The most important asset of any organization is its people. This program will show you how to maximize your “human capital” to achieve greater revenues and profits. You will learn how to improve workforce performance in all aspects of your business, including sales, manufacturing, and customer service, clerical, administrative, and engineering.

1. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
Your Competitive Edge: Who is WORKFORCE DESIGNS?
Helps clients of all types build and retain a top performing
The workforce
Is an outgrowth of 40 years of business / management
High Performance experience in a variety of industries
Was created to satisfy the need for better information to
Workforce make workforce management decisions
Is a strategic business partner with the recognized world
leader in employment evaluation and human resource
Presented by
management assessment tools – Profiles
Joe Davenport
International, Inc.
WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Today’s Objectives People are Key!
Learn how to: Jim Collins, author of
Identify the characteristics of top performers Good to Great says:
Select & retain the best people for your jobs
Put the right people “on the bus”
Maximize the performance of your current Get the wrong people “off the bus”
personnel Put the people in the right seats “on the bus”
“The bus” will take you where you want to go
Make great people decisions!
People are the key to the success
Change companies from good to GREAT! of almost all endeavors . . .
Why should your business be any different?
Yin alone cannot arise People Challenges
Yang alone cannot grow
Yin and Yang are divisible but Most difficult to fix
inseparable. – People are emotional
- ‘The Yellow Emperor’s Canon of Internal Medicine’
Hardest to isolate
– No line item on the financial statement
Recruiting cost
People & Processes are the Yin & Yang Turnover cost
of business, yet the ‘people’ component Most costly
receives little management attention – Companies spend 50-80% of their gross revenue
compared to the ‘processes’ component. on employee-related costs
– Lost opportunity cost
Why? . . . .
1

2. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
People Challenges Have you ever hired or
promoted someone who
Most re-occurring was not what he/she
– Peter Drucker says 66% of hiring decisions prove to be appeared to be?
wrong in 12 months and the people who are mis-hired
seldom quit - they stay!
– 67% of employed people have positions in which they are
not happy
Most time-consuming
– Peter Drucker says 60% of management’s time is spent
fixing people problems and just 40% working to achieve
corporate goals
Additional research shows that when you fix your people problems, your
process problems will get fixed!
Have you ever hired or
promoted someone who
greatly exceeded your
expectations? What was different
about the method
used to hire these people?
Why do we continue to put
“If only I had known that . . .” the wrong people in jobs?
We believe that poorly selected people are a normal part of
doing business
Our hiring practices may be too “instinctive” and not scientific
Predicting superior performance enough
is all about having We do not see our employees as the #1 asset in our company
We spend more time buying a computer than we do selecting
enough of the right information people
We think we can change people once we hire them
when you make people decisions
We use the “traditional” approach to hiring
What is the definition of insanity?
2

3. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
The ‘Traditional’ Selection Process The Interview
Skill Fit Company Fit
Education Attitudes
Training Values
Experience Demeanor “63% of all hiring decisions
Skills Appearance
PAST
etc. PRESENT are made during
Resume Integrity Cultural fit
Past Employment Interview the first 4.3 minutes of an interview.”
Background Check
– SHRM Study, reported in USA Today
Interviews have only a
Top 3 Reasons People Fail
14% success rate
for identifying
Incompetence superior people!
Incompatibility
Dishonesty Why?
How do you determine
these qualities
in your job candidates now?
– Hunter & Hunter “Validity & utility of Alternative Predictors of Job
Performance”. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96, No. 1. p90
Here is what
you get!
Here is what you see
when you hire and promote.
3

4. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
Many businesses just
can’t afford this risk! Using Assessments
”The appropriate use of
professionally developed assessment
tools on average enables
organizations to make more effective
employment-related decisions than
the use of simple observation or
random decision making.”
How can you “Testing and Assessment: An Employer’s Guide to Good Practices”
US Department of Labor - Employment and Training Administration
minimize your risk?
The Step One Survey II
Use to determine cultural/company fit
Measures candidate attitudes
– Integrity
– Reliability
– Work Ethic
– Substance abuse
Provides valuable information about a candidate
– Past employment
– Employment-related problems
– Illegal substance use
– Theft of employer’s money, property, data, etc.
– Computer/Internet/Email abuse
Provides suggested interview questions based on
candidate’s assessment results
The Selection Process Information Resources for Hiring Decisions
Step One Survey II 100 Source: Psychological Bulletin Vol. 96, No. 1, August 1994,
Professor Mike Smith, University of Manchester
90
Skill Fit Company Fit 80
Education Attitudes 70
Training Values
Experience Demeanor 60
PAST Skills Appearance PRESENT 50
Resume etc. Integrity Cultural fit
Past Employment
40
Interview 26%
Background Check 30
20 14%
10
0 Interview + Background
Check
What other information might be useful?
4

5. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
The right people ‘Poor’ ‘Average’ ‘Superior’
can be the difference between: Performers Performers Performers
Extinction & survival Bottom 16% Middle 68% Top 16%
Profit & loss
A good or a GREAT company
Bell Curve
.
Does that see like too big a statement?
- Studies by Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter
(well-respected personnel psychology researchers )
Why does this matter? Example of Impact
Unskilled / Semi-skilled
‘Average’ produce 19% more than ‘Poor’
‘Superior’ produce 19% more than ‘Average’
‘Superior’ produce 38% more than ‘Poor’ Small Company with . . .
Skilled 50 Unskilled / Semi-skilled Workers
‘Average’ produce 32% more than ‘Poor’
‘Superior’ produce 32% more than ‘Average’ 25 Skilled Workers
‘Superior’ produce 64% more than ‘Poor’
Management / Professional
10 Managers
‘Average’ produce 48% more than ‘Poor’
‘Superior’ produce 48% more than ‘Average’
‘Superior’ produce 96% more than ‘Poor’
Source: “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:
Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings”
Psychological Bulletin, Sept 1998, Vol. 124, No. 2, pp 262-274.
Cost of ‘Average’ Implications
vs. ‘Superior’ Performers
Cost per # People in Cost if All These figures are not ‘worst case’. If any or all are below
Estimated
Salary
‘Average’
Performer
this
Category
are
‘Average’
average the cost for that position is doubled – but so is the
potential for improvement.
Unskilled $20,000 X 0.19 = $3,800 X 50 = $190,000
Unless all your people are ‘superior’ performers, you are
Skilled $40,000 $12,800 X 25 $320,000
incurring unnecessary costs.
X 0.32 = =
Regardless how large or small your organization, the
Management $60,000 X 0.48 = $28,000 X 10 = $280,000 potential losses are relatively large.
Every time you move performance in any single job from
‘average’ to ‘superior’ you have a measurable financial
Total Exposure if all ‘average’ = $790,000 impact.
Percentage of salary investment at risk = 30% This is the easiest strategy for making significant
improvements to your bottom line.
5

6. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
‘Poor’ ‘Average’ ‘Superior’ ‘Average’ ‘Superior’
Performers Performers Performers Performers Performers
Bottom 16% Middle 68% Top 16% Bottom 84% Top 16%
OBJECTIVE #1: .
OBJECTIVE #2: .
Move performers Move performers from
from ‘Poor’ to ‘Average’ ‘Average’ to ‘Superior’
‘Superior’
Performers
The Challenge
100% “If only I had known that Joe…”
Predicting superior performance is all about
having enough of the right information when
you make ‘people’ decisions
Use effective processes to ensure that EVERY
OBJECTIVE #3: ‘people’ decision - whether for hiring &
.
selection, placement, promotion or
Maintain ‘Superior’ development - is aimed at promoting ‘superior’
performers in all positions performance
When do people
perform at a “It’s not experience,
‘superior’ or college degrees,
level? or other accepted factors…
…(it) hinges
on fit with
the job.”
Source: Herbert M. Greenberg and Jeanne Greenberg, “Job
Matching for Better Sales Performance,” Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 58, No. 5.
6

7. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
They also stay longer
Job Fit vs. Time – saving a fortune
Without With
on recruitment & training costs! Job
Job
Match Match
6 Months After Hire:
:
High Turnover Industry
“… persons who had been matched, outperformed,
to a statistically significant degree,
% left / fired after 6 months 46% 24%
those who had not been matched…” % left / fired after 14 months 57% 28%
14 Months After Hire: Low Turnover Industry
“Moreover, % left / fired after 6 months 25% 5%
the differences widened after 14 months”
% left / fired after 14 months 34% 8%
Source: Herbert M. Greenberg and Jeanne Greenberg, “Job Matching for Source: Herbert M. Greenberg and Jeanne Greenberg, “Job Matching for
Better Sales Performance,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 58, No. 5. Better Sales Performance,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 58, No. 5.
Two Opportunities to Job Match
for Superior performance
“…companies will
need to reorient their
recruitment and
selection processes Place the right people in the right
by hiring “for fit”
job the first time
rather than mere
credentials…” Evaluate existing employees to
determine where they best fit
“Contented Cows Give Better Milk”
Milk”
Bill Catlette & Richard Hadden
The Selection Process Information Resources for Hiring Decisions
Step One Survey II 100 Source: Psychological Bulletin Vol. 96, No. 1, August 1994,
Professor Mike Smith, University of Manchester
of Manchester
90
Company Fit 80 75%
Skill Fit 66%
Education Attitudes 70
Training Values 54%
Demeanor 60
Experience
PAST Skills Appearance PRESENT 50
Resume etc. Integrity Cultural fit 38%
Past Employment Interview 40
Background Check 26%
Job Match 30
Personality 20 14%
Abilities 10
FUTURE Interests
0 Interview + Background + Personality + Mental + Interests + Job Matching
Check & Behavior Abilities & Motivators
… helps predict ‘superior’ performance
7

8. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
The Total Person
10% - Good But Limited Information:
Skills, Experience & Company Match
90% - Essence of the
Total Person:
Thinking Style
Occupational Interests
Behavioral Traits
Job Fit
Thinking Style
Learning Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Can she cope with the
Verbal Skill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Learning Index
Verbal Reasoning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
mental demands? Numerical Ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Numeric Reasoning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Behavioral Traits
Energy Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Learning, reasoning and problem solving approach
Assertiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Will she be comfortable in
Sociability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Manageability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
the job environment? Attitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Decisiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Accommodating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Independence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Objective Judgment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Occupational Interests
ONE ONE
Enterprising 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Is she motivated by this Financial/Admin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
GALLON GALLON
kind of work? People Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Technical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mechanical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Creative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Thinking Style Thinking Style
The Learning Index
Verbal Skill
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10 Good Learning Index
Verbal Skill
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Job Match Verbal Reasoning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Verbal Reasoning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pattern
Numerical Ability
Numeric Reasoning
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Job Match Numerical Ability
Numeric Reasoning
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Behavioral Traits Behavioral Traits
Energy Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Energy Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assertiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Assertiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sociability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sociability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shaded areas Manageability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Manageability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
indicate Attitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Attitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
the Job Match Pattern
Decisiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Decisiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Accommodating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Accommodating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Independence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Independence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Job Match Patterns Objective Judgment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Objective Judgment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
show requirements Occupational Interests Occupational Interests
for the jobs Enterprising
Financial/Admin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Enterprising
Financial/Admin
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
in your company People Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 People Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Technical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Technical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mechanical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mechanical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Creative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Creative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8

9. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
Thinking Style
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Questionable Learning Index
Verbal Skill
Verbal Reasoning
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Job Match Numerical Ability
Numeric Reasoning
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Behavioral Traits
Energy Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Assertiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sociability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Manageability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Attitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Decisiveness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Accommodating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Independence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Objective Judgment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Occupational Interests
Enterprising 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Financial/Admin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
People Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Technical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mechanical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Creative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Improved Selection Process Two Opportunities to Job Match
Step One Survey II for Superior performance
Company Fit
Skill Fit
Education Attitudes
Training Values
Experience Demeanor Place the right people in the right
PAST Skills Appearance PRESENT
Resume etc. Integrity Cultural fit job the first time
Past Employment Interview
Background Check
Job Match Evaluate existing employees to
Personality
Abilities The Profile XT
determine where they best fit
FUTURE Interests
… helps predict ‘superior’ performance
Talent Shortage is Increasing Recap
Unless you are confident all your people are ‘superior’
performers you have great potential for bottom line
gains
Regardless how large or small your organization, your
potential for savings and productivity increases are
great
Every time you move an employee’s performance from
‘average’ to ‘superior’ you enjoy a measurable financial
impact
Questions?
9

10. COSE Webinar - 9/22/08 WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Joe Davenport
WORKFORCE DESIGNS
Employee Selection, Retention & Management Solutions
277 South High Street • Cortland, OH 44410
Tel: 330.638.1881 • Fax: 330.638.1882
Email: info@workforcedesigns.com
Web: www.workforcedesigns.com
10