Many companies expend significant energy and money in naming their corporate values and the character qualities to which they aspire. They also face the challenge of ensuring that their recruitment practices increase the chance of hiring new staff who strongly exhibit those very same qualities. Potential employees are now highly skilled in dissecting a company's ethics; the same cannot always be said of the company with its candidates.[1]

So how do you move the character issue from the promises contained in promotional literature to candidate interviews in a way that effectively screens out those who don't measure up?

Identify the Character Qualities You Want To Measure

The first place to start is with your existing job analysis. The typical job analysis will include specifics on knowledge (e.g. university degree), skills/abilities (e.g. .net certified) and attributes (e.g. enthusiasm, good interpersonal skills) to varying degrees. But the character side is most often the one least referenced or measured. How many specific character traits are listed? If your corporate values aren't there, they should be, with specific descriptions of the types of behaviours that represent the character sought.

Another source is the competency framework that your HR/Learning & Development department has developed. These often contain descriptions of character qualities that can be adapted to your recruitment needs.

You should also consider the reverse: what character weaknesses would be counter productive and destructive? Narrowing your focus gives you a starting point to build into the recruitment process methods for measuring these qualities.

Consider Psychometric Testing

As with any testing procedure, it's right to be wary. For a long time, tests that sought to probe character were almost completely transparent, and meant that candidates only gave the answers people wanted. But these types of tests have evolved significantly in the last few decades, to the point where there are several that have been independently validated, and proven to withstand attempts at distortion by the test-taker.[2]

Three things to bear in mind:

1. With testing, you definitely get what you pay for;

2. Testing ideally serves one purpose: to alert the interviewer(s) to issues that they might want to investigate further at the interview and referee checking phase;

3. Always put yourself (or a key staff member you trust) through the testing to validate its relevance for your recruitment needs prior to investing in their services.

Don't Assess Character Only At Interview

This may seem counter-intuitive. However, character based hiring is different from current behavioural interviewing techniques. Behavioural interviewing works on the premise that past performance is a strong indicator of future performance, and involves questioning the candidate about past scenarios in which they have demonstrated the skills the job requires. While a useful technique, it must be made clear that job competencies are not the same as character.

Just like a first date, candidates arrive at an interview having prepared for in-depth scrutiny. If they know your publicly stated corporate values, they will be alert for any 'mock situation' that involves a character-related issue. This does not completely invalidate an interview process that asks legitimate questions to test and probe a candidate's character. But it's naïve to assume that a candidate's defenses will not be on high alert. As in any relationship, a person's true character only emerges over time in real-life situations. It's not until they're actually performing in a role that you will gain a real picture of their true character.

Yes, prepare thoroughly and feel free to probe the character question, but don't put all your decision-making eggs in this basket. Too many recruiters trust their gut without many objective standards to back up the process.

Check References, But Dig Deeper

The normal selection panel does two things with candidates: holds a number of interviews, and asks for several referees. While both have pitfalls, the referee process is often a waste of time. Why? Because any serious applicant will invest time briefing their referees to tell you exactly what you want to hear. This means that you will rarely gain useful information - unless you're prepared to go the extra mile. Here's two tips to get you past the rhetoric:[3]

Conclusion

Most people are hired to solve problems, not just to fill a role. Sometimes, the conventional interview process works, and you find a qualified, capable and innovative staff member who does a fantastic job.[5] However, the same process can let you down - badly - and a new employee's poor character can damage an organisation to its very core. Exposing the potential flaws in character that can harm your business requires that you go deeper at each stage of the interview process than convention would dictate. Although potentially more costly on the front end, the investment in character based selection can pay off handsomely by avoiding a poor hire that ultimately damages your organisation.