Eeehhh... I know some of our colleagues are passionate about the value of psychometrics, but as a tool for recruitment they are almost universally condemned by the psychologists for whom they were designed. With the best will in the world, I cannot endorse a suggestion that using them in recruitment is "more scientific".
To Jane:
Competency-based selection was originally developed in the 60s as a model by Danial Kahneman, author of "Thinking Fast & Slow"", who subsequently won a Nobel prize for his work in the field of behavioural psychology.
Although Kahneman's model has been finetuned since then, it really hasn't been bettered and is probably the most objectively well-tested method of recruitment and therefore the "most scientific" you're like to find. The question, of course, is whether you're using it correctly and whether your expectations of its outputs are realistic.
Kahneman's findings were that selection based on competency scoring alone was superior to selection based only on instinct, but that the most effective results came from an instinct selection *after* performing a competency scoring.
There are some criticisms of the competency-based model. For a start, it assesses only on the basis of what candidates have already done and makes no allowance for future potential. And, because it relies upon what ultimately amounts to a subjective judgement call, it remains vulnerable to discriminatory bias (the tendency on the part of selectors to prefer candidates who are like themselves). However, as those criticisms can be fairly levelled at almost every other selection method, and because those that don't show those flaws are flawed in other, more substantive ways (anyone want to attempt pure random selection?), competency-based selection, properly executed, remains the most "scientifically" effective method for selecting talent.
In recent years, though, a method that has gained substantial traction is "values based" selection, which applies the competency method (essentially "tell me about a time when...") to a values system ("tell me about a time when you had to stand up to authority"; "tell me about a time when you made a mistake").
To my knowledge, the efficacy of values-based selection hasn't been widely tested and it has been adopted largely as a knee-jerk response to individuals who have been appointed on the basis of competence only for them to fail later on the basis of their values (high profile sexual harassment cases being an obvious example).
It is my personal opinion that values-based selection has its place as part of a competency-based framework, but should represent, at most, 20% of the selection method.
I've not come across a "strengths-based" selection method to date. It's not a bad principle that one should look to reinforce strength rather than compensate for weakness. But I would tend to say that there must be a baseline of minimal competence to qualify for most roles, regardless of a person's strengths. I think a "strengths-based" approach is more valid post-recruitment when discussing professional and personal development and how to invest in your employees.
*It is worth mentioning that Kahneman, like the good scientist he is, continually appraises his findings and has revised and reversed some of his conclusions in "Thinking Fast & Slow". That should be borne in mind when he continues to endorse the competency-based selection model.
CIPD factsheet... with a note on psychometric tests...
www.cipd.co.uk/.../selection-factsheet
