DDI Selection Forecast 2007

SELECTION FORECAST 2006|2007
Slugging Through the War for Talent
> Ann Howard, Ph.D. > Scott Erker, Ph.D. > Neal Bruce
MICABERSR14_CV.qxp 4/26/2007 3:01 PM Page 1

SELECTION FORECAST 2006|2007
Slugging Through the War for Talent
> Ann Howard, Ph.D. > Scott Erker, Ph.D. > Neal Bruce
Welcome from the Authors
We are pleased to present DDI’s third and most multifaceted study
of recruiting and hiring talent. Since the first report in 1999, the
trumpeted “War for Talent” has indeed arrived. The competition for
talent from a shrinking pool of skilled workers can sometimes seem as
up close and personal as a boxing match—the theme for this year’s
Selection Forecast report.
This report demonstrates that managing the hiring process can be
both frustrating and exhausting. This Selection Forecast uncovers
valiant efforts that are liberally sprinkled with oversights, misperceptions,
and eyebrow-raising foibles. But don’t despair. Although the survey
results exemplify our title of slugging through the war for talent, they
also lay the groundwork for multiple insights into how to score a
knockout.
In our first recruiting and hiring survey, DDI relied on the perspectives
of staffing directors; we added hiring managers to the second study.
This time, thanks to a productive DDI-Monster partnership, we have
the additional viewpoint of an important but neglected stakeholder—
the job seeker. Comparing and contrasting these three critical
perspectives makes this study unique.
The hiring process should allow parties to come together for mutual
advantage. In the current labor market, however, the stakeholders
sometimes appear to be working against one another. A staffing
director digs deeply to find a good candidate that a hiring manager
subsequently alienates in the interview; a hiring manager lures a good
candidate to fill a long-vacant position just as an employee in the next
cubicle is enticed away by a competitor. As you read this report, we
invite you to put yourself in the other stakeholders’ shoes and consider
how their motivations and goals mesh—or conflict—with yours.
Most important, we want this report to be a catalyst for change.
Please discuss its findings with new employees, HR leaders, hiring
managers, and your executive team. Ask yourself, “What action steps
can we implement this month to improve our hiring process?”
We at DDI and Monster know that you can be better at finding,
acquiring, and keeping the best talent, and we’d like to show you how.
Hopefully, this report will encourage you toward that end and help
point the way.
MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:12 PM Page 1

ABOUT DDI
It’s a grow-or-die marketplace. Having the right talent
strategy is crucial. Development Dimensions
International (DDI) helps organizations systematically and creatively
close the gap between today’s talent capability and the people needed
to execute tomorrow’s business strategy. We excel in two areas:
• Designing and implementing selection systems that enable
organizations to hire better people faster.
• Identifying and developing exceptional leadership talent critical to a
high-performance workforce.
DDI is all about giving organizations the kind of business impact
they want—what we call “realization.” The work we do is tied to the
organization’s strategies and becomes part of its business and culture,
creating a solution with long-term sustainability. For multinational
organizations DDI has the kind of global resources needed to implement
talent initiatives effectively and consistently worldwide.
Each year organizations rely on DDI to assess more than 4 million
job seekers. Our wide range of selection solutions includes:
• Competency profiling to define key job roles required to drive
business success.
• More than 800 assessments, tests, and simulations that evaluate
knowledge, skills, experience, and motivations critical to on-the-job
success.
• Targeted Selection®, the leading behavior-based interviewing program.
• A full range of assessment tools that provide a clear picture of senior
leaders’ strengths, derailers, and development priorities.
ABOUT MONSTER.COM
Monster® is the world’s leading recruitment advertising
company. A division of Monster Worldwide, Monster
works for everyone by connecting quality job seekers at all levels with
leading employers across all industries. Founded in 1994 and
headquartered in Maynard, MA, Monster operates in 38 countries today.
More information is available at www.monster.com or by calling
1-800-MONSTER. To learn more about Monster’s industry-leading
employer products and services, visit http://info.monster.com.
DDI TREND RESEARCH
The Selection Forecast 2006–2007 is part of the continuing series
of trend research by DDI’s Center for Applied Behavioral Research
(CABER). Selection Forecast research occurs biennually; research
for the companion report, the Leadership Forecast, takes place in the
alternate years. CABER also investigates special topics around
optimizing human talent in the workplace.
Executive summaries of research reports are available at
www.ddiworld.com. To order full reports, call DDI Client Service
at 1-800-944-7782 (US) or (outside the US) 1-724-746-3900.
2 Selection Forecast 2006 |2007
© Development Dimensions International, Inc., MMVII. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All rights
reserved under U.S., International, and Universal Copyright Conventions. Reproduction
in whole or part without written permission from DDI is prohibited.

CONTENTS
4 About the Study
4 Job Markets
4 Hiring Perspectives
5 The War for Talent Heats Up
7 Implications for Stakeholders
11 The Challenge for Organizations
12 Not Taking Your Bait
12 Recruiting Methods Vary by Position
13 Recruiting Messages Miss Their Targets
16 Well, Maybe
16 Dissatisfaction with Selection Systems
19 Neglect of Scientific Selection Methods
22 Thanks, but No Thanks
22 Sabotaging the Interview
28 Good Interviewing Aids Selection
30 Hello, Good-bye
30 Employee Tenure Is Shortening
31 Why Employees Leave
33 Improving Retention
36 Scoring a Knockout
36 Lure Qualified Candidates
36 Spot the Best for You
36 Land Your First Choice
37 Keep Valuable Talent
38 Appendix
38 Demographics
42 Participating Organizations
47 About the Authors
47 Acknowledgments
48 Endnotes
CONTACT INFORMATION
ANN HOWARD, PH.D.
CHIEF SCIENTIST
DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL
1225 WASHINGTON PIKE
BRIDGEVILLE, PA 15017
PHONE: 412-257-3643 • FAX: 412-257-3093
E-MAIL: CABER@ddiworld.com
3

ABOUT THE STUDY
The escalating war for talent is pressuring organizations to ferret out job
candidates who also are being vigorously pursued by competitors. This
intense job market demands optimal efficiency and effectiveness, but
hiring processes are not measuring up. Dissatisfaction abounds, both
internally as human resource specialists and hiring managers struggle
to fill open positions, and externally as job candidates pick their way
through cumbersome and insensitive systems. Everyone, it seems, is
slugging through the war for talent.
To investigate hiring practices and pinpoint ways to improve them,
Development Dimensions International and Monster cosponsored the
Selection Forecast 2006–2007. The study sought information about
best practices for the full cycle of hiring: recruitment, selection, gaining
candidate acceptance, and retention.
Job Markets
One goal of our research was to sample selection practices in key
regions of the world. Globally, job markets are affected by government
regulations, education systems, industrial development, and a host of
other factors that necessitate different approaches to hiring. For
example:
• In North America, the coming retirement of the baby boom generation
and a dearth of skilled new workers are making it increasingly difficult
to staff positions. The U.S. market has seen steadily rising wages,
firm job growth, and low unemployment.1
• Unemployment in Europe ranges widely. At the low end are countries
like Norway (3.5 percent unemployed for 2006) and Denmark
(3.8 percent), whereas Germany (8.4 percent) and France
(9.1 percent) have legions of applicants in the job market.2
• China’s economy is expanding by more than 10 percent a year, and
recruiters are swimming in resumes.3
• In New Zealand, where a skills shortage at all levels has existed for
some time, employers rate retention more important than attracting
talent.4
In light of these differences, a global average about hiring practices
would hide more than it would reveal. Instead, we aggregated our data
into five global regions: North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia,
and Australia/New Zealand. For this report we focus on the relatively
homogeneous North American job market, which includes the United
States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. We bring in comparisons with the
other regions where there are notable differences. Numerical summaries
of survey responses for each of the five regions are available on request.
Hiring Perspectives
Although many surveys rely on human resource (HR) professionals as
their primary source of information, we were more ambitious. We wanted
to compare and contrast perspectives on hiring from three primary
stakeholders: staffing directors, hiring managers, and job seekers. We
invited staffing directors in organizations around the globe to respond to
surveys about their organizational practices and, in addition, to send
surveys to hiring managers in their organizations. We also sent survey

invitations to online job seekers who had updated their
resumes within the previous 12 months. To help flesh out
the results, we conducted 30 one-on-one interviews with
job seekers.
Table 1 shows the final tally of survey participants. More
details are in the Appendix.
Hiring practices also vary according to the type of position to
be filled. Where relevant, we asked staffing directors and
hiring managers to indicate how their hiring experiences varied
for five types of positions: individual contributors, professionals,
first-level leaders, mid-level leaders, and executives. Job
candidates also indicated the type of jobs they were seeking.
Definitions of these positions and their associated sample
sizes are in the Appendix.
THE WAR FOR TALENT
HEATS UP
Staffing directors in North America overwhelmingly reported
that competition for talent had increased since 2005 (see
Figure 1). Even more (79 percent) expected it to intensify in
2007. The war for talent is hot and getting hotter.
The war for talent is hot
and getting hotter.
5
Total North America
Staffing Directors 628 376
Hiring Managers 1,250 635
Job Seekers 3,725 1,183
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
73%
22%
5%
Increased
Same
Decreased
Source:StaffingDirectors
FIGURE
1 Competition for Talent Since 2005

Staffing directors in the other regions differed somewhat in their
estimations of “heating up” since 2005 (see Figure 2). Those in
Australia/New Zealand were most aware of an increase in the competition
for talent. A case in point: Australia has been suffering from a shortage of
skilled workers in the financial services sector,5 and acute demand has led
to the addition of IT professionals to its Migration Occupations in Demand
List.6 On the other hand, staffing directors in Europe were somewhat less
likely to report an increase in competition for talent since 2005. These
results reflect a predominance of staffing directors reporting from France
and Germany, where unemployment has slowed down the effect. When
looking ahead to 2007, staffing directors across all regions were equally
concerned about additional competition in hiring.
The competition varied for different types of positions. Nearly two-thirds
of North American staffing directors experienced strong competition when
hiring new executives, while only one-third found it strong for individual
contributors. Competition also was strong for mid-level leaders and
professionals (see Figure 3).
The contest to hire executives and professionals most likely reflects the
fierce demands of complex global competition. Many growing companies
also may be re-staffing mid-level management positions eliminated some
years ago when organizations flattened. Given the rise in importance of
knowledge-based services and the decreasing amount of time before
68%
Asia67%
LatinAmerica
55%
Europe
73%
NorthAmerica
91%
Australia/NewZealand
FIGURE
2 Reported Increases in Competition for Talent Since 2005
46%
First-LevelLeaders
60%
Professionals
34%
Individual
Contributors
60%
Mid-LevelLeaders
65%
Executives
FIGURE
3 Strong Competition for Candidates by Positions

technological obsolescence sets in, up-to-date professionals
are in particularly high demand. Staffing directors reported
that there were fewer qualified candidates for professional
positions than for any other job category (see Figure 4).
* Throughout this report, totals might not equal 100% because
of rounding.
Implications for Stakeholders
The talent war has important implications for various
stakeholders. Staffing directors and hiring managers are
getting desperate to bring qualified candidates in the front door
at the same time that employees are venturing out the back
door in search of new opportunities.
Staffing Directors
Staffing directors feel pressured. Their job is
growing much tougher as barriers to hiring rise.
Competition and a dearth of qualified candidates that are
difficult to find create the greatest obstacles for staffing directors.
More respondents cited these factors as their top three barriers
to recruiting and hiring in 2006 than did respondents to a similar
survey in 20047 (see Figure 5).
Staffing directors and
hiring managers are
getting desperate to bring
qualified candidates in the
front door at the same
time that employees are
venturing out the back
door in search of
new opportunities.
7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent
43
48
45
53
40
48
42
49
38
51
10
10
6
9
10
Fewer Qualified Candidates Same More Qualified Candidates
First-Level
Leaders
Professionals
Individual
Contributors
Mid-Level
Leaders
Executives
FIGURE
4 Qualified Candidates Are More Difficult to Find*
Others competing for
same applicants
Level of salary and
benefits you can offer
Difficulty finding and
identifying applicants
62%Fewer qualified
applicants available 44%
50%
40%
49%
39%
32%
33%
2004 2006
FIGURE
5 Top Barriers to Recruiting and Selecting Employees

The level of salary and benefits was less of a barrier than the top three,
perhaps because organizations are adjusting salaries to compete for
employees. Nearly half of the employers responding to a recent survey
planned to increase initial salaries to employees.8
The war for talent has significant financial implications beyond increased
salaries. In the next two years, one-third of the responding organizations
are planning to pour more money into job advertising and two-fifths plan
to increase their budgets for selection (see Figure 6).
Hiring Managers
Hiring managers feel anxious. If the right people can’t be
found, how will they get their work done?
> 53% could lose a direct report within six months.
> 51% find fewer qualified candidates available compared to two years ago.
To better understand this anxiety, consider the situation facing sales
leaders. In a recent study, more than 100 sales leaders set a median
goal of 10 percent growth in sales for 2007. Most felt confident they
could achieve that goal by getting better production from their current head
count. However, turnover of star talent and difficulties finding replacements
who can perform at the same level will severely compromise the sales
leaders’ ability to meet this double-digit growth target.9
The pressure on hiring managers has caused a change in strategy. More
than half (51 percent) felt some need to sell the job and company to the best
candidates; 15 percent felt they must sell a lot, a rather small percentage
considering the brisk competition for talent. The hiring managers went into
selling mode most often for executive-level candidates (see Figure 7), who
are much in demand—particularly with the impending retirement of baby
boomers—and likely to scrutinize the organization as well as the position.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent
18
27
30
27
35
34
Not at All A Little
Mid-Level Leaders
First-Level Leaders
12
17
11 27 44
Executives
18
Somewhat A Lot
Source:HiringManagers
FIGURE
7 Felt Need to Sell Job/Company to the Best Candidates
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent
41
36
27
32
31
28
Increase Beyond Inflation Increase to Adjust for Inflation
Stay the Same
Selection
Job Ads
Decrease
4
2
FIGURE6 Hiring Expenditures in the Next Two Years

Some hiring managers were willing to hire a good person even
if the job fit wasn’t quite right; that is, they would change the
job or find a job that would better fit the person. There were
regional differences in whether hiring managers were willing to
take this approach (see Figure 8). Beyond the pressures of a
tight job market, cultural differences are likely to influence
managers’ comfort with changing a job to fit a good candidate.
Job Seekers
Job seekers feel bold. If one job doesn’t pan
out, they’ll find another one.
Among employed job seekers, 61 percent had more than one
full-time job in the past five years. Ten percent had four or
more jobs during this time (see Figure 9).
Job seekers feel bold. If
one job doesn’t pan out,
they’ll find another one.
9
25%
Asia
29%
LatinAmerica
39%
Europe
37%
NorthAmerica
44%
Australia/NewZealand
FIGURE
8 Willingness to Change the Job to Fit the Person
2–3 Jobs
8%
4–5 Jobs
2%
6+ Jobs
39%
1 Job
52%
Source:JobSeekers
FIGURE
9 Number of Jobs in the Past Five Years

The youngest job seekers were more likely to have had many recent
jobs, suggesting that they are putting themselves and their careers
ahead of loyalty to the organization. Given that a large majority of this
age group lacked a higher degree and were employed in individual
contributor jobs, this simply might reflect the casual job market. Future
retention does not look promising, however, if this finding reflects a
broad-based, persistent trend.
Almost half (46 percent) of the individual contributors had applied for 10
or more jobs in the past year; the proportion of professionals (43 percent)
was not far behind (see Figure 10). The North American job seekers
were particularly active; those in other regions made fewer applications.
As would be expected, employment status was related to the number of
job applications. Two-thirds of the job seekers who were unemployed or
working part-time applied for five or more jobs in the past year; however,
half of the full-time employed also applied for five or more jobs. The
message is clear: Organizations cannot take the loyalty of their
employees for granted.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
19
14
8
8
29
30
22
21
23
19
27
25
1 5–102–3
First-Level
Leaders
Professionals
Individual
Contributors
Mid-Level
Leaders
46
>10
43
38
29
Source:JobSeekers
FIGURE
10 Number of Jobs Applied for Last Year

The Challenge for Organizations
Most organizations today are built on intangible rather than
tangible assets. Their fortunes derive less from goods they
make and more from the services and expertise that their
employees provide. If you rely on human capital to compete,
inevitably you must compete for human capital.
The driving need for capable employees explains why
employer branding—or marketing your organization to the
people it wants to hire—has become such a buzz phrase in
human resources.10 But marketing is no more than the first
bread crumb leading human capital out of the forest. To
survive the war for talent, organizations need to be at the top
of their game in recruiting, selection, and retention. Their
processes and practices must be strategic and efficient and
have bull’s-eye accuracy.
Unfortunately, our research uncovered little evidence of such
excellence. On average, both staffing directors and hiring
managers were lukewarm in their evaluation of the quality of
their recruiting and hiring strategies and processes (see
Figure 11). Only about 10 percent of each group rated either
practice “top of the game” (9 or 10 on a 10-point scale).
To meet the competitive challenge of the war on talent, your
organization must prevail at each of the following steps:
1. Lure qualified candidates.
2. Spot the best for you.
3. Land your first choice.
4. Keep valuable talent.
Organizations that stumble on any of the four steps will not
have the talent they need to reach their business objectives.
Moreover, they will face mounting costs as departing
employees force them to endlessly repeat the hiring process.
Marketing is no more
than the first bread crumb
leading human capital out
of the forest. To survive
the war for talent,
organizations need to
be at the top of their game
in recruiting, selection,
and retention.
11
Recruiting
Selection
Hiring ManagersStaffing Directors
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6.5
6.0
6.8
6.9
FIGURE
11 Overall Effectiveness Ratings
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND

NOT TAKING YOUR BAIT
Today, attracting job candidates seems easy for
organizations that use electronic systems like company
web sites and large online job boards. Staffing directors
indicated that these are two of their most frequently
used recruiting tools. Interpersonal methods like employee referrals and
networking also were popular.
Recruiting Methods Vary by Position
Organizations adapt their recruiting methods to the type of target position
(see Figure 12). Recruiters leaned on headhunting firms for higher-level
positions but used them less often for lower-level jobs. Contrarily, they
most often used employee referrals and electronic methods to find
candidates for lower-level positions but were less inclined to use them
to find executives.
There were some regional differences in the choice of recruiting
methods. North Americans made more use of online job boards,
whereas Asian recruiters were more likely to use newsprint ads.
Australian staffing directors, apparently needing a proactive approach to
find candidates, were more likely to use headhunting firms at all levels.
Employee
referrals
Individual ContributorsProfessionals
1st-Level LeadersMid-Level LeadersExecutives
Company
web sites
Large online
job boards
Networking
Headhunter
firms
Percent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FIGURE
12 Preferred Methods for Finding Candidates
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND

Your goal should be to
attract candidates who are
a good fit with a job or
your organization
and not wasting time
and resources on
candidates who aren’t.
13
Recruiting Messages Miss Their Targets
Reaching the most candidates is not your optimal goal.
Rather, your goal should be to attract candidates who are a
good fit with a job or your organization and not wasting time
and resources on candidates who aren’t. Taking the time to
craft an effective online job posting can pay off enormously in
terms of targeting the right candidates (see sidebar).
How to Write Effective Online
Job Postings
Be Specific
A quick job search turns up mostly
short ads with no clear definition of
job requirements. If half the people
reading the ad can imagine
themselves to be qualified, your
inbox will be full within hours.
Writing specific postings takes a
little longer, but by helping job
seekers understand your needs,
you’ll reduce the number of
applications from unqualified
candidates and ultimately save
more time than you spend.
Be Clear
Make sure the requirements and
job duties are easy to understand
by someone who does not already
work for your company. Some
postings have so much corporate
jargon that it’s difficult for job
seekers to tell if they are qualified,
leading many to simply press a
button to submit a resume.
If you’re not sure whether you have
included “companyspeak,” have a
friend or fellow HR professional
review your posting and give you
feedback.
Be Up Front
Dissuade potential job seekers
from speculative applications by
adding a statement explaining that
your requirements are firm.
Be Demanding
Don’t make the application process
too easy. Instead of just asking for
a resume, include an assignment
in your posting. Qualified
candidates will be excited to have
the opportunity to stand out from
the crowd, while casual applicants
will be less willing to put in that
much effort for a long-shot
application.
To be successful in your
recruitment efforts, you must
constantly adapt your strategies to
suit the market. You must manage
the candidate flow so you can
effectively service your
organization. By creating specific,
clear job postings and an
application process that requires
effort on the part of the applicant,
you can reduce the number of
unqualified candidates and
increase your chance of making
the right hire quickly.
—Abridged from Louise Fletcher,
of the Monster.com for Employers
Resource Center.

Survey results suggested that both staffing directors and hiring managers
might miss out on attracting the best applicants because they
misunderstand what job candidates are looking for. Job seekers cited
many factors as important to them in a new job, but hiring managers and
staffing directors downplayed the importance of some of these factors. In
particular, employers gave short shrift to environmental factors that job
seekers valued, like an organization to be proud of, a creative or fun
workplace culture, and a compatible work group (shown as underrated in
Table 2).
Regional differences also affected job seekers’ desires. Asian job seekers
showed the least interest in a fun, creative organizational culture. In Europe
most job seekers looked for a compatible work group and interesting work;
they were less attracted by vacations or company leadership than job
seekers elsewhere. Because vacations tend to be generous in Europe, one
firm has no particular competitive advantage over another in this regard.
Age exerted another kind of influence on job seekers. The highlighted
areas in Table 3 show what’s particularly important to certain age groups
relative to others when searching for a new position. Different life and
career stages most likely account for these age-related motivations (see
the Job Search Life Cycle on page 15), although generational
perspectives also might carry some sway.
PERSPECTIVES ON WHAT JOB
SEEKERS WANT IN A POSITION*
Job Hiring Staffing
Seeker Manager Director
Opportunities to learn and grow 78% 68% 69%
Interesting work 77% 63% 63%
A good manager/boss 75% 69% 57%
An organization you can be proud to work for 74% 58% 55%
Opportunity to advance 73% 69% 77%
Promise of stability/job security 70% 62% 65%
A creative or fun workplace culture 67% 50% 43%
A compatible work group/team 67% 50% 37%
Balance between work and personal life 65% 65% 65%
Opportunity for accomplishment 64% 53% 41%
* Beyond salary and benefits Underrated

The lesson here is that when describing open positions,
employers need to attend to factors beyond what is in the job
description to appeal to candidates in particular age groups:
• The very young respond to a fun workplace where they can
make friends.
• Those in their 20s and 30s are intent on growing and moving
up the organization. This can create tension for young
families, encouraging those in prime parenting years (30s)
to be alert to the balance between work and personal life.
• Mid-career and senior employees care more about
opportunities for accomplishment, with senior employees
also attentive to the organization’s reputation and its
people. They want a good manager and compatible team,
but also an organization that has strong leaders and makes
them feel proud.
Organizations won’t be able to attract the best job
candidates if their messages fail to address their target
audience’s interests. You can’t lure the right fish if you
don’t use the right bait.
15
WHAT’S MOST IMPORTANT TO JOB SEEKERS BY AGE
Let’s Rock
Moving
Up
Balance
My Legacy
My Company
20s
Teens
30s
40s
50s+
Job Search Life Cycle
Age Group
<20 21–30 31–40 41–50 >50
A creative or fun workplace culture 77% 72% 69% 62% 62%
A compatible work group/team 71% 64% 65% 66% 75%
Opportunities to learn and grow 67% 81% 85% 77% 72%
Balance between work and personal life 65% 63% 71% 63% 63%
Opportunity to advance 62% 80% 79% 73% 59%
Opportunity for accomplishment 52% 61% 64% 67% 70%
A good manager/boss 68% 73% 74% 75% 83%
An organization you can be proud to work for 59% 74% 72% 74% 81%
Great company leadership 39% 51% 57% 62% 65%
Relatively More Important
You can’t lure the right
fish if you don’t use
the right bait.

WELL, MAYBE
Assuming you can lure qualified candidates to apply for
a position, your next challenge is to spot the applicant
most suitable for your job and organization. Doing this
well requires a comprehensive selection system that
uses several methods to tap into different aspects of human talent:
knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal attributes.
Dissatisfaction with Selection Systems
Most organizations’ selection systems were found wanting; fewer than
half of the respondents, whether staffing directors or hiring managers,
rated their level of satisfaction with their hiring process high or very high.
Two-fifths of staffing directors said that in the next two years their
organization will not only spend additional funds beyond inflation on
selection, but also will significantly change their approach to selection.
> 57% of hiring managers rated their satisfaction with the
hiring process as medium, low, or very low.
> 58% of staffing directors rated their satisfaction with the
hiring process as medium, low, or very low.
> 40% of staffing directors will significantly change their
approach to selection in the next two years.
Legal defensibility was the only aspect of selection systems that at least
two-thirds of staffing directors and hiring managers rated high or very
high (see Figure 13). Only about half of each group gave high ratings to
the hiring process’s objectivity, its ability to identify people with the right
behavioral experiences and background, and its ability to provide a
complete picture of candidate qualifications. There was even less
satisfaction with ensuring a fit between candidates’ values and
preferences and the organization or job. The efficiency of selection
systems drew the most critical response, with only one-third of staffing
directors and hiring managers rating theirs high or very high.
Ease of use
Efficiency
Ensuring job fit
46%Ensuring
organization fit 43%
43%
40%
39%
41%
31%
33%
Staffing Directors Hiring Managers
50%Providing
complete picture 46%
47%Identifying right
experiences 46%
49%Objectivity 56%
72%Legal defensibility 68%
FIGURE
13 Aspects of Selection Systems Rated High or Very High
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND

Staffing directors measured the success of their selection
systems primarily by the quality and tenure of new hires and
the satisfaction of their primary stakeholders, the hiring
managers (see Figure 14). These priorities appear quite
appropriate. However, if hiring managers are dissatisfied with
the efficiency of selection methods (as noted in Figure 13),
staffing directors need to pay more attention to this aspect as
well. Yet, only 42 percent of staffing directors measured speed
to hire, a critical factor when job seekers can become impatient
and take a job elsewhere.
Inefficient selection systems also can alienate job seekers.
Nearly three-fifths (59 percent) indicated that after applying for
a job, they wanted either an interview scheduled or a “no”
answer within a week or less. Also, they expected quick
feedback after an interview, but what they got too often was
deafening silence for weeks or even months.
“I left the interview being told that they would contact
me within a week with more information or a decision.
This occurred three and a half weeks ago. They left
me in the dark on the conclusion.”
—Job seeker, industrial design
Costs did not loom large among staffing directors’ concerns.
Only 39 percent measured the cost per hire, and only 3 percent
named costly selection systems as one of their top three
barriers to recruiting and hiring employees. Although it’s hard
to justify their ignoring costs, a great deal of research has
shown that the investment in sound hiring methods pales
when compared to the gains from a high-quality hire who will
stay with the organization.11
Although the costs of a good selection system are easily
recovered, the costs of a poor system are often unrecognized
and can quickly grow. Slow replacement of lost employees—
particularly leaders—is a hidden cost of an inefficient selection
system. (See sidebar on page 18.)
Although the costs of a
good selection system are
easily recovered, the costs
of a poor system are
often unrecognized and
can quickly grow.
17
Cost per hire
Number of legal
challenges
Speed to hire
56%Candidate reactions
42%
39%
12%
71%Hiring manager
satisfaction
72%New hire job
performance
79%Turnover
FIGURE
14 Measures Used to Determine Selection Systems’ Success

The higher the management level, the longer it takes to replace the
person (see Figure 15). North American organizations take the longest
to replace managers at all levels. The problem is most acute for
executives, perhaps because of the time it takes for headhunter firms to
locate appropriate candidates.
The True Costs of Hiring
Every time a new position comes
open—whether from an increase in
head count or through turnover—a cost
meter starts running. It can take
months or years to recoup the costs
incurred from the time the meter starts
running until a new hire becomes fully
productive. These costs fall into three
main areas:
1. Hiring Process—How much does
it cost your organization to find
and place a new hire (include advertising and posting costs; time and costs for
sourcing, screening, and evaluating candidates; and travel and relocation costs)?
How long does it take to fill open positions? These costs can run in the
thousands of dollars.
2. Ramp-Up—Once candidates accept your job offer, how much extra time do their
managers or coworkers spend with them? What training investments are needed
to educate new hires on internal processes or to accelerate their development?
3. Productivity Gaps—What is the performance gap between your star performers
and the rest? A 2000 McKinsey study found that, compared to average
performers, high performers in operations roles generate 40 percent more
productivity, those in general management roles generate 49 percent more in
increased profits, and those in sales functions generate 67 percent more in
revenue.12 A highly accurate selection system can help you recover costs quickly
and increase profits; a poor system will do neither.
Ultimately, you need to pressure-test your selection system in each of these three
areas to see where and how much money your organization is losing and ultimately
gaining.
TIME
LOSSPROFIT
Hiring Process Ramp-Up Productivity
New Hire
Acceptable
Performance
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
First-Level Management Mid-Level Management Executive
Europe North
America
Latin
America
Asia Australia/
New Zealand
Weeks
FIGURE
15 Average Weeks a Position Is Vacant

Neglect of Scientific Selection Methods
Selection tool usage has changed only modestly since DDI’s
previous Selection Forecast in 2004. The significant shifts in
tool usage that did occur (see Figure 16) should have led to
more efficiency. In other words, there was an increase in
computerized methods (biographical data, résumé screens)
and a reduction in more labor-intensive methods (drug tests,
application forms). Although these are steps in the right
direction, the low level of satisfaction with selection system
efficiency (as noted in Figure 13) suggests that organizations
still have a long way to go.
A larger problem with respondents’ selection systems was
overreliance on traditional methods like application forms,
manual résumé screening, and background checks (see
Figure 17). An exception was that a large majority used
behavior-based interviewing, a well-researched and effective
method of probing into job candidates’ relevant experiences.
Using only a narrow range of traditional tools has two major
consequences: important aspects of candidates’ qualifications
will be overlooked, and the information gained will lack the
accuracy that could be provided by scientifically developed
methods.
Using only a narrow
range of traditional
tools has two major
consequences: important
aspects of candidates’
qualifications will be
overlooked, and the
information gained will
lack the accuracy that
could be provided
by scientifically
developed methods.
19
Biographical data form
Computerized
résumé screen
Drug tests
88%Applications 60%
67%
56%
13%
23%
19%
40%
2004 2006
FIGURE
16 Change Over Time in Selection Methods Used Extensively
Drug tests
Application forms
68%Résumé screening
—manual
60%
56%
72%Reference checks
76%Behavior-based
interviews
78%Background checks
FIGURE
17 Selection Methods Used Extensively

Organizations seriously underused techniques that evaluate personal
attributes or directly observe important behaviors, although these tools
offer substantial validity and distinct advantages to the selection
process.13 Despite more than 50 years of scientific research on these
methods, half or more of the staffing directors never used each type of
testing and assessment method listed in the survey (see Figure 18).
Organizations in other regions were twice as likely to use tests and
assessments. Only 37 percent of North American staffing directors made
extensive use of at least one scientifically developed test or assessment
compared to 80 percent of those in Latin America, 71 percent of those in
Europe, and 69 percent of those in Asia.
Failure to use scientific methods opens the door to inconsistencies and
leaps of faith in selecting employees. Organizations that neglect using
these techniques risk getting an inaccurate and incomplete picture of job
candidates.
> 53% of staffing directors noted that hiring managers don’t
use a consistent set of practices and procedures.
> 44% agreed that gut instinct and intuition play an important
role in selection decisions.
There were clear payoffs for organizations that made good use of even
one test and assessment method. Staffing directors rated the quality of
different aspects of their selection systems on a five-point scale (very low
to very high). Those who extensively used at least one scientifically
developed testing method were clearly more impressed with every
aspect of their selection strategies than those who sometimes or never
used one (see Figure 19). Although there were some gains in efficiency,
the biggest payoff came from a more objective process that provided a
well-rounded picture of candidates’ qualifications and fit.
In other words, selection systems without tests and assessments often
lack critical information that could turn a “maybe” about candidate
suitability into a clear “yes” or “no.” If you’re not currently capitalizing on
tests and assessments, see the sidebar on page 21 for some pointers on
how to enrich your hiring system.
Knowledge tests
Ability tests
Performance/Work
sample tests
60%Job simulations
50%
48%
46%
65%Personality
inventories
66%Motivational fit
inventories
86%Integrity tests
FIGURE
18 Scientific Selection Methods That Were Never Used

21
Used ExtensivelySometimes UsedNever Used
Satisfaction
with hiring
Percent
2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2
Efficiency of hiring
Objectivity of hiring
Ease of use
Legal defensibility
Complete picture of
candidate qualifications
Identify people with
right experience
Fit between culture and
candidate values
Fit between candidate’s
preferences and job
2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2
FIGURE
19 Impact of Using at Least One Test or Assessment Method Adding Tests and Assessments to Your Hiring Process
The real value of deploying tests and assessments comes from painting a more complete and accurate
picture of a candidate. All facets of job success—knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal
attributes—should be systematically evaluated to make reliable hiring decisions. To build a comprehensive
hiring system, follow these steps:14
1. Clarify your purpose. Will you be using the system for internal as well as external selection? Does your
hiring strategy tie to your business strategy?
2. Set hiring system criteria. What do you want to gain from your hiring system? Look first for highly valid
techniques that will maximize the individual performance and commitment of selected candidates. Do you
also care about generating information for employee development, legal defensibility, candidate
acceptance, or efficient delivery? Your priorities might vary by type of open position.
3. Define employee success. What knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal attributes will be
important to success in each position to be filled? What characteristics are important for success in your
organizational culture?
4. Choose selection techniques. Select a parsimonious set of selection techniques, considering relative gains
in validity and usefulness. Each selection method has advantages and drawbacks that need to be balanced.
• Inferences about behavior can be made from tools like cognitive tests and personality inventories.
These measures most easily meet the efficiency criterion, but they might not gain candidate acceptance,
are more likely to have adverse impact than other methods, and have limited usefulness for guiding
development.
• Descriptions of behavior, knowledge, and experience come from biographical data, career
achievement records, and interviews. These methods can provide important information about the past,
but they provide little information about behavior in new and different positions and can be labor
intensive.
• Demonstrations of behavior come from work samples and simulations, typically used in assessment
centers. Simulations can address future jobs, provide information on trainable behaviors for
developmental feedback, and engender positive reactions from candidates. However, they are labor
intensive and best measure competencies that can be exhibited in condensed time periods.
5. Combine tools into a selection system. Multiple hurdles can enhance selection system efficiency. Use
efficient, computer-scored tools (like tests) to eliminate lower-end candidates and reserve labor-intensive
methods (interviews, assessment centers) to differentiate among a smaller pool of more promising candidates.
6. Execute your plan. How will you will introduce the new hiring system into your organization and assure its
continued success? Plan how to communicate the business case for the system, assign accountability for
its execution, develop the skills of those who will carry it out, align other systems, and measure the lead
and lag indicators that will tell you if your hiring system is meeting its objectives.

THANKS, BUT NO THANKS
The interview is a critical selection tool that helps you spot
the best candidate for a position. What is often overlooked
is its role in the next step in the hiring process—landing
the candidate you want. Two-thirds of the job seekers
reported that the interviewer influences their decision to accept a position.
This was particularly true in the Americas (see Figure 20).
Perhaps unwittingly, the interviewer, not just the interviewee, is on stage
during the experience. Both parties need to speak their lines in a
professional way, but the evidence suggests that amateurish behavior is
all too common.
Sabotaging the Interview
The interview can easily become less a meeting of minds than a clash of
personalities. Both interviewers and interviewees found fault with each
other’s approach and illustrated their complaints with many poignant
examples.
Complaints About Interviewers
Regardless of the type of position to be filled, interviewers irritated
candidates in multiple ways (see Figure 21). Most grievous to job
seekers were interviewers who acted as if they had no time to talk
with them. This behavior along with showing up late or appearing
unprepared devalued the interview as well as the interviewee. Such
carelessness can easily become a serious mistake in a talent-challenged
economy.
“The HR manager seemed pretty interested in me, but the hiring
manager seemed uninterested from the start. He never gave
any indication that he was even remotely interested in hiring
someone, which made me question the value of giving my best
effort in the interview.”
—Candidate for managing editor position
“I had to wait for the hiring manager for 15 minutes. When he
finally came out, he said, ‘I’m sorry, who are you?’”
—Candidate for office manager position
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20
14
9
21
29
27
26
30
32
27
33
29
Not at all ModeratelySlightly
Latin America
North America
Europe
Asia
20
A lot
32
32
19
Source:JobSeekers
FIGURE
20 Influence of Interviewer on Job Acceptance
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND

Second on the job seekers’ list of grievances was interviewers’
withholding information about the position. Interviewers who
fail to educate an applicant about the job (1) lose important
selection information by not soliciting the candidate’s reactions
to the position and (2) forfeit a timely opportunity to keep a
candidate from searching elsewhere.
“The recruiter mostly talked excitedly about my
resume and qualifications. I didn’t learn much of
anything about the job and even less about the
organization.”
—Manager applicant, pharmaceutical company
Another common interviewer mistake was turning the
discussion into a cross-examination. Although candidates
expect to be asked questions, no one likes to be grilled.
“I got the impression that the interviewer was
desperately looking for some evidence of falsification
on my application. I listed all my relevant jobs since
college graduation, but the interviewer asked about
jobs before that. I said I had had some part-time jobs
(like being a waitress) here and there in college and
high school; some were in places that don’t exist
anymore. The interviewer said they needed
everything: names, numbers, addresses. When I said
there was a good chance some previous supervisors
had died during the past 18 years and the information
might be very difficult to get, she called me very
unprofessional.”
—Applicant for retail position
Job seekers also criticized interviewers for asking questions
unrelated to the skills needed for a position. Some were
questions of unsubstantiated validity, apparently used to make
inferences about traits or abilities. For example, “If you were
an animal (or a fruit, Disney character, tree, etc.), what kind
would you be?” or “What would you do if I gave you an
elephant?” Other questions invaded people’s privacy, such as
“Would you date two people in one night?” Personal
questions were particularly annoying to women.
“I had to wait for the
hiring manager for
15 minutes. When he
finally came out,
he said, ‘I’m sorry,
who are you?’”
—Candidate for office
manager position
23
70%
Acting like has no
time to talk to me
57%
Witholding information
about position
51%
Turning interview into
cross-examination
48%Showing up late
47%
Appearing unprepared
for interview
43%
Asking questions
unrelated to job skills
38%
Asking personal
questions
33%
Talking about
oneself instead
of my qualifications
Source:JobSeekers
FIGURE
21 Most Annoying Interviewer Behaviors

Even more hair-raising questions revealed that interviewers are risking
not only the loss of potentially valuable employees, but also their
organization’s reputation.
“If I had a very poor interviewing experience, I would want no
association with that company at all as a customer. I might even
become an advocate against them.”
—Office manager candidate
Correcting interviewers’ faulty behavior
could considerably enhance organizations’
ability to land the candidates they want.
Adhering to a structured method like
behavior-based interviewing is also an
antidote to irrelevant questions that serve
no purpose except to annoy candidates.
Complaints About Interviewees
Hiring managers also complained about
job candidates’ behavior (see Figure 22).
Like interviewers, job seekers engaged in
behaviors that suggested the interview
wasn’t that important. They came late or were poorly groomed or dressed.
Some even stated that the interview wasn’t important, saying, for instance:
• “I’m not sure that I want this job. I was just checking it out.”
• “I don’t really want this job. I just need 13 weeks for unemployment.”
• “How long is this going to take?”
Other applicants treated interviewer questions like an imposition.
For example:
• “That has got to be the weirdest and toughest question.”
• “I don’t need to answer these questions.”
Some Inappropriate
Interviewer Questions
• “If you were a dog, what kind
would you be?”
• “What do you think of the artwork
hanging on this wall?”
• “Would you date me and my
daughter at the same time?”
• “What is your natural hair color?”
• “What is the cost of the ring you
are wearing?”
77%
Appearing poorly
groomed or dressed
71%
Giving vague answers
about past experiences
62%
Exaggerating
qualifications
53%Being inarticulate
52%
Treating interview questions
like an imposition
40%
Withholding information
about himself/herself
39%Playing hard to get
39%Talking too much
77%
Being late for
the interview
FIGURE
22 Most Annoying Interviewee Behaviors

Although some self-promotion might be expected from job
candidates, many took it to a higher, unacceptable level.
Hiring managers thought some job seekers exaggerated their
qualifications to get the position, occasionally making
unbelievable claims such as:
• “I really am a rocket scientist.”
• “I can do all the jobs in this organization.”
• “You’d be a fool not to hire me.”
With a job market generally in their favor, job seekers also
made some outsized demands of their potential employers
(see sidebar).
A significant proportion of hiring managers accused some job
seekers of outright misrepresentation. They offered many
examples of how job seekers stretched the truth, such as:
• “An ICU nurse claimed she had open heart experience, but
it became very clear early on that she did not have the
knowledge base to care for this type of patient.”
• “He said he had a Ph.D. when the school he attended did
not offer that degree.”
• “Based on the applicant’s age and amount of experience
he claimed, he would have had to start his supervisory
career at age 10 and graduated from college at age 12.”
• “She misrepresented dates of employment to cover
employment gaps.”
• “He denied criminal convictions, but a background check
turned up four of them. When confronted, he said he was
set up and shouldn’t have been convicted.”
• “He claimed 10 years of experience in human resources on
his resume and in the interview, but a background check
found discrepancies; he was only 24. When he was
terminated, he said, ‘You’re firing me over that?’”
• “The applicant didn’t include a previous
employer due to being dismissed for
starting a fire in the storeroom.”
• “A technical writer claimed she wrote
publications when in fact she only
formatted them.”
• “A background check showed she never
enrolled in or graduated from the school
she placed on her résumé.”
25
Some Outsized Interviewee
Demands
• “Can I work in my pajamas?”
• “Do I have my choice of cars?”
• “I just got my college degree. Do
you think I could get an office with
a window?”
• “Can I bring my dog to work?”
• “I want your position.”

Hiring managers at the highest levels saw the most misrepresentation by
job candidates on either the résumé or in the interview (see Figure 23).
More than three-fourths (77 percent) of the executives claimed job
experiences had been misrepresented, and 44 percent claimed they had
dismissed someone for misrepresentation. The executives undoubtedly
had a broader perspective on the extent of misrepresentation both across
the organization and across time.
Despite the hiring managers’ claims, few job seekers admitted to
misrepresentation (see Figure 24). Some of the discrepancy might be
because managers were looking over many years of hiring; claiming
misrepresentation was modestly correlated (r = .14 for education, .17 for
experience) with tenure in a management role.
Cultural differences were
also apparent. Job seekers
in Latin America and Asia
were more likely to indicate
misrepresentation than
their counterparts in North
America or Europe. Yet
culture fails to explain
the difference between
interviewers and interviewees on how much misrepresentation actually
occurs; there is still a huge gap.
ExecutivesMid-Level Leaders1st-Level Leaders
Percent
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Misrepresented
education on résumé
or interview
Misrepresented
experience on résumé
or interview
Used personal, nonwork
friend as a reference
Dismissal for
misrepresentation on
résumé or interview
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
FIGURE
23 Executives Identified More Job Seeker Misrepresentation
Misrepresent experience
on résumé or interview
Use personal, nonwork
friend as a reference
Misrepresent education
on résumé or interview
31%
3%
58%
5%
40%
15%
Hiring Managers Job Seekers
FIGURE
24 Do Job Seekers Misrepresent Themselves?
Job Seekers’ Confessions
Latin America:
• 18 percent misrepresent education.
• 21 percent misrepresent experience.
Asia:
• 12 percent misrepresent education.
• 18 percent misrepresent experience.

Other evidence suggests that job seeker misrepresentation is
fairly widespread. ResumeDoctor.com found that of 1,000
résumés checked, 43 percent had significant inaccuracies.15
In 2006 the legislature in the State of Washington passed a bill
that made using a fake or unaccredited degree a felony
punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The bill also criminalized lying, either orally or in writing, to get
a job.16 If job seekers are misrepresenting their experience
and credentials, they are doing so at some degree of risk.
One final cluster of interviewer complaints related to how
interviewees answered the questions posed to them. A
frequent interviewer complaint was that job seekers were
vague about their past experiences. This is especially
problematic for hiring mangers trained in behavior-based
interviewing, which relies on getting interviewees to provide
examples of competency-related behavior.
Job seekers who were inarticulate or talked too much also
prevented interviewers from retrieving the information they
needed. Talking too much took on another connotation,
according to hiring managers’ write-in comments. Apparently,
many job seekers reveal personal information that is
embarrassing or even detrimental to their job application.
For example:
• “I left my previous job due to going off and smacking my
manager because she didn’t show me any respect.”
• “I got married too young and learned I really should have
listened to my mother.”
• “I applied for this job and other unrelated jobs in your
company—sort of like throwing spaghetti against the wall
to see what sticks.”
• “I was convicted of domestic violence last weekend, but it
was no big deal.”
• “I will be retiring in a few years, and I want this job for the
benefits.”
Job seekers would do well to heed advice on how to handle
an interview (as described in Landing the Job You Want17).
Even though the job market currently works in their favor, job
seekers’ should not set as their goal just any job, but the right
job. Getting there requires the kind of discussion that can
benefit both interviewer and interviewee.
“I applied for this job
and other unrelated jobs
in your company—sort
of like throwing spaghetti
against the wall to
see what sticks.”
—Job seeker
27

Interview Traps
Their respective complaints demonstrate that both job seekers and
hiring managers tend to fall into one or more of five common traps that
sabotage the interview. Table 4 summarizes these five traps—devaluing,
dueling, withholding, ego-stroking, and wandering.
These traps can be avoided. Organizations savvy enough to appreciate
the value of the interview as a sales tool can get an immediate payoff by
helping their managers recognize and avoid committing these costly
mistakes.
Good Interviewing Aids Selection
Interviewing should not be left to the idiosyncrasies of individual hiring
managers. Professional interview training not only assures a more reliable
outcome, but also boosts managers’ confidence in their ability to handle the
interview experience. Hiring managers who received interviewer training
rated their confidence in conducting a good interview considerably higher
than those who had not been trained (see Figure 25).
There are well-researched ways to conduct an interview that avoid the
common traps, provide critical information for selection decisions, and
serve to inform candidates about the position and its organizational
context. The behavior-based interview is a prime example (see sidebar).
FIVE DEADLY TRAPS THAT
SABOTAGE THE INTERVIEW
INTERVIEWER Mistakes INTERVIEWEE Mistakes
Devaluing Acting like there is no time to talk; Being late; showing up poorly
being late; appearing unprepared. groomed or dressed.
Dueling Grilling the candidate. Treating questions like an imposition.
Withholding Withholding information about Withholding information about self.
the position.
Ego-Stroking Talking about oneself instead of Exaggerating (misrepresenting)
the candidate. qualifications; playing hard to get.
Wandering Asking irrelevant, inappropriate, Giving vague answers; being
or personal questions. inarticulate; talking too much;
revealing inappropriate personal
information.
Moderate
Very low or low
High
8%Very high 30%
28%
55%
57%
23%
7%
0%
Untrained Trained
ConfidenceinInterviewingAbility
FIGURE
25 Training and Interviewer Confidence

Staffing directors whose organizations used behavior-based
interviewing extensively rated the effectiveness of their
selection strategy and process significantly higher than those
who used it only sometimes or never. In particular, those who
used behavior-based interviewing more were far better
equipped to identify candidates with the right kinds of
experience for the position (see Figure 26).
Ratings of the overall effectiveness of selection
strategy/process (10-point scale):
> 7.1 among those who used behavior-based interviewing a lot.
> 6.2 among those who used behavior-based interviewing
sometimes or never.
A scientifically sound method can capitalize on the interview
as a selection tool, and avoiding the deadly traps can
capitalize on the interview as a selling tool. Train your
managers in these foundations, and your interviews will help
you land the right candidates, not drive them away.
29
Behavior-Based Interviews
Behavior-based interviews provide a standard framework to gather and evaluate
job-related information from candidates systematically and reliably. They are
based on the belief that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.
During a behavior-based interview, candidates are asked to share information
about how they responded to particular situations in the past. The situations are
developed from critical incidents identified through job analysis and are directly
related to dimensions required to be effective in the targeted job/role. Follow-up
questions probe for specific details, including the consequences of the behavior.
In addition to determining a candidate’s skills and abilities, past behavior also can
be used to assess job motivation and organizational fit.
The selection and assessment literature supports the validity of the behavior-
based interview, primarily because of its structured format and the foundation
upon which it is built—the job/role analysis. This stands in sharp contrast to
traditional, unstructured interviews, which often show no relationship to later job
performance. Job-relatedness and consistent treatment of all candidates also
enhance legal credibility.
Behavior-based interviews are a flexible, efficient way of collecting information on
a wide variety of competencies. Unlike traditional, unstructured interviews, they
are easily integrated with other competency-based instruments to form a
comprehensive selection/development system.
Moderate
Very low or low
High
3%Very high 11%
16%
46%
52%
38%
29%
5%
Sometimes or Never Use
Behavior-Based Interviews
Use Behavior-Based Interviews
Extensively
IdentifyingCandidateswith
RightExperiences
FIGURE
26
Behavior-Based Interviewing Identifies
the Right Experiences

HELLO, GOOD-BYE
The most efficient selection system in the world won’t
help you meet your business objectives if you can’t keep
the talent you find. Unfortunately, retention is becoming
an increasingly serious problem.
Employee Tenure Is Shortening
Nearly half of all hiring managers expected that new employees would
stay in their positions a shorter time than did their counterparts five years
ago. Executives were the most pessimistic; 61 percent expected new
employees to stay a shorter time.
The tenure situation may be more drastic than organizations realize.
Both hiring managers and staffing directors seriously underestimated
how long new employees would stay with the organization compared to
what job seekers thought was a reasonable time (see Figure 27).
Nearly one-third of job seekers had been in their current job less than six
months, yet they were already in the market for a new one. Apparently,
many had taken a placeholder job until something better came along
(see Figure 28).
“This job was going to be what kept me afloat while I looked at
new career directions. I thought it would be a good idea
because I wouldn’t be desperate to take other jobs and lower my
standards.”
—Office manager
Job seekers in North America were particularly prone to taking placeholder
jobs, especially those in their teens and twenties. In Europe, however,
longer tenure before leaving for a new job was more the norm, perhaps
in response to government-mandated protections.
1–2 Years
3–5 Years
6–10 Years
Staffing Directors Hiring Managers Job Seekers
Individual
Contributors
Professionals First-Level
Leaders
Mid-Level
Leaders
< 6 months
32%
18%
6+ years
18%
3–5
years
18%
1–2
years
15%
6–11
months
Source:JobSeekers
FIGURE
28 Job Seekers’ Tenure in Their Current Job
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND
FIGURE
27 Perspectives on Expected New Employee Tenure

Why Employees Leave
One impediment to better retention is that employers often are
clueless about why employees resign. Table 5 compares the
reasons job seekers give for leaving their most recent jobs with
what staffing directors and hiring managers believe causes
employees to leave. The biggest discrepancy between the job
seekers’ stated reasons and the perceptions of others is in the
impact of external factors (e.g., accompanying a spouse on a
move to another location, returning to school).
Ten percent of job seekers cited external factors as the reason
for moving on to another job, ranking it tenth in a list of
14 reasons for employee turnover. Yet, hiring managers and
staffing directors placed external factors as first and second
(respectively) in their rankings of the 14 reasons (shown as
overrated in Table 5). Such a startling gap in rankings
suggests one clear interpretation: that employees give face-
saving reasons (that is, an external factor) for resigning,
perhaps not wanting to discuss painful disappointments or to
burn their bridges behind them.
“This job was going to
be what kept me afloat
while I looked at new
career directions.
I thought it would be a
good idea because I
wouldn’t be desperate
to take other jobs and
lower my standards.”
—Office manager
31
PERSPECTIVES ON REASONS FOR EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Underrated
Overrated
Job Seeker Staffing Director Hiring Manager
Rank Agree Rank Agree Rank Agree
Insufficient compensation, benefits, rewards/recognition 1 30% 3 48% 3 36%
Lack of growth/development opportunities 2 29% 1 53% 2 37%
Did not feel efforts were appreciated 3 24% 7 19% 6 19%
Felt treated unfairly 4 18% 14 9% 10.5 13%
Skills/Abilities not a good match for the job 5 15% 11 13% 12 12%
The organization changed 6 13% 8.5 18% 10.5 13%
Poor relationship with the manager 7 12% 4 35% 4 25%
Did not find the work interesting 8 11% 10 13% 9 13%
Poor fit with the organizational culture 9 11% 6 21% 7 18%
External factors (e.g., spouse moves, going back to school) 10.5 10% 2 52% 1 53%
Job changed focus or scope over time 10.5 10% 12.5 12% 13 10%
Job left too little time for personal life 12 10% 8.5 18% 8 16%
Job was not what the employee expected 13 9% 5 21% 5 22%
The economy changed, making a move possible 14 3% 12.5 12% 14 10%

Reasons for leaving a job, as with reasons for taking a job, varied with
the employee’s age. The highlighted areas in Table 6 show what’s
particularly important to certain age groups when searching for a new
position. (See the Job Flight Life Cycle on page 33.) Employers need
to pay attention to what tempts different age groups to leave:
• Those in their teens and 20s are more likely to get bored and find
external reasons for leaving, such as going back to school or
accompanying a spouse who moves.
• Those in their 20s and 30s are likely to look elsewhere if rewards are
not forthcoming and growth opportunities appear limited.
• Employees in their 30s can become dissatisfied if the job leaves them
too little time for their personal lives.
• Organizations undergoing change need to be especially attentive to
the impact that change has on employees in their 30s, 40s, and 50s.
Knowing the real reason that employees leave is a key to preventing
short-term turnover, or “hello, good-bye.” If too many “polite”
explanations (such as external factors) keep turning up, beef up your exit
interviews, or even better, outsource them to a third party. A disgruntled
employee is more likely to open up with a neutral third party who can
assure anonymity.
TURNOVER REASONS BY AGE
<20 21–30 31–40 41–50 >50
Insufficient compensation, benefits, rewards/recognition 18% 35% 29% 29% 26%
External factors (e.g., spouse moves, back to school) 18% 14% 11% 7% 5%
Did not feel skills/abilities were a good match for the job 15% 14% 16% 15% 15%
Did not find the work interesting 14% 18% 9% 7% 8%
Poor relationship with my manager 14% 12% 9% 13% 13%
Did not feel efforts were appreciated 14% 28% 26% 24% 19%
Lack of growth/development opportunities 12% 37% 33% 28% 19%
Felt treated unfairly 12% 21% 18% 20% 15%
Job was not what I expected 11% 12% 7% 8% 7%
Job changed focus or scope over time 11% 8% 13% 11% 10%
Job left too little time for personal life 8% 11% 15% 6% 11%
My style did not fit well with the organizational culture 6% 10% 10% 13% 11%
The organization changed 3% 7% 17% 16% 16%
The economy changed, making a move possible 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% Relatively More Important

Improving Retention
If you want to keep your employees, you need to pay attention
from the beginning of each person’s career. Many employees
have a rough beginning in their new jobs, which is a lost
opportunity for binding them to the organization. For that
reason, “on-boarding” is something organizations should
carefully consider.
On-Boarding
Few staffing directors described their on-boarding as high
quality (see Figure 29).
But well-constructed on-boarding processes pay off. Staffing
directors with good or excellent on-boarding rated their
organization better at retention than other organizations in
their industry (see Figure 30).
The best on-boarding programs were longer and
capitalized on information from the selection process.
Only a minority of staffing directors (39 percent) reported
using selection information in on-boarding, but those who
used it for purposes such as creating development
plans were rewarded with lower average turnover of
professionals and executives. They also reported that
fewer employees left because of a poor relationship with
their manager.
33
20s
Teens
30s
40s
50s+
Ho-Hum
Movin’ On
More Growth
More Money
Balanced
Growth
The Company
Changed
Job Flight Life Cycle
4%
36%
46%
14%
Excellent
Good
Poor
Fair
FIGURE
29 Quality of On-Boarding
Same
Worse
Better 49%
38%
45%
50%
6%
12%
Good or Excellent
On-boarding
Poor or Fair
On-boarding
RetentionComparedto
OtherOrganizations
FIGURE
30 Quality of On-Boarding and Retention
Knowing the real reason
that employees leave
is a key to preventing
short-term turnover,
or “hello, good-bye.”
—Job seeker

Promotion Opportunities
Promotion opportunities also can help you retain your employees. As
reported earlier (Table 2), opportunity to advance is one of the top five
factors that entice people to take a job. More than half of job seekers,
regardless of region, expected a promotion quickly—within one or two
years. This high expectation puts pressure on organizations to keep
high-quality employees moving ahead, particularly those in their twenties
and thirties.
Despite having employees eager for promotion, organizations fill two-
fifths to one-half of management positions from outside the organization
(see Figure 31). This seriously cuts into current employees’ promotion
opportunities and no doubt leads to frustration. Outside hires also pose a
higher selection risk, especially at professional and leadership levels.18
On a positive note, more than one-third of employers responding to a
recent job survey indicated that they planned to offer more promotions
and career advancement opportunities to their existing staff in 2007.19
Ongoing Strategies
Other retention efforts emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring
and attentive, interested leadership. Surveys have demonstrated that in
about 85 percent of participating Fortune 1000 companies, employees’
morale sharply declines after their first six months and continues to
deteriorate for years afterwards.20 Some of the strategies used to inspire
worker loyalty include tying supervisors’ compensation to retention
performance, enabling work/life balance in the workplace, and monitoring
employee sentiment.21
Good Selection Leads to Better Retention
Arguably the most powerful way to improve retention is to select the right
people to begin with. As reported earlier (Figure 14), staffing directors
use turnover as a primary measure of selection success. Survey results
showed that this emphasis is well founded. Staffing directors in
organizations with better retention than those in similar industries also
had notably better quality selection programs (see Figure 32).
First-Level Leaders
42%Mid-Level Leaders
40%
48%Executives
FIGURE
31 Positions Filled by External Hires

In other words, getting a clear, accurate, and complete
portrayal of candidates in the selection process will help you to
keep the ones you select. If the job is an excellent match to a
candidate’s talents and motivations, the person has little to
gain and much to lose by saying good-bye.
If the job is an excellent
match to candidates’
talent and motivations,
they have little to gain
and much to lose by
saying good-bye.
35
Fit between culture and
candidate values
Fit between job and
candidate’s preferences
Identifying people with
the right experiences
41%Complete picture of
candidate qualifications 61%
40%
56%
38%
56%
38%
56%
Same or worse retention than others
Better retention than other organizations
40%Objectivity of hiring 60%
FIGURE
32 Selection System Quality and Retention of Good Employees

SCORING A KNOCKOUT
The war for talent continues to put pressure on organizations to do a
better job of finding and selecting employees who are capable of making
strong contributions to organizational effectiveness and who will stay
around long enough to do so. Satisfaction with current recruitment and
selection systems is only moderate; there is much room for improvement.
Despite increasingly difficult obstacles, getting better mileage from your
hiring system is far from impossible. This report has highlighted some
clear paths to improvement, which are summarized here.
Lure Qualified Candidates
The best recruiting is efficient and targeted. Using
electronic methods can help satisfy candidates’ needs
for quick replies and feedback.
Branding your organization will enhance its appeal to candidates. But to
best target your message, investigate job seekers’ motivations and align
your recruiting message accordingly. Be sure to consider age, type of
open position, and cultural factors.
Organizations need to be aware of the critical role of hiring managers in
selling the organization and its job opportunities to candidates. Only
15 percent of hiring managers said they do a lot of selling to candidates,
but there is every indication that this percentage should be a lot higher.
Another strategy for hiring managers is to open their minds to valuable
talent, even if the fit to the open position is not ideal. They should
instead consider finding a more suitable job or changing the open
position to fit a good employee.
Spot the Best for You
There is no replacement for selection system quality.
Yet many organizations are not capitalizing on
scientifically developed selection methods. Tests and
assessments will round out your picture of the candidate and yield more
valuable information. Furthermore, they will reduce inconsistencies and
the tendency of your managers to rely on their gut instincts when making
hiring decisions.
Selection systems can also benefit from incorporating more efficient
methods. One type of applicant-pleasing efficiency takes only a small
effort: giving them feedback as soon as you can. Shortening the time to
hire will also help you please both hiring managers and job seekers, as
will easy-to-use systems like online assessments.
Land Your First Choice
Make hiring managers aware of their annoying interview
habits. Interactions with the interviewer can sway your
preferred candidates to join or reject your organization.
Interviewers need to be trained to use the interview as both a selling tool
and a selection tool. Many hiring managers are probably unaware of
how annoying some questions, behaviors, and habits can be to job
candidates.
To aid selection, interviewers need to adopt a sound, structured
interviewing method, such as behavior-based interviewing, to remain
objective and elicit information about competencies critical to performing
the open position successfully. This technique also can uncover
candidates’ misrepresentations of their experience.
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND

Keep Valuable Talent
Employers are working against a trend of
declining retention. To counter this trend, you
will need to discover employees’ real reasons
for leaving your organization and address their underlying
dissatisfactions. Be sure to dig beneath the obvious external
factors that are likely to be merely face-saving rationale. To
optimize your chances for getting the truth, have a neutral third
party conduct your exit interviews.
Once you hire your preferred employees, you must be vigilant
from the start of their careers to keep them on your payroll.
First, focus on better on-boarding. Make the experience
longer and more intensive, and use selection information to
launch the development process.
After on-boarding, make sure you keep following up on
employee attitudes and sentiments. Train your managers on
behaviors that promote retention, and make them accountable
for keeping their reports satisfied and engaged. Workers loyal
to their organization have strong relationships with their
bosses, who provide clear expectations, honest feedback, and
personal support.
Reevaluate your needs for external hiring. Promotions are
motivating and can drive retention. If you’re not developing
people for promotion, you need to start doing so!
Last, but certainly not least, invest in high-quality, thorough
selection processes. Be sure to measure all aspects of your
candidates, including their fit to the job and your organization’s
culture. If the slippers are a comfortable fit, employees will
keep on wearing them.
If you’re tired of slugging through the war for talent, these and
other lessons from the Selection Forecast will help you duck
the punches and score a hiring system knockout.
For more information, or to participate in our 2008 Selection
Forecast, e-mail CABER@ddiworld.com.
If you’re tired of
slugging through the
war for talent, these and
other lessons from the
Selection Forecast will
help you duck the
punches and score a
hiring system knockout.
37
LURE
SPOT
KEEP
LAND

DEMOGRAPHICS*
Organization Information (Staffing Directors)
BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION
North America Other Regions
4.8 2.4 Aerospace & Defense
0.5 2.0 Agriculture
4.8 5.2 Automotive & Transport—Leasing/Manufacturing
6.9 5.2 Banking
2.4 8.8 Beverages
10.8 12.0 Business Services
1.9 5.6 Chemicals
3.7 1.2 Computer Hardware
8.5 6.8 Computer Services
7.4 4.8 Computer Software—Development & Sales
5.3 3.2 Construction—Services & Materials
5.6 6.0 Consumer Products Manufacturers
1.1 4.4 Consumer Services
0.3 0.4 Cultural Institutions
2.1 2.8 Education
4.0 4.8 Electronics
4.8 4.4 Energy & Utilities
0.5 2.0 Environmental Services & Equipment
18.5 9.6 Financial Services/Insurance
3.4 8.4 Food
2.4 1.6 Foundations & Charitable Organizations
6.1 2.8 Government
* All numbers in tables, unless otherwise noted, represent percentages.
16.4 5.2 Health Care—Products & Services
9.0 8.4 Industrial Manufacturing
3.2 14.8 Leisure
2.6 0.4 Media
1.6 0.8 Membership Organizations
1.3 3.6 Metals & Mining
4.2 7.6 Pharmaceuticals
4.0 2.8 Real Estate—Commercial & Residential
4.5 6.4 Retail
1.3 1.6 Security Products & Services
3.7 3.2 Telecommunications—Equipment & Services
4.2 6.0 Transportation Services
GLOBAL VS. NATIONAL
50.0 25.4 National company—Does not own, operate, or have
affiliate offices outside home office country.
50.0 74.6 Multinational company—Owns, operates, or has
affiliate offices in multiple countries.
APPENDIX

PUBLIC VS. PRIVATELY HELD
36.0 34.8 Public (U.S. market)
6.5 22.0 Public (non-U.S. market)
57.5 43.2 Private
APPROXIMATE REVENUE FOR MOST
RECENTLY COMPLETED FISCAL YEAR
1.9 3.4 Less than $1 million
23.0 28.6 $1 million up to $50 million
10.4 8.8 $500 million up to $1 billion
20.0 12.9 $1 billion up to $5 billion
7.4 8.2 $25 billion or more
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION
1.1 0.8 1–10
4.5 2.9 11–50
4.5 6.1 51–100
9.0 6.9 101–200
12.8 14.3 201–500
9.6 17.1 501–1,000
24.2 21.2 1,001–5,000
9.6 7.8 5,001–10,000
6.6 7.3 10,001–20,000
10.1 9.0 20,001–50,000
8.0 6.5 50,001 or more
GEOGRAPHIC REGION
N
53 Europe (United Kingdom, France, Germany, The Netherlands)
378 North America (USA, Canada, Puerto Rico)
56 Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Panama)
99 Asia (China, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia,
Thailand, UAE)
23 Australia & New Zealand
39

Hiring Managers
NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU DIRECTLY SUPERVISE OR MANAGE
3.8 2.6 None
31.3 31.0 5 or fewer
28.7 25.3 6–10
18.0 19.8 11–20
10.7 12.9 21–50
7.6 8.3 More than 50
LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT LEVEL
41.9 28.9 First-level leader—supervisor, group leader, foreman, etc.
45.6 59.2 Mid-level leader—manager of other managers (division
manager, district managers, etc.)
12.5 11.9 Executive—people in policy-making positions (CEO, COO,
CFO, executive VP, senior VP, plant manager, etc.)
FUNCTIONAL AREA
11.6 14.3 Accounting/Finance
21.2 25.4 Administrative Support/Clerical
21.9 21.0 Customer Service and Support
3.5 5.9 Distribution
5.7 9.0 Engineering
20.8 2.8 Health Care
26.6 25.9 Human Resources/Personnel
6.9 12.1 Information Systems
2.7 3.6 Legal
2.8 6.4 Maintenance/Facilities
2.8 5.9 Manufacturing/Production/General Labor
7.7 12.9 Marketing
15.3 24.4 Operations
2.0 1.5 Publications/Graphic Design
3.8 6.2 Purchasing
6.3 7.0 Quality Assurance
4.4 7.7 Research/Development
1.6 4.2 Retail
9.9 13.2 Sales

Job Seekers
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION
24.0 35.4 Technical, trade, or other specialized education
44.7 20.8 College or university graduate
10.8 25.6 Advanced degree beyond college or university
20.4 18.2 None of the above
TYPE OF JOBS APPLIED FOR
11.1 8.7 Accounting/Finance
47.7 32.9 Administrative Support/Clerical
31.3 12.5 Customer Service and Support
5.1 8.2 Distribution
6.0 6.9 Engineering
9.7 3.7 Health Care
14.1 9.6 Human Resources/Personnel
7.9 6.8 Information Systems
3.3 0.9 Legal
6.4 3.8 Maintenance/Facilities
8.9 4.9 Manufacturing/Production/General Labor
13.9 10.0 Marketing
9.6 3.9 Operations
3.8 2.3 Publications/Graphic Design
4.3 3.8 Purchasing
4.3 3.1 Quality Assurance
6.3 4.9 Research/Development
14.8 6.4 Retail
19.9 18.0 Sales
AGE
5.6 4.1 20 or under
28.7 38.4 21–30
23.4 26.7 31–40
26.1 20.4 41–50
14.5 9.8 51–60
1.7 0.7 61 or older
LOWEST LEVEL OF JOBS APPLIED FOR
61.9 68.1 Individual Contributor—administrative, support,
service, machine operators, technicians, craft
workers, etc.
17.3 13.0 Professional—engineers, lawyers, physicians,
consultants, accountants, etc.
11.4 11.1 First-level leader—supervisor, group leader,
foreman, etc.
7.8 6.0 Mid-level leader—manager of other managers
(division manager, district manager, etc.)
1.5 1.8 Executive—people in policy-making positions
(CEO, COO, CFO, executive VP, senior VP,
plant manager, etc.)
41

PARTICIPATING
ORGANIZATIONS
All organizations listed completed the staffing director
survey. Some (denoted with *) also completed leader
surveys.
3M
24/7 Customer Incorporated (Philippines)
Abbott Laboratories
ABIJCSUD
Advance Auto Parts
Advanced Health Media
Advanced Input Systems
Advanced Solutions International
AEGON
Aeroperlas Airlines
Aflac
AIRES, Inc.
Alberta Advanced Education
ALSTOM Transport
Amcor
American Bank of the North
American Express Company*
ANTON Research
AOL Canada, Inc.
APFORT
Aristocrat Technologies
ARM
Aronson & Company
Art.com, Inc.
Aspiring Solutions
Assédic de Basse-Normandie
Associated Electric Cooperative Inc.
Assurant Inc.
AstraZeneca International*
AT&T
ATA Solutions
Atlantic Lottery Corporation
Australian Liquor Marketers
Australian Paper
Avecia Biologics Limited
Avid Resource Corp.
AXA General Insurance Hong Kong Limited*
AXA Pacific Insurance Company
Ballina Beverages
Banco Popular
Banner Health
BBVA Bancomer
BCI
BDC
Becton Dickinson Medical*
Bellco Credit Union
Berger Lahr
Bharat Electronics Limited
BHP Billiton*
Biovail Corporation
Bisk Education, Inc.
BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina
BlueScope Steel Limited*
Boeing - Delta Decatur Operations
Bombardier Aeronautique
Boston Centerless Inc.
Boys & Girls Clubs of America
bpi
British Columbia Public Service Agency
BRTRC, Inc.*
Brunner Mond
Business Objects*
Cabot Microelectronics Corporation
Campbell Soup Company*
Canadian National Railway Company
Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited
CARE USA
Carhartt, Inc.
Carilion Health System
Catalyst International
Caterpillar Mexico
CCC Information Services Inc.
Cenlar FSB
Centier Bank
CertainTeed
Cervecería Cuauhtemoc Moctezuma, S.A. de C.V.,
FEMSA*
The Chamberlain Group, Inc.*
CHAN Healthcare Auditors
Charter Global Inc.
Chicago Board Options Exchange
Children’s Health System of Alabama
Children’s Hospital Boston*
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
China Vanke Co., Ltd*
China World Hotel
Christiana Care Health System
Cia Bras de Distribuição
CIBC*
Ciment St-Laurent
Cingular Wireless*
CIT Group Inc.
Citigroup
CLTF Collection Office
CMR Partners, LLP
Coca-Cola FEMSA*
Colgate-Palmolive Company (Philippines)
Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail
du Québec*
Comprehensive Therapeutics, Ltd.
Computershare Limited
ConnectiCare, Inc.
Conservation International
Construction Specialties, Inc.
Construrama La Santa Cruz
COPA Airlines, Incorporated*
Cornell University
Corrpro Companies, Inc.
Coshocton County Memorial Hospital
Costain Group PLC*
Covance Inc.
Covestic Inc.*

43
Crane Materials International
CSA Group
CTI Group
CTS Corporation
Cummins Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.*
Cummins Inc. (Mid-South)
Curbell, Inc.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
DAK Americas LLC
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
DBTS, Inc.
Deloitte & Touche USA LLP
DENSO International America
Department of Trade and Industry (Philippines)
Despacho Vázquez y Asociados SA de CV
Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH
& Co. OHG
DHL International, Ltd.
Diageo plc
Diehl Controls North America, Inc.
Dofasco Inc.
Dole Pacific General Services, Ltd.
Douglas County, Colorado
DRS Technologies, Inc.
DTSI
Dubai Port World
Dun & Bradstreet (Australia) Pty Ltd
DWP (Private) Limited
E.A.G. Services, Inc.
E&A Consulting Group, Inc.
EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.
The Edge Companies
eHealthPartners, Inc.
Elan
Embraer Liebherr Equipamentos do Brasil S.A.
Emdeon Corporation
Emerson Network Power
Emory University
Empaques Plegadizos Modernos SA de CV
Emron
Enterprise Community Partners
Enterprise Financial
EPCOR Utilities Inc.
Equity Residential
Erie Insurance Group*
Ernst & Young
ERP Search
Essential Group, Inc.
Eurotiles Industrial Corporation
Evangelical Christian Credit Union*
Evenflo México S.A. de C.V.
Express Check Advance LLC
Factiva, Inc.
FastCargo Logistics Corporation
FedEx Custom Critical*
FEMSA Empaque
F. Hoffmann-La Roche LTD
Financial Partners Credit Union
FinanciaLinx Corporation
FinishMaster, Inc.
The First American Corporation
First United Travel, Inc.
Fisher Scientific International
FLEXPIPE Systems Inc.
Fonterra Co-operative Group
Fortis
Franklin Templeton Investments*
Fresenius Medical Care North America
Frost GeoSciences, Inc.
Fujitsu Limited
GASAG Berliner Gaswerke Aktiengesellschaft
Gate Gourmet, Inc.*
GCC Cemento S.A. de C.V.*
GDKN Corporation
Gemmy Industries Corporation
General Electric Company—Financial Services
General Motors de Mexico Complejo Silao*
Gestion Humana
GFI – Romcarbon
Giant Eagle Inc.
GKN plc
Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance*
GMAC Insurance
Goodrich Corporation Sensor Systems
Gouvernement du Canada
Great Lakes Computer Source
Greenville Hospital System
Greif, Inc.
Griffin Canada, Inc.
Groupe Roullier
Grupo Celanese, S.A.
Grupo Scotiabank*
Grupo Tycoon
Guardian Industries
Gulf Coast Medical Center
GXS, Inc. (Philippines)
Habit Management
Habitat France
Hallmark Rehabilitation
Halpern Eye Associates
Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates
Haworth, Inc.
Heineken USA
Henkel International
Hewlett-Packard
Hill Physicians Medical Group, Inc.
Hill-Rom, Inc.
Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc.
Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC*
HireRight, Inc.
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Inc.
(Philippines)
Honda Cars Philippines, Inc.
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation Limited*
Hormel Foods Corporation Shanghai
Huhtamaki Australia Limited
IBIDEN Philippines, Inc.
Idaho Power Company
IDC Research, Inc.

iGate Mastech
IKON Office Solutions, Inc.
iLearn Forum Ltd
illy caffe North America, Inc.
INCAT International*
inCode Wireless*
Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation
Infogix, Inc.
Infopark AG
ING Direct
Ingram Micro Inc.
in-integrierte informationssysteme GmbH
Inner Eastern Group Training
Integral Nuclear Associates, LLC
Intellectual Property Office
Interpharma Asia Pacific
IntraLase Corporation
INTRIA Items Inc.
Investance Group
IS3, Inc.
ISD Corporation
Ivax Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mexico)
Janssen-Cilag
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.*
Jekyll Island Authority*
Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc.
John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.
Johnson & Johnson (Caribbean)
Jollibee Foods Corporation Group
Kansas Gas Service
KaVo Dental Corporation
Kellogg Canada Inc.*
Kendrick Farmaceutica
KeyCorp
Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc.*
Kimura Inc.
Kindred Healthcare, Inc.*
Kohler Mix Specialties*
Konzerta
Lane Company
LANXESS (Sarnia)
Liberty Bell Equipment
Lifetouch Inc.
LifeWay Christian Resources
Lisi Aerospace
Liz Claiborne Inc. (Canada)
Lockheed Martin Corporation*
Lojas Riachuelo S.A.
L’Oréal SA
LSI Logic Corporation
LuK – Aftermarket Service
Lundbeck Brasil Ltda.
MAAF Assurances
The Main Street America Group
Manila Adventist Medical Center
Manila Pavilion Hotel*
Mann+Hummel Group
Marcedian S.C.
Maritz Inc.
Marriott International Inc.
MCM Technologies Berhad
McMount Consulting Services, Inc.
MeadWestvaco Corporation
MediCorp Health System
MediServe Information Systems, Inc.
Meeder Financial
Mercer, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merck Frosst Canada LTD
Merck Sharp & Dohme (Asia) Ltd.
Merion Publications, Inc.
The MERIT Companies
Mervyn’s LLC
Metcash Trading Limited*
Methodist Healthcare System
Miami County, Kansas
Milgard Windows, Inc (Chicago)
Mirant Corporation (Philippines)*
MOL (America) Inc.
Monsanto Company
Moog Inc.
NASD
National Instruments Corporation
NAV Canada
Navitaire Inc.
NCS Pte. Ltd.
NELSON
Nestlé Group*
New Dimensions in Learning
New York Hospital Queens
New York Power Authority*
Niji
Nokia
Northern Alberta Institute of Technology*
Northrop Grumman Corporation*
Novo Nordisk A/S*
NVR, Inc.
NYK Line (Japan)
O&A Investment Services
ODL, Inc.
Oerlikon Balzers Coating
Office of the Arizona Attorney General
Ohio Permanente Medical Group
ON Semiconductor*
One Network Bank
Ontario Hospital Association
OrthoCarolina
Owens Corning*
Oxford Industries, Inc.
Oxford Instruments plc
Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.
Panasonic de México S.A. de C.V.
PAR Springer-Miller Systems
Patheon Inc.*
Patriot Energy Group, Inc.
Peopleclick, Inc.
PeopleSupport, Inc.
Perot Systems*
Perum BULOG*
Pfizer Inc.*

45
Pitney Bowes Inc.
Plastipak Packaging Inc.*
Pond & Company
PPG Industries
Premier Farnell plc
Premiere Global Services
Priority Health
Proeza
Propal S.A.*
PSCU Financial Services, Inc.*
PT Bank Niaga Tbk.*
PT Holcim Indonesia Tbk*
PT PAM Lyonaisse Jaya*
PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk
PT Trakindo Utama*
PT United Tractor Tbk*
PUUL GmbH
PZ Cussons Australia Pty Ltd
Qioptiq Imaging Solutions
Quantum Foods Incorporated
Quintiles Transnational Corporation
Randstad
Randy’s Ring & Pinion
Ready Bake Foods
RealtyTrac Inc.
Red Hat, Inc.
The Regus Group plc
Rent-A-Center
Réseau de transport de la Capitale,
Quebec, Canada
Réseau de transport de Longueuil,
Quebec, Canada
Respironics, Inc.
Rich Products Corporation
Ripley S.A.*
Risk Management Solutions, Inc.
Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd
Rock-Tenn Company
Rodelag
Rohm and Haas (Scotland) Ltd.
Roto-Rooter Inc.
Royal Caribbean International
Rydex Investments
SABMiller plc
SAGA GWG
Saint Francis Medical Center
Saint Joseph’s Hospital*
St. Louis Children’s Hospital
SAP America Inc.
SAS Autosystemtechnik Verwaltungs GmbH
Schenck Business Solutions
Schering-Plough Corporation*
Schneider Electric S.A.
Schreiber Foods Inc.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Scott Jardine Ltd.
Sears Holdings Corporation
Secured Funding Corporation*
Shangri-La Hotels & Resorts*
Siemens Corporation*
SILOGIC
Simplot Australia Pty Ltd
The Situs Companies
SK Comercial
Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics GmbH
Smiths Aerospace
Smiths Medical
Smolin Lupin & Company
Smorgon Steel Group Ltd
Société Pierre Boucher
Software ONE, Inc.
Solutions Emploi
Southlake Regional Health Centre
SPi
Stabilit S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
Standard Life plc*
Sterling Commerce
Sterling Equities
Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc.
Sucre Arias & Reyes
Sun Life Inc.
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.*
Swissport International Ltd.
Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated*
Symbol Technologies, Inc.
Syncrude Canada Ltd
SYSCO Corporation
T&T Consulting
Tarong Energy*
TeleTech Holdings, Inc.
TELUS Corporation
Temple University Health System
Tenaris
Texas Children’s Hospital*
Thermotech, S.A. de C.V.
Thomas Kinkade Company
The Thomson Corporation (Philippines)
Toga Hospitality*
Toronto Rehabilitation Institute
Total E&P USA Inc.
Total Interior Systems—America, LLC
Toyota Motor Philippines*
Tozzini, Freire, Texeira e Silva Advogados
Traders Hotels*
Trane Systems
TRANZACT
Trend Micro Incorporated*
Triton Systems, Inc.
Turbomeca USA
Tyco Healthcare Group LP
UCI Medical Center*
UFS Dispensaries Ltd
Unified Western Grocers, Inc.
Unilever*
Union Switch & Signal Inc.*
United Recovery Systems, LP
United Way of Greater Rochester
Unitus Community Credit Union
University of Technology Sydney*
UNM Hospitals

URS Corporation
Utah Retirement Systems
Vanke Co., Ltd.*
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
ViewPoint Bank*
Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP
Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services
Virtual Causeway
Vytec Corporation
Waterfront Philippines Incorporated
Watson Wyatt Asia-Pacific
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
The Weather Channel Interactive, Inc.*
Weidmüller GmbH & Co. KG
Wellmark, Inc.
Westfield Ltd.
Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare
Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
WhiteWave Foods Company
Who’s Calling, Inc.
Wilhelm Karmann GmbH
Wireless Generation, Inc.
Wizard Home Loans
Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
Workforce Safety & Insurance*
World Relief
WorleyParsons LTD
Worthington Industries
Worthyjobs Pte Ltd
WPS Resources Corporation
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals*
Wyndham Hotel Group
Xperianz
Yankee Group Research, Inc.
YMCA du Grand Montréal
YMCA of Greater Rochester
Zenith Insurance Company
Zetec, Inc.
Zimmer, Inc.
Zimmer MedizinSysteme GmbH
The Zitter Group
Note: When completing the HR survey, each respondent was asked to type the full name of the organization he or she represented. In publishing the list of participating organizations, DDI
cannot assume responsibility for errors in spelling or other errors in the information provided by these individuals. This list does not include organizations that wish to remain anonymous.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ann Howard, Ph.D., is DDI’s Chief Scientist.
As the leader of DDI’s Center for Applied
Behavioral Research (CABER), she evaluates
the validity and impact of DDI programs and
uncovers global trends and issues in human
talent management. Ann has more than 30 years’ experience
as an industrial-organizational psychologist, specializing in
assessment centers and managerial careers. She is a
recognized author, researcher, and speaker in her field.
She has held leadership roles in a variety of professional
organizations and is a past president of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).
Scott Erker, Ph.D., is the Senior Vice President
of Selection Solutions for DDI. He oversees the
design and implementation of comprehensive
selection systems that improve the speed and
quality of hiring decisions. He has worked with
many Fortune 500 companies, including General Motors,
Microsoft, Marriott, and Coca-Cola. He has been a featured
speaker at SIOP, the Human Capital Institute Summit, and the
Global Workforce Leadership Summit. Scott is quoted
frequently in business and trade publications, including The
Wall Street Journal and Sales & Marketing Management.
Neal Bruce is the Vice President of Alliances at
Monster. He has been in the recruiting industry
for the past 14 years. His first 11 years were
spent as a practitioner, moving from recruiter to
recruiting manager to director of staffing for a
global software organization. In his current position Neal is
responsible for creating and executing Monster’s HR Vendor
Alliances strategies. He is a member of the Human Capital
Institute’s National Advisory Board and is a frequent speaker
at HR industry conferences.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project Management: Jennifer Pesci-Kelly, Jeffrey Quinn,
Bradford Thomas
Recruitment: Dwiputri Adimuktini, Sonia Allard, Malu
Arredondo, Mathieu Belli, Bronwyn Bower, Mark Busine,
Alejandro Del Moral, Nikki Dy-Liacco, Barbara Endemann,
Peter Harris, Sandy Hill, Jean-Paul Isson, Matthias
Klappenbach, Annabelle Maury, Christen McCabe, Lucy
McGee, Yvonne McGowan, Magali Personnier, Allison
Picciano, Rehana Sharma, Karine Skobinsky, Lily Sun,
Jon Swedberg, Steve Sylven
Research Team: Paul Bernthal, Jason Bondra, Alexander
Davis, Jazmine Espejo, Carla Fogle, Julia Peters
Editorial: Mike Crawmer, Shawn Garry
Graphic Design: Patrice Andres, Susan Ryan, Janet Wiard
47

ENDNOTES
1. “Jobless Rate Off: 97,000 Added to Payrolls,” by J.W. Peters, March 10,
2007, The New York Times, pp. B1–B4.
2. (2007, Mar. 16). Labour force survey by OECD Statistics
http://stats.oecd.org/wbos
3. “Rapid Recruiting in China Undercuts Predictions of a Looming Talent
Shortage,” by F. Nansen, Nov. 20, 2006, Workforce Management, 85(22),
pp. 36–37.
4. “To Have and to Hold,” March 2006, New Zealand Management, 53(2), p. 14.
5. “Job Sharing Key to Solving Skills Shortage,” April 2006, In the Black, 76(3),
p. 12.
6. “Reaching Out from Down Under,” by T. Hoffman, December 18, 2006,
Computerworld, 40(51), p. 30.
7. Selection Forecast: Recruiting and Hiring Talent, by P.R. Bernthal and S.
Erker, 2005, Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.
8. “Seven Major Job Trends for 2007,” by M. Ferguson, 2007.
Available online at http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/
careerbytes/CBArticle.aspx?articleID=610&cbsid=
2cbd036fc7a44e1e8f2e9b9318755937-226930056-TE-4&mine=-1
9. 2007 Sales Outlook Snapshot Survey, by D.J. Cichelli, 2007, Scottsdale,
AZ: The Alexander Group.
10.“If You’re On Time and Breathing, You’re Hired,” by C. Gillis, October 16,
2006, Maclean’s, 119(41), p. 20.
11. “Personnel Selection,” by I.T. Robertson & M. Smith, 2001, Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(4), pp. 441+.
12.“War for Talent, Part Two,” by E.L. Axelrod, J. Handfield-Jones, & T.A.
Welsh, 2001, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, pp.9–11.
13.“Best Practices in Leader Selection,” by A. Howard, 2006. In J.A. Conger
& R.E. Riggio (Eds.), The Practice of Leadership: Developing the Next
Generation of Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.Ibid.
15.“Getting Wise to Lies,” by L.T. Cullen, May 1, 2006, Time Canada,
167(28), p. 27.
16.In “Brickbats,” by C. Oliver, April 2006, Reason, p. 8.
17.Landing the Job You Want: How to Have the Best Job Interview of Your
Life, by W.C. Byham & D. Pickett, 1999, New York: Three Rivers Press.
18.“Identifying, Assessing, and Selecting Senior Leaders,” by A. Howard,
2001, in S.J. Zaccaro & R. Kilmoski (Eds.), The Nature and Context of
Organizational Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.Cited in Ferguson (see note 8).
20.“Why Your Employees are Losing Motivation,” by D. Sirota, L.A. Mischkind,
& M.I. Meltzer, April 10, 2006, Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge. Available online at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5289.html
21.“Retention Strategies for 2006 and Beyond,” Monster Intelligence, Winter
2006. Available online at http://media.monster.com/a/i/intelligence/pdf/
Monster_Research_Retention_Strategies_for_2006.pdf

© Development Dimensions International, Inc., MMVII. All rights reserved.
MICABERSR14
*HJFC*
HJFC
$50
THE AMERICAS
WORLD HEADQUARTERS
PITTSBURGH
412.257.0600
MEXICO CITY
52.55.1253.9000
TORONTO
416.601.5500
Other offices include
Atlanta, Calgary, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit,
Monterrey, Montreal, New York, St. Louis,
San Francisco, Santiago, and São Paulo
EUROPE/AFRICA
DÜSSELDORF
49.2159.91680
LONDON
44.1.753.616.000
PARIS
33.1.41.9686.86
Johannesburg and Warsaw
ASIA-PACIFIC
SHANGHAI
86.21.6113.2525
SINGAPORE
65.6226.5335
SYDNEY
61.2.9466.0300
Auckland, Bangkok, Beijing, Brisbane,
Dubai, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur,
Manila, Melbourne, Mumbai, Perth, Seoul,
Taipei, and Tokyo
TO LEARN MORE:
EMAIL: INFO@DDIWORLD.COM
WWW.DDIWORLD.COM
MICABERSR14_CV.qxp 4/26/2007 3:02 PM Page 2

DDI Selection Forecast 2007

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to DDI Selection Forecast 2007 (20)

More from Meghan Daily (19)

Recently uploaded (20)

DDI Selection Forecast 2007