A Calgary professor has developed a recruitment tool
which he claims makes the best fit science can provide
ANDY MARSHALL
As an academic, he says he has the research and the statistics to back him up. And, in his role as entrepreneur, he shows the drive and marketing skills to tackle the corporate decision makers and successfully sell his ideas.
"We'll create the best employment fit that science can provide," the enthusiastic Janz told Canadian HR Reporter. He is currently on sabbatical from his associate professor of human resources post at the University of Calgary's faculty of management.
Indeed, listening to Janz, it seems churlish to doubt that he has the answer to the HR manager's nagging preoccupation: hiring the right person for the right job.
Janz is now busily marketing his theories as chairman of the board for Human Performance Systems Inc., a Calgary-based company specializing in performance development and employment interviewing.
Under the ambitious title, The Janz System, the 37-year-old native of Winnipeg has refined and expanded a theory which he helped bring to widespread public attention two years ago with his book.
His book is titled Behavior Description Interviewing (New, Accurate, Cost Effective), published by Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Authored by Janz, Lowell Hellervik and David C. Gilmore, the book has sold about 5,000 copies in Canada -- "a pretty good response," according to Janz.
The book grew out of Janz's work with Hellervik at the University of Minnesota, where Janz received his Ph.D. in industrial psychology in 1977.
The crux of the theory, as Janz explained in his university office, is that Patterned Behavior Description Interviews (PBDIs) zero in on what applicants have actually accomplished and how they went about doing it, in situations similar to ones they'll encounter on the job.
This is in contrast to the traditional interview process focusing on an applicant's opinions, or more recent trends toward situational questioning.
In short, the patterned, behavior-based interview goes beyond asking the applicant, "What would you do if," to "What did you do when."
Janz provides the illustration of the situational interviewer asking an applicant: "What would you do if your spouse was away and your eight-year-old came down with the flu?"
To cover the same ground, the BD interviewer asks: "Tell me about the most recent time you had to miss work and stay at home. What was the reason? What did you do?"
Of the four key types of interview information, only BD offers consistent, clear data on which to base accurate predictions of future job performance, said Janz.
Certainly, credentials and bio-data can also predict future performance, but that information can be gathered using the application form, he said.
Experience description, still a common basis for interviews, does not necessarily reveal how well the applicant actually performed the duties prescribed in a previous job.
And, probing for opinions in the interview only allows the applicant to create a good impression by telling the interviewer what the applicant thinks the interviewer wants to hear.
Janz agrees the PBDI method creates a tougher process for interviewer and interviewee. But, the probing nature of the interview gives the consistent message: "What counts is performance, not who you are," he said.
Top-notch applicants will appreciate that, and a clearer picture of what is expected from the prospective employee will emerge.
In an age of increasing equal-opportunity legislation throughout North America, PBDI also offers a much more easily defended and objective basis for selection, according to Janz.
His book sets out a series of specific PBDI formats for 16 jobs, ranging from bank teller to systems analyst.
So sure is Janz of the validity of this method for making the most accurate selections, that he'll forecast the dollar benefits he can create for his clients -- "and I'll guarantee they receive them ... we've done the research ... we know the studies."
The confidence is further underlined by the promise Janz or his company likes to extract from HR managers who are interested in introducing the system to their organizations.
"Let us (Janz or his company) make the formal presentation to the ultimate decision makers," he insists.
The client list for his five-employee company is perhaps impressive. Shell, Syncrude, Texaco, school boards in Burlington, Ont. and Seven Oaks, Man., are among the larger ones. But he's also proud of his work for some 10 to 15 employee organizations.
For the smaller companies, especially, "if they hire a turkey in their marketing department, for example, it could break them."
Restricted funds have limited his company's marketing efforts in the U.S., but Internal Revenue Services, the U.S. Air Force, Hughes Aircraft and Ford Motor Co. have all expressed clear interest in the programs.
Janz estimates that the percentage of interviews and North America based on behavior description techniques remains less than five percent.
However, he now sees what he described as his "window of opportunity" to escalate the size of his company as much as tenfold, establishing offices throughout North America.
As he pursues public (Alberta Opportunity Company) and private (at least one large Eastern Canadian company) funding or merger opportunities, a primary concern is that his company not grow too fast.
His Janz System, meanwhile, now includes programs for a range of HR department interests, from behavior description training to behavior costed compensation systems.
Janz has introduced his system at the job posting stage, assuming responsibility for advertisement preparation for at least three of his clients, for example.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Editor's Note: Calgary University professor Tom Janz is marketing a new recruitment tool, Behavior Description Interviewing. At a glance, here are the highlights of the facing article.
Close Window