| Candidate #1: |
| |
Situation: Candidate interviewed for an executive recruiter position. One characteristic of an effective recruiter is someone who will take control of the process in moving clients and candidates through the process of placing people in new careers. His SPQ* Gold revealed the high yielder score of (44) and the low problem solving score of (20). Yielder Call Reluctance is the #1 type and the most costly. A yielder is relationship oriented; they want to be liked; they usually do not take control of the call because they are not emotionally equipped to handle conflict. A recruiter spends their entire day talking to people about their current reality and their desired result. The majority of the time there is some creative tension going on for the candidate and the client. An effective recruiter is able to gauge the creative tension and create a sense of urgency. The yielder is uncomfortable putting tension on anyone. They usually hear things on the calls that do not jive with a past statement, but they hesitate to address the incongruency for the fear of offending or causing conflict.
The low problem solving score is indicative of a one-call close type of sales person. Problem solving measures the candidate’s ability to tolerate frustration and see through complexities. When the going gets tough, it requires perseverance to navigate through the complexities of a job placement. The inability to see through complexities of getting qualified job orders, finding appropriate candidates and getting them placed will be a major hindrance for a recruiter.
|
| |
Analysis: Our advice to the hiring manager was to delve deeper into the concerns of yielding behavior and low problem solving with very specific questions that we provided. We will never say “hire” or “do not hire.” We humbly know that there are other components that must be taken into consideration, i.e. cultural fit, past history of success, sales experience, industry specific experience, management style, team members, tonality, and attitude, to name a few. |
| |
| Conclusion: This candidate was hired into an office that is fast-paced and very training and development oriented. They invested heavily in this individual who had some success. However, they soon found that he was shuffling resumes, talking with unqualified prospects and not able to hang in through the thick and thin of getting ramped up to become a producer. He fired himself seven (7) months later. |
 |
| |
|
| |