The BarOn EQ-I, normed on a diverse, international sample, has been the focus of numerous empirical studies exploring its validity as a selection tool.
Below are six research studies that highlight the use of the EQ-I to enhance employee selection and retention programs:
Study One: Dr. Richard Handley compared 1100 successful and unsuccessful sales personnel in the U.S., Japan, England and Germany. He found the EQ-I increased the accuracy of hiring the right employee for the right position by 2.7 times.
Handley reported that "of the 15 areas of EQ [Emotional intelligence] as measured by the EQ-I, those most predictive of sales success in the organization studied were" (in order of importance):
Assertiveness
Empathy
Happiness
Emotional Self-Awareness
Problem-Solving
Study Two: In another study by Handley, hiring and training savings were even more dramatic when the EQ-I was included. First-year employee attrition due to sales "failure" decreased by 92%.
Study Three: A global consumer beverage firm using standard hiring methods observed that 50% of newly hired division presidents left the organization within in the first 2 years, mostly due to poor performance. As a result the company's total search cost was close to $4 million. After using an EQ assessment to evaluate new hires, only 6% of newly hired division presidents left within the first two years. (Spencer & Spencer Competences at Work.)
The following studies were conducted by the Hay/McBer Research and Innovation Group:
Study Four: At L'Oreal, sales agents chosen by their EQ strengths had 63% less turnover during their first year than before EQ was used as a selection aid.
Study Five: New hires at a start up computer company were 90% more likely to finish their training than those "hired using other criteria."
Study Six: At a national furniture company, the first year drop out rate was cut in half when EQ was used instead of other standards.
The EQ-I and the Selection Process-A Case Study
Consider the following conservative example of the savings generated by using the EQ-I in selection and promotion of employees.
Before using the EQ-I as part of the pre-employment screening process:
Company X invested $10,000* per employee or $100,000/year to hire and train 10 new employees.
Company X reported that one employee in 10 fails to succeed and leaves.
Company X loses $10,000 in their investment per year for every 10 employees hired.
(*For larger companies, this figure can be much higher.)
After using the EQ-I as part of the pre-employment screening process:
Company X invests or $10,200 per employee ($200 more per each candidate for the EQ-I assessment) or $102,000/year to hire and train 10 new employees.
Using the EQ-I as part of the pre-employment screening process the attrition/failure rate dropped from 1 in 10 new hires to now only 1 in 27.
Using the EQ-I, the company reduced its losses for every 10 employees hired from $10,000 to just $3759.
Or, Company X saves $6241 for every 10 employees hired.
Company X invests $200 more per employee hired to save $624.10 per hiree.
Suppose a corporation hires 27 employees
Using EQ the costs are:
$275,400 ($10,200 x 27)
$10,200 to replace one lost employee
+ out of the 27 successful hired.
---------------------------------------------------------------
$285,600 or $10,578/employee
Without EQ the costs are:
$270,000 ($10,000 x 27)
$10,000 to replace the employee lost in the first 10 plus
$10,000 to replace the employee lost in the second 10 plus
+ $7,000 for the portion of an employee lost from 21-27 or
----------------
$297,000 or $11,000/employee
difference in cost per employee is
Without EQ $11,000
With EQ $10,578
-------------
Net Savings: $422/ employee interviewed
There are, of course, far more financial savings gained by successfully hiring right person for the job vs. an under performer than can be quantified here. The above example only highlights the obvious financial savings.
Financial gains can be profound when the employee is a salesperson and/or management where achievement vs. underachievement directly affects the performance of numerous subordinates and/or the securing of additional outside contracts. Research also indicates that morale has an acute impact on corporations and productivity. When polled, most employees admit they could produce far more if they were more motivated by management. Hiring the right people for key positions is a major factor in maintaining and enhancing productivity and morale.
Summary
There are many factors that must be considered in determining whether selection testing is useful in hiring and promotion decisions. Most notably, the importance of the position and its impact on revenue, morale and employees must weigh heavily into the decision of how much investment is desirable during the screening process. These variables will continue to be a consideration long into the future as will be the "culture-fairness," validity and norming of any selection instrument chosen.
The empirical conclusions that are emerging as researchers have scrutinized the EQ-I are that the BarOn Emotional Intelligence Inventory has stood up well as a diversely normed and potent screening tool. According to recent studies, its inclusion as part of the selection process has yielded a return of investment, on average, of approximately 300%.
Human Resource personnel and company leaders unfamiliar with the EQ-I are necessarily cautious about implementing any instrument, especially in key decisions like selection. In most cases, it is helpful for the evaluating team or selected team members to take the instrument accompanied afterwards by confidential feedback. This way, the team can decide first-hand if the instrument is accurate, at the same time they are relieved of the fear that they will have to share their results with peers or superiors.
Finally, in deciding on the use of any instrument, it is important to remember the question is never: "Is this test the perfect means of discerning between potentially star and poor performers?" but rather, "Does the instrument, when included as part of an existing, comprehensive interview, promotion or staff development program, significantly increase the likelihood of selecting the right candidate for the right position?" In the field of test construction and selection, this incremental increase in accuracy can be first researched and then quantified in equation form. As noted in the above example and cited research, it can then be quickly evaluated in terms of the cost vs. benefits to a particular organization for a particular selection process.
About the Author
Dr. Bill Dyment is a clinical psychologist and corporate consultant with over 400 employee and management development presentations to date. Certified in the administration of the BarOn EQ-I and a number of other selection instruments, including the 16PF, he frequently partners with corporation for their employee selection and development needs visiting some 50 sites each year. Dr. Dyment has taught Psychological Testing and Measurement at Azusa Pacific University and assessed children and adolescents for school placement with the County of Orange (CA). Currently, he offers career assessment programs for executives and those in transition at his Newport Beach office where he heads Dyment & Associates, 800-454-8393.
Copyrightã 2003, Dyment & Associates
All rights reserved
