measure an individual’s ability to solve problems, learn new skills, and think critically. Cognitive ability or general problem solving assessments tend to be used for roles that require a greater degree of independent decision making.

istering Pre-Hire Assessment

Pre-hire assessments can bring significant value to employee selection efforts by directly tying an individual’s potential to success within a new role and organizational culture. However, there are a number of considerations that should be taken into for the istration of pre-hire assessments.

Selection Process Integration Considerations •

•

One Assessment or Several – The use of a battery of assessments will provide a more well-rounded view, but this approach may add cost and time to the selection process. Early or Late in the Selection Process – Using pre-hire assessments early in the

Validity & Reliability Considerations

To ensure accuracy and legal compliance, prehire assessments must be valid and reliable. •

Validity – The assessment measures the specific items that it targets and these are linked to job performance

9|P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments •

Reliability – The assessment results are consistent when taken at different times

In addition to these two factors, the process for using pre-hire assessment should not be discriminatory towards a specific group. For example, using an assessment for one candidate of a particular ethnicity or gender and deciding not to use the same type of assessment for a candidate of a different ethnicity or gender who is applying for the same role may falsely screen out qualified candidates and lead to legal risk (see more on this topic in the next section, Legal Challenges and Risks). To control validity and reliability, organizations should weigh their options for developing a prehire assessment versus licensing or using thirdparty assessments. Licensing or third-party options can be a preferred choice because they can save organizations the time and cost of assessment development and validity testing. Organizations should also be cautioned against extensive customization that may undermine the validity and reliability of assessments.

Pre-Hire Assessment Trends

In established economies, employers’ use of pre-hire assessments is greater than post-hire assessments–and it is growing. As stated earlier, skills/knowledge tests, personality tests, and cognitive ability tests are the leading pre-hire assessments used by companies. 8 In a 2013 study most respondents (90% or more) reported that they used or planned to use resume reviews, structured interview guides, and/or background checks as part of their hiring process. Furthermore, 80% reported using application forms, pre-screen questions, reference checks, and/or phone screens. By comparison, 60% reported using assessments for internal hiring (promotions included), but only 38% had a structured promotion process in place for their leaders. Almost a third of the 8

Fallaw & Kantrowitz, 2013 (presented by CEB)

respondents did not have plans for using assessments as a means to guide training and development. 9 Usage of pre-hire assessments is also shifting towards an off-the-shelf assessment delivery model. This is likely primarily due to the costs associated with developing a custom pre-hire assessment and the cost of validation studies. There may be less legal risk in using off-theshelf assessments from vendors that have validation studies documented, but it’s important for organizations to be careful with this. The vendor’s validation evidence is likely only for a specific knowledge, skill, ability, or other domain. The burden for tying those specific KSAOs to the position the pre-hire assessment is to be used for still falls on the organization. Another common practice with pre-hire assessments is to not share the results with applicants, or else the process can become compromised or seen as unfair. Generally, prehire assessment participants should only be informed as to whether or not they are moving forward in the process, unless otherwise required by law. Note, several European countries require that results be shared with the assessment participants. That said, the assessment process and any required employment data (e.g., resumes, references, etc.) should be explained in detail to each applicant to prevent any ambiguity about what is considered when making a hiring decision. This, as well as any pre-hire assessment development, methodology, and validation, should be rigorously documented as a precaution in case of any legal action.

Leading Practices

The utilization of pre-hire assessments is an evolving field that will continue to change with time and technological advances. Some leading practices for istering and managing 9

Fallaw & Kantrowitz, 2013 (presented by CEB) 10 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

assessments have been identified below. However, the use of pre-hire assessments may be considered a leading practice by itself. Before an organization can effectively evolve its assessment capabilities, it must establish standardized assessment processes. This typically means defining the purpose and order of assessment activities, clarifying roles in the process (i.e., who should be involved and why), adhering to basic legal requirements, and executing the process in the same way with each candidate every time. To help enhance the value of leveraging any formal pre-hire assessments, the above foundational elements should be in place. 10 The organization can then turn its focus to maximizing that value by applying the following leading practices.

Being Open and Upfront

When using pre-hire assessments do not shy away from informing the candidate about the nature and purpose of the assessment and how it will impact their candidacy for a role. Let them know what details will be shared with them from the assessment outcome, if any, and the privacy of any data collected. This, along with other demonstrations of respect for the applicant (e.g., procedural fairness), helps promote positive applicant reactions to the assessment process. In turn the candidate is likely encouraged to more readily accept an

10

Bersin by Deloitte offers detailed maturity models covering all stages of the talent lifecycle, from talent acquisition, to talent management, through leadership development, and succession management. Pre-hire assessment, and talent assessment in general, are value drivers for each phase of the talent lifecycle. The data enables analytics-based insights about applicants and an organization’s talent for better decision-making in each phase.

offer of employment from the organization (if presented), refer the employer to others, refrain from potential legal action as a result of the assessment process, and be a more engaged employee if hired. 11

Using Multiple Assessments

Consider using a combination of complementary pre-hire assessments. Multiple assessments measuring different aspects of job performance can increase the level of predictive accuracy while reducing the reliance on any single assessment. 12 For example, istering a cognitive assessment alongside one or more personality assessments that map to different attributes (e.g., conscientiousness and empathy), in addition to structured interviews, work samples, and background checks, will yield a more complete and accurate picture of the candidate—presuming the assessment hurdles are validated and relevant to the target job.

Fostering Talent Analytics

Data from pre-hire assessments can be combined with data collected throughout the talent management lifecycle to provide new levels of insight on talent practices. The integrated data can be analyzed to determine trends and relationships that can provide insight into the hiring process and its impacts on broader business outcomes.

11

Hausknecht, 2004 (presented by Cornell University ILR School); Bauer, McCarthy, Anderson, Truxillo, & Salgado, 2012 (presented by SIOP)

12

Handler & Lamoureux, 2012 (presented by Bersin by Deloitte)

11 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Legal Challenges and Resources Good Intentions are Simply Not Good Enough Get Rid of Faulty Thinking

Fear operates as a natural self-protecting mechanism, but it can also irrationally inhibit participation in otherwise safe and organizationally vital activities. Fear and misunderstanding are what can keep many employers from pursuing the demonstrated benefits of well-designed and properly istered pre-hire assessments. Incidentally, inaction resulting from fear and misunderstanding (especially of legal risks) may lead to the very outcome employers aim to avoid…employment discrimination. It is true that the use of pre-hire assessments can violate federal anti-discrimination laws if an employer intentionally, or unintentionally, uses such tools to discriminate based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or age. It is also true that the potential benefits of prehire assessments can outweigh the costs to the organization. No employer wants to suffer the potential financial loss or the looming brand damage associated with an employment discrimination lawsuit. However, inaction is not a safe harbor. Step 1 of 3 in getting rid of this faulty thinking is to get smart on the employment laws for your location. “The price of doing the same old thing is far "The price of doing the same old thing is higher than the price of change." 13 far higher than the price of change.” - William J. Clinton Presidential Address to the Nation (February 15, 1993)13 13

Office of the Federal , 1994

Step 1: Get Smart on Local Employment Laws

Ignorance of the law is no excuse! In the US, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for investigating claims of employment discrimination. The EEOC can also file claims on behalf of impacted parties and pursue monetary compensation for employment discrimination. Although there are multiple laws and amendments designed to protect applicants and employees at all stages of the employment lifecycle, the following four laws have shaped much of the concern for equal employment opportunity in the US, as summarized below. 14

Civil Rights Act (CRA, 1964/1991) The CRA defines two forms of employment discrimination—disparate treatment and disparate impact. The former refers to intentional discrimination, while disparate (i.e., adverse) impact permits a claim to prevail without showing that the employer intended to discriminate (unless the assessment is documented as a valid predictor of job performance and it is a business necessity). For example, istering a cognitive assessment to all female applicants for an aeronautical engineering job, and not screening male applicants with the same assessment for the given job, is a form of disparate treatment (i.e., discrimination) based on sex. However, if both female and male applicants received the same cognitive assessment, but female applicants (meeting the minimum job qualifications) were determined to score significantly lower than their male counterparts, the assessment may be found to have disparate impact for females. If the test is documented to 14

Heneman & Judge, 2006; US EEOC, n.d.; both sources are references for all legislation highlighted in this section 12 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

successfully and necessarily indicate an applicant’s future success in the job, then the assessment is allowed (i.e., legal) even though it has disparate impact on female applicants. Equal Pay Act (EPA, 1963) Many employers define salary ranges for their jobs. The information gained through the prehire assessment process helps employers to place a candidate in the low, middle, or high end of the range. However, in the absence of valid and reliable predictors of job performance, employers are left to fill in the blanks with a best guess. This can enable personal biases to enter the hiring decision, such as whether or not an otherwise qualified woman is capable of doing as well of a job as a man. Such biases may lead an employer to offer a woman less pay than would be offered to a man for equal or comparable work under the same or similar conditions. The Equal Pay Act provides protection against such behaviors. A strong connection between the assessment process and on-the-job performance helps mitigate biased judgments and misguided pay inequalities. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA, 1967) The ADEA prohibits discrimination based on age (40 and over) with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. For example, employers may not select individuals for hiring, promotion, or reductions in force in a way that unlawfully discriminates on the basis of age (an exception may be a character in a film who is written as a young man or woman). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) Two issues most commonly focused on within the ADA statute are: 1) Whether a test should be istered prior to or after a conditional offer of employment; and 2) The application of reasonable accommodation in testing and performance on the job. With respect to timing 15

Hawks-Ladd, 2007; also see EEOC, 2008

16

Hawks-Ladd, 2007

of tests, the primary concern is whether the assessment can be viewed as a form of preemployment “medical examination,” which is expressly prohibited by the ADA. 15 For example, an applicant for a nurse role may be required to take a psychological examination as part of the assessment process. Impulse control and stress management are possible areas of evaluation. However, if the applicant has a mental disability that may at times impair control of bodily functions or emotional responses, the psychological exam may inadvertently uncover this impairment and be viewed as medical examination. While a law enforcement position may easily demonstrate the business necessity (i.e., job relevance) of the aforementioned performance areas, a hospital may be at greater risk of employment discrimination under ADA, especially if the exam is istered and reviewed by a health care professional. 16 Regarding reasonable accommodation during the pre-hire process, modifications to materials, provision of readers and interpreters, allowance of more time, and other similar adjustments are deemed appropriate on a case by case basis. 17 For example, an applicant for a journalist position at a major news outlet may be asked to type a timed response to a randomly assigned topic or prompt. If the applicant reveals he/she has a physical disability in his non-dominant hand that impairs the ability to type, the employer may adjust the conditions of the test by allowing the applicant to use his/her dominant hand to write a response to the prompt and extending the time allowance.

Step 2: Identify Legal Risks in the Planned Assessment Process

The second step in helping dispel faulty thinking about pre-hire assessments is to identify the key risks associated with the organization’s assessment approach. Most of these risks should tie back to the applicable anti17

Reiter, 2010 (presented by Cornell University ILR School)

13 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

discrimination laws. The following areas of concern are just a few points for consideration. Employers are encouraged to seek legal counsel for additional guidance on any nuances or specific mandates for their operating locations. Invasion of Privacy Privacy rights have a high degree of variability in their content and application. Invasion of privacy is an issue that is understandably raised when job applicants are required to undergo invasive testing. The most commonly challenged type of testing is drug testing, but medical examinations and clinical personality tests can raise privacy issues as well. Use of Third Parties If the hiring organization uses an external screening service or recruitment agency, it is important to clarify how their services fit into the overall assessment processes, standards, and legal guidelines. Seek to understand whether the business is conducting part or all of the checks for each applicant. Where a third party is being asked to make judgments, check that these follow agreed upon decision-making guidelines. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the employer to make any final decisions that will impact its business.

employment decisions. At a minimum, the organization’s legal counsel and head of HR should be able to confidently and favorably answer these questions. Hiring managers and any others involved in the assessment process should be made aware of these answers. The alternative can put the organization at significant risk if there is ever legal action as a result of the candidate experience. Case in Point In 2005 and 2006, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFC) performed a review of Perdue Chicken's employment practices as a result of a discrimination claim. The OFC found that Perdue failed to properly document its hiring and assessment processes, resulting in a payout of $800,000 in back wages and interest to 750 discriminated women and minorities. Although Perdue maintains the fairness of its employment practices during the period in question, the fact remains that the company lacked sufficient documentation to adequately defend its assessment process or hiring decisions. 18 Interesting Fact

Poor or Outdated Documentation Practices Where are the policies and procedures for the assessment process stored? Of course this assumes they even exist. What about documentation that explains why the process is the way it is, or that demonstrates the effectiveness of the current assessment and selection process? What happens to interviewer notes or the final consolidated review of a candidate and his/her qualifications after the assessment is done? How long is this material kept on record? All of these questions touch on the due diligence of the organization to properly document, store, and make accessible the information that protects an organization’s

The number of discrimination charges in the US that raised issues of employment testing, and exclusions based on criminal background checks, credit reports, and other selection procedures, reached a high point in 2007 at 304 charges. 19 Even though this is a substantial increase from prior years, it may be considered insignificant given there are about 55 million hires per year in the US. 20

18

As cited in DiBianca, 2008

20

19

US EEOC, 2010

While the number of discrimination charges as a percent of hires is extremely low, the costs associated with being charged can vary. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2014

14 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

In 2011, Kate Williams conducted a study which analyzed the data provided by the Bureau of National Affairs on the nature and outcome of legal proceedings involving the EEOC and the OFC. 21 A total of 224 complaints were identified out of which 109 were settled out of court and 78 went to trial. The complaints cover a span of 12 years, for an average of 19 cases per year. The study reveals the following findings: Law Suit Stats • Selection Measures:

Of the 52 complaints about a selection instrument, slightly more than half (52%) were settled before trial. • Interviews:

No cases involving complaints about interviews were settled out of court. For complaints over interviews, 13% of the structured types and 50% of the unstructured types were ruled discriminatory. • Testing:

Cases that are settled for the plaintiff almost always relate to a failure to demonstrate the job relatedness of a test that demonstrates adverse impact.

the plaintiff cost organizations an average of $13,306,346. This data shows that settling out of court tends to be a much cheaper option for an organization when faced with a challenge to a selection process or tool.

Step 3: Implement Actions to Mitigate Potential Negative Impacts

Applying UGESP Guidelines on Validity Originally published in 1978, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) provides guidance for employers on how to determine if employment tests and selection procedures are lawful. 22 UGESP outlines three different ways employers can show their employment tests and other selection criteria are job related and consistent with business necessity: 1. Criterion Validity - The degree to which a test has been shown to be predictive of actual job performance 2.

Content Validity - The degree to which the content of a test represents the content of the job

3.

Construct Validity - The degree to which a test measures specific psychological attributes (e.g., confidence, intelligence, etc.) related to job performance

• Process Issues:

While selection devices are a common source of litigation, this study shows the legality of the selection process is a much more important factor. A whopping 91% of all inconsistent process cases were found to be discriminatory. • Cost of Discrimination Claims:

Settling out of court resulted in average fees per case of $590,266 for EEOC cases, $668,785 for OFC cases, and $12,292,492 for individual plaintiffs. In comparison, cases that went to trial and were found in favor of 21

As cited in Handler, 2011

Tying Assessment Strategy to Business Objectives Confirm short, mid, and long-term business objectives with leadership, then identify key capabilities required to and drive that agenda. Determine whether those capabilities already exist within the organization, then evaluate the options for closing any gaps (e.g., build/develop, buy/recruit, or lease/contract the talent). If talent is to be sourced externally, you have just established a clear line of sight for what you need and why you need it. The next 22

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 2014 15 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

steps are to identify who has the capabilities and how you intend to actually attract and assess the target audience. Checking for Invasion of Privacy: Before conducting any selection tests the employer should ask the following questions regarding invasion of privacy: 1. Would a reasonable person consider any part of the selection process or tool to be an inappropriate probe into personal matters that are not job related? If not, reconfirm with a test population that is similar to the target population. If yes, see the next question below. 2.

Is there legally defensible justification for the invasive practice? If not, change the process or tool. If yes, still consider the next question below.

3.

Is there a less invasive alternative available for use that can produce a comparable result? If yes, consider using the alternative! If not, prepare candidates in advance of the assessment for the nature of the process and clearly explain how the candidate’s personal information will be used and protected.

Checking for Disparate Impact: Before conducting any selection tests the employer should ask the following questions regarding disparate impact: 1. Is there a particular employment practice that has a disproportionate adverse effect on the of a race, color, religion, sex, or national origin? If not, reconfirm with legal counsel. If yes, see the next question below. 2.

Can it be shown that the selection procedure is job related and consistent with business necessity? If not, change the process or tool. If yes, still consider the next question below.

3.

Is there a less discriminatory alternative available with comparable validity that can be used? If yes, consider using the alternative! If not, focus on delivering a positive candidate experience and keep ing legal documentation for the assessment process or tool safely stored away. Wrap Up on Legal

When it comes to pre-hire assessment, good intentions are simply not good enough since there is still a risk of unintentional adverse impacts. We often hear that employers opt to forego the implementation of a more rigorous, and potentially more predictive, pre-hire assessment process and tools due to fear and misunderstanding of the legal implications involved. There is always some level of risk in doing business. However, the chance of being charged with an employment discrimination complaint is relatively slim, making the decision to employ pre-hire assessments a calculated and sound business decision, especially when applying validated, documented, and necessary business practices. Employers can further help protect their interests and eliminate faulty assumptions when considering a more robust pre-hire assessment process by reviewing the three steps below: 1. Get smart on local employment laws 2.

Identify legal risks in the planned assessment process

3.

Implement actions to mitigate any negative legal risks

Refer to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures for further direction on navigating legal concerns.

16 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Overview of the Pre-Hire Market The Baby Elephant in the Room Market Size

The global market for pre-hire assessment has been estimated to be $2B with a 7% growth rate. 23 Some more conservative estimates size the market closer to $1B. 24 Regardless of the direction you lean, we can’t help but notice a baby elephant moving in the room. With just over 55 million hires per year in the US, and growing, employers are increasingly challenged to identify means for efficiently and confidently selecting the right talent for the right roles. 25 This issue is further compounded during periods of widespread unemployment, such as the 2007-2009 recession, when employers are inundated with applicants. Why is this apparent need so easily overlooked? Simply put, the baby elephant (i.e., the pre-hire market), has not fully matured and there is larger game in town.

"…fewer than 40% of organizations [surveyed] use pre-hire assessment for new hires…." - Josh Bersin (2013)26 “fewer than 40% of organizations use pre-hire assessment for new hires….” 26

Types of Assessment Providers

Vendors for pre-hire assessment services can generally be categorized in at least one of three major buckets: content providers, solution 23

Bisbee, Hansen, & Kim, 2014, pp.14-15 (presented by RBC Capital Markets)

24

Bersin, 2013; John Wiley & Sons, 2014

25

BLS, 2014

providers, or data collectors. Content providers tend to focus attention on test development and validation. They identify the criteria needed to assess specific performance dimensions and personal characteristics then develop methods to measure those items. Solution providers are often more descriptively referred to as software or technology vendors within the pre-hire assessment space. They primarily create the delivery platforms for assessment content, but some also cross over into content development. Finally, data collectors are typically companies that leverage assessment content or technology to source information about a candidate or target group. This work is often fee-based, such as the case with pre-employment drug screening and background checks. However, this work may also be completed independently for the purpose of building a database of prescreened candidates or benchmarking data, such as with career websites, executive search firms, and member-based advisory companies.

These categories for a handful of visible players and hundreds of boutique companies serving niches in the market for specific industries, job types, talent segments, and geographies. Subgroups of pre-hire assessment service providers may also operate as resellers and/or brokers of content and solutions from other providers, which can be observed in the consulting services industry (consulting firms may also develop customized assessment content and solutions for clients, whereby the consideration for legal risks should be revisited). The fragmented status of vendors in the prehire market is likely in part due to the evolving HR technology space and cloud services, enabling varied assessment services and giving smaller players the scale needed to 26

Bersin, 2013, para. 10; also see Fallaw & Kantrowitz, 2013 (presented by CEB); SIOP, n.d. (see under How Many US Companies Use Employment Tests?)

17 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

larger clients. In addition, the particular environments in which assessments are applied, covering the scope of niche markets previously noted, enables for ample opportunities for new vendors to develop and deploy assessment content, solutions, and data with a narrow field of application.

ADP Assess Systems Caliper Corporate Executive Board P Criteria Corp. DDI First Advantage 28 HireRight Hogan Assessment Systems Infor 29 IntelliCorp Kenexa (IBM) 30 Logi-Serve Oracle 31 PAN PDI Ninth House (Korn/Ferry) 32 Profiles International (Wiley) 33 Prometric (ETS) 34 Select International TalentWise Wonderlic

Vendor Pricing Although the cost of an assessment can largely depend on the assessment type and the expected volume of hires/participants, publicly available data shows a range starting at $8 per assessment and upwards of $50 or more, excluding any one-time setup fees and annual licensing fees. 27 Our research reveals an average expected cost per assessment of $20.

Visible Players in the Market

Bersin by Deloitte maintains profiles on over 100 providers in the pre-hire assessment space, which are available to subscribers of the WhatWorks hip program (for more information about Bersin by Deloitte services, visit http://www.bersin.com/hip). The list of assessment vendors below is a sample of approximately 20 players with high visibility in the market. The list includes content providers, solution providers, and data collectors, with most of the providers offering services in more than one category. This list is not intended to be an endorsement of any provider shown, but rather a quick view to facilitate awareness.

27

Grameen Foundation, 2013; Rafter, 2009; RightHire, 2014

28

First Advantage, a subsidiary of Symphony Technology Group (STG), acquired LexisNexis’ people screening business in 2013

29

Infor acquired PeopleAnswers in 2014

30

Kenexa was acquired by IBM in 2012

31

Oracle acquired Taleo in 2012, but only maintains the Taleo brand as a cloud software service

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

✓

✓ ✓ ✓

Data

Solution

Provider

Content

Sample List of Assessment Providers

✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

Vendor Selection Criteria

With so many assessment providers to choose from, what factors can help identify the right vendor for the given need? The following vendor selection criteria is distilled from several sources and is primarily focused on solution/technology providers with some applicability to content providers. 35 Although no set of vendor selection criteria is universal, 32

PDI Ninth House was acquired by Korn/Ferry in 2013

33

Profiles International was acquired by Wiley in 2014

34

Prometric was acquired by Educational Testing Services (ETS) in 2007

35

Baynes & Kinney, 2010; Handler, 2013; Jones, 2014 (presented by Bersin by Deloitte); RightHire, 2014; SIOP, n.d. (see under Information to Consider When Creating or Purchasing an Employment Test)

18 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

there is general agreement on six core areas of interest for companies exploring the market: 1. Evidence of Predictability • Research-based content/tool • Legal defensibility (especially criterion validity and business necessity) • Control for candidate faking/cheating 2. Ease of Implementation • Setup time and resource needs • Ability to tailor content/tool without impacting validity • Product road map and process for upgrades or replacements 3. Ease of istration • Product/service scalability • Data management and reporting capabilities (pre-defined and ad-hoc) • Integration with other HR systems and processes (e.g., applicant tracking, talent management, and development) 4. Cost of Product/Service

• Transparency and simplicity of costs • Demonstrated return on investment • Competitive rates based on similar products

or services in the market

5. Vendor Service Orientation

• Training resources • Technical and accessibility • Business partnership, including staff size and

objectives and to for areas of interest not already covered. A rating scale should then be developed to guide the rating/scoring for each category, allowing for ease of comparison across multiple vendors.

Deloitte’s Pre-Hire Assessment Services

Deloitte’s Talent Acquisition and Employee Assessment Service Offering Teams can help clients tailor a pre-hire assessment vendor selection process to their organization’s broader business objectives and overall talent assessment strategy. Furthermore, Deloitte can assist with identifying and evaluating potential vendors, then lead the implementation of a strategically aligned and legally defensible assessment solution. With regard to istering assessments, Deloitte does not operate in the space of developing and validating pre-hire assessment content, nor is it an assessment solution (i.e., technology) provider, or data collector. We offer services in three areas that enable the istration of assessments: 1. Identification of jobs that tend to benefit most from the use of assessments 2.

Overall design of the assessment process to enhance hiring decisions and help maximize the organization’s return on investment in the process

3.

Integration of the components of prehire assessment with other talent processes to build a holistic view of an organization’s talent and capabilities

flexibility

6. Vendor Experience/History

• Knowledge of client industry, talent and job

domains, and markets of operation

• Length of time in business (i.e., stability) • Business reputation, including current and

past lawsuits

To create an actual vendor selection tool from the above criteria, weights may be applied to each of the categories in accordance with the organization’s needs. Additional criteria can be added as appropriate to align with strategic

Please refer to the key s on the next page for further information on, or client service assistance with, any of the aforementioned offerings.

19 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Key s Josh Bersin Principal Bersin by Deloitte Deloitte Consulting LLP [email protected]

Nathan Sloan Principal Deloitte Consulting LLP National Talent Strategies Lead [email protected]

CorDell Larkin Senior Manager Deloitte Consulting LLP Employee Assessment Service Offering Lead [email protected]

Adrien Green Senior Consultant Deloitte Consulting LLP Employee Assessment Service Offering Deputy [email protected]

Contributors

Zack Toof Senior Consultant Deloitte Consulting LLP [email protected]

Ishita Gupta Consultant Deloitte Consulting LLP [email protected]

Rahat Dhir Analyst Deloitte Consulting LLP [email protected]

Jeremy Dunn Analyst Deloitte Consulting LLP [email protected]

20 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Sources

Allen, D. G. (2008). Effective practices guidelines series: Retaining talent – A guide to analyzing and managing employee turnover. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/india/hr-topics-andstrategy/talent-development-engagement-andretention/documents/www.shrmindia.org/sites/default/files/retaining%20talent-%20final.pdf [Presented by SHRM Foundation] Bauer, T. N., McCarthy, J., Anderson, N., Truxillo, D. M., & Salgado, J. F. (2012, August). What we know about applicant reactions on attitudes and behavior: Research summary and best practices. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/WhitePapers/White%20Paper%20Series%2020112012ApplicantReactions.pdf [Presented by Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology] Baynes, T. & Kinney, T. (2010, February). Avoid assessment vendors: Instead opt for a partner [Presentation Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.hr.com/SITEFORUM?t=/documentManager/sfdoc.file.supply&fileID=1267111697673 Bersin, J. (2013, April 2). Pre-hire assessment science revealed: Value for employers, value for candidates [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://www.bersin.com/Blog/post/Pre-Hire-Assessment-Science-Value-for-Employers2c-Value-for-Job-Candidates.aspx [Presented by Bersin by Deloitte] Bisbee, G., Hansen, G., & Kim, S. (2014). Equity research initiation: Corporate Executive Board. Able to be retrieved from https://www.rbccm.com [Access Restricted. Presented by RBC Capital Markets] DiBianca, M. (2008, June 17). Perdue Farms Settles Failure-to-Hire Lawsuit and Laments Failure to Document [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://www.delawareemploymentlawblog.com/2008/06/perduefarms-settles-failureto.html Fallaw, S., & Kantrowitz, T. (2013). 2013 Global Assessment Trends Report. Retrieved from http://ceb.shl.com/assets/GATR_2013_US.pdf [Presented by Corporate Executive Board] Fitz-enz, J. (2009). The ROI of human capital: Measuring the economic value of employee performance. Retrieved from http://librafalas.weebly.com/s/6/6/7/9/6679074/roi_of_human_capital.pdf Grameen Foundation. (2013). Pre-employment assessment vendors – Handout 10 [Word Document]. Retrieved from http://humancapitalhub.org/Pre_Employment_Assessment_Vendors#-51 Handler, C. (2011, September 23). Busted! A decade’s worth of data on EEOC/OFC action on assessments and selection systems. Retrieved from http://www.ere.net/2011/09/23/busted-adecade%e2%80%99s-worth-of-data-on-eeocofc-action-on-assessments-and-selection-systems/ Handler, C. (2013, April 4). Choosing a pre-hire assessment partner: The first step in turning your hiring process into a profit center [Presentation Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/eremedia/choosing-prehire-assessment-provider

21 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Handler, C. & Lamoureux, K. (2012, November). The pre-hire assessment primer. Retrieved from http://marketing.bersin.com/rs/bersin/images/Prehire-Assessment-Primer.pdf?aliId=50248374 [Presented by Bersin by Deloitte] Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=articles [Presented by Cornell University ILR School] Hawks-Ladd, J. A. (2007). Legality of personality tests under the Americans with disabilities act. Connecticut Lawyer. Retrieved from http://www1.ctbar.org/files/jj07_legality%20personality%20tests.pdf Heneman, H. G., III & Judge, T. A. (2006). Staffing Organizations (5th ed.). Middleton, WI: Mendota House, Inc. Jenneret, R. & Silzer, R. (Eds.). (1998). Individual psychological assessment: Predicting behavior in organizational settings. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. [Presented by Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology] John Wiley & Sons. (2014, May). Acquisition update [Presentation Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/legacy/about/corpnews/Acquisition_Presentation_v2.3.pdf Jones, K. (2014). The guide for evaluating and selecting an HCM technology solution provider. Able to be retrieved from http://www.bersin.com/Practice/Detail.aspx?id=17263 [Access Restricted. Presented by Bersin by Deloitte] Office of the Federal , National Archives and Records istration. (1994). Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book 1). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-1993-book1/pdf/PPP-1993-book1.pdf Pulakos, E. D. (2005). Effective practice guidelines series: Selection assessment methods – A guide to implementing formal assessments to build a high quality workforce. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/research/documents/assessment_methods.pdf [Presented by SHRM Foundation] Rafter, M. (2009, February 5). Assessment providers scoring well. Workforce Management. Retrieved from http://www.workforce.com/articles/print/assessment-providers-scoring-well Reiter, B. (2010). Pre-employment testing and the ADA. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1318&context=edicollect [Presented by Cornell University ILR School] RightHire. (2014, May 5). How do you select the right pre-hire assessment product & vendor [Weblog]. Retrieved from http://news.righthire.com/2014/05/how-do-you-select-the-right-pre-hire-assessmentvendor.html

22 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

Society of Human Resource Management. (2011, December 16). SHRM poll: Personality tests for the hiring and promotion of employees [Presentation Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/shrmpollpersonalitytestsforthehiringandp romotionofemployees.aspx Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (n.d.). FYI on workplace topics: Employment testing. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/workplace/employment%20testing/employment_testing_toc.aspx Stoddard, N. & Wyckoff, C. (2008, December 12). The costs of CEO failure. Chief Executive Magazine. Retrieved from http://chiefexecutive.net/the-costs-of-ceo-failure Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR 1607 (2014). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title29-vol4/pdf/CFR-2014-title29-vol4-part1607.pdf US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014, November 14). The Economics Daily, Hires and quits increase in September 2014. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20141114.htm US Department of Labor, Employment and Training istration. (2000). Testing and assessment: An employer’s guide to good practices. Retrieved from http://www.onetcenter.org/dl_files/empTestAsse.pdf US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2008, October 9). Americans with disabilities act: Questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/qandaeng.htm US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2010, September 23). Employment tests and selection procedures. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Laws enforced by EEOC. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/

23 | P a g e

Deloitte’s POV on Pre-Hire Assessments

This communication contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or their related entities (collectively, the “Deloitte Network”) is, by means of this communication, rendering professional advice or services. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this communication. As used in this document, “Deloitte” means Deloitte Consulting LLP, a subsidiary of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public ing. Copyright © 2016 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

24 | P a g e