You Must Choose Between Two Sales Recruits One Has Scored We

You Must Choose Between Two Sales Recruits One Has Scored Very High I

You must choose between two sales recruits. One has scored very high in terms of the quality of his interview, but not very well on the series of psychological tests to predict qualities the firm thinks are necessary for success. Another person did well on the psychological testing, but not very well in the personal interview. All other things being equal, which one would you hire, and why? What do you think the strengths and weaknesses would be of the one you hired?

Paper For Above instruction

Choosing between two sales recruits based on differing assessments presents a complex decision that requires careful evaluation of the predictive validity of various selection tools and their alignment with the firm's success criteria. The decision involves weighing the importance of personal interview performance against psychological test results, both of which offer distinct insights into a candidate's potential.

On one hand, a high score in the personal interview typically indicates strong interpersonal skills, presentation abilities, and perhaps a good cultural fit within the organization. Skills demonstrated during an interview can often translate into effective communication with clients, negotiation abilities, and excellent relationship-building, all critical for sales success. For example, a candidate who excels in the interview may possess confidence, articulate clarity, and a positive attitude that energizes sales interactions.

Conversely, a candidate who scores highly on psychological tests may demonstrate traits associated with resilience, motivation, emotional intelligence, and the ability to handle stress—attributes crucial for sustained success in sales roles. Psychological assessments often measure traits such as conscientiousness, extraversion, and conscientiousness, which research correlates with job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Such traits are predictive of persistence, adaptability, and resilience in facing rejection and competitive pressure, essential qualities in sales.

In selecting a candidate, organizations must consider the relative importance of skills versus inherent traits. If the firm prioritizes interpersonal skills, persuasion ability, and immediate rapport-building, then the candidate with the superior interview performance might be preferred. However, if resilience, motivation, and emotional stability are deemed more critical for long-term success and adaptability, the psychological test high scorer might be the better choice.

Given that all other factors are equal, I would lean towards hiring the candidate with higher psychological test scores, assuming the firm's primary goal is long-term sales performance and resilience in a competitive environment. Psychological traits tend to be more stable over time and have been shown to predict job performance more reliably than interview performance alone (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Moreover, this candidate's traits may serve as a foundation for developing interpersonal skills through training and experience.

However, this decision is not without potential weaknesses. The psychologically strong candidate might lack initial rapport-building skills, leading to a slower start in client interactions, or may require additional training to enhance their communication and presentation abilities. Conversely, the interview-high candidate may excel initially but could struggle with persistence or handling rejection if their psychological traits are less suited for stress management and resilience, potentially leading to burnout or inconsistency over time.

In conclusion, selecting a sales recruit is a strategic decision that should account for the specific role requirements, trait stability, and predictive validity of assessment tools. While a balance of interpersonal skills and psychological resilience is ideal, prioritizing psychological traits—given your scenario's parameters—may lead to better long-term performance, provided supplemental training in interpersonal skills is implemented. Continuous performance monitoring and development initiatives can further mitigate weaknesses and capitalize on the inherent strengths of the chosen candidate.

References

• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
• Spiro, R. L., Rich, G. A., & Stanton, W. J. (2008). Management of a sales force (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.
• Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 9–30.
• Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703–742.
• Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In Support of Personality Assessment in Personnel Selection: An Evidence-Based Review. Human Performance, 20(3), 203–231.
• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1992). Effect of Personality on Worker Performance: A Theoretical Standard and Empirical Review. Personnel Psychology, 45(4), 652–693.
• Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What We Know About Leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169–180.
• Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The Power of Personality: The Comparative Validity of Personality Traits, Temperament, and Abilities for Predicting Important Life Outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345.