Challenge
Failed hires have huge costs. Facing rapid growth that required the addition of a senior management layer, a growing financial services firm wanted to get ahead of those costs by ensuring that they were hiring leaders who would be great fits for the organization and the role. They liked the way their existing hiring process evaluated past performance, technical and leadership skills, and fit with the organizational culture. However, they were less confident in their ability to evaluate how a candidate’s personality and cognitive capabilities fit with the role demands and the candidate’s potential to grow and perform well at higher levels.

Solution
The firm used RBL’s Position-Fit reports to gain more robust information about candidates as part of their selection process. RBL’s expert analysts reviewed the job description and other internal information on the organization to establish success criteria. They also used RBL’s resume analysis process to begin the capability evaluation while candidates took the online MENTOR® Leadership Battery. The final report delivered to HR and the hiring manager combined an analysis of each candidate’s results from the psychometric battery and the resume analysis to present an evaluation of fit for the position. It also included a discussion of likely strengths and potential risks/development needs and an estimate of the individual’s likely growth potential.

Results
To date, RBL has helped the firm assess over 53 candidates, providing valuable information about potential candidates and helping hiring managers make better decisions. To validate that feedback, RBL and the financial services firm conducted a study evaluating the accuracy of the report, and the results were strongly positive. The accuracy of MENTOR®'s behavioral/personality profile of candidates was high, with managers reporting an average accuracy of 4.2/5 where 4 represented “accurate” and 5 represented “extremely accurate.” On the current and future capability estimates, correlations between RBL scores and managerial judgment of capability were highly significant, ranging from .62 to .86.