If you wonder why I continually write about sports and HR, take the trials and tribulations of former Detroit Lions 2nd round pick, Titus Young.  In Monday's column, Peter King highlights Young's on- off-the-field actions over the past year:

• Got into a fight with teammate and safety Louis Delmas.
• In at least one game, lined up wrong on purpose multiple times because he wasn't happy with his role in the Detroit offense.
• Shouted at receivers coach Shawn Jefferson on the sidelines.
• Was sent home during the regular season for insubordination.
• Was cut by the Lions.
• Was signed by the Rams, then cut by the Rams eight days later.
• Was stopped in California for making an illegal left turn, charged on suspicion of DUI, and arrested hours later for attempting to steal his own car from a police impounding lot.  (That's right....arrested twice in the span of 15 hours)
• Was arrested for suspected burglary, and charged with resisting arrest and assault on a peace officer.

Today, it was reported that Young has a brain disorder, but one has to wonder how much is real (which, if true, I hope Young gets the help he needs), or how much is it a father trying to protect his son.

Nonetheless, it demonstrates the vagaries of the selection process.  Young was the 44th pick in 2011.  The Lions had hours of game tape to evaluate his work performance.  He was prodded and poked at NFL combines.  He was interviewed over and over and over again.  Young was suspended for much of his sophomore year at Boise State after getting into a fight with a teammate. He was a first round talent who dropped in the draft because other teams considered him a risk based on the character flaws.  Yet, the Lions selection committee chose to take him over such talent as Randall Cobb or Torrey Smith (who both have had much more successful careers with the Packers and Ravens, respectively, while being picked later).

"Scout to me before Titus Young was drafted, 'I don't know if he'll ever be in trouble, but he's just not a good person.' ''
-- @Schottey, Bleacher Report NFL writer Michael Schottey, on Sunday.

Based on sterling recommendations from Laurie Ruettimann and Neil Morrison, I picked up the Omnibus edition of "Wool," a series of science fiction novellas from author Hugh Howey.

The basic premise is that the outside world has become toxic forcing humanity to live in 144-story silos, where the bottom third is dedicated to farming and mechanical upkeep, the middle third to IT, and the top third to the professional class and living quarters.

In the first novella, Wool, Holston, the sheriff, is investigating the death of his wife, and decides to resign; this means exile to the outside where he is expected to clean the sensors and windows and die.

In the second novella, Proper Gauge, Mayor Jahns and Deputy Marnes, look to find a replacement for Holston.  They engage in succession planning, a series of reference/background checks, and interviewing to make a selection among three candidates.

OMG...ITS A SERIES OF BOOKS ABOUT HR!!!

No wonder Laurie and Neil liked it.

I'm continuing on with the 3rd novella, Casting Off, but I swear if I read about the talent communities at the hydroponic farm...I'm done!!!

One of my favorite terms in HR is "base rate of success."  Its also rarely discussed, but absolutely critical.

Simply put, the "base rate of success" tells us the proportion of employees who would be successful on the job if we hired randomly instead of applying some predictor.

As Gatewood and Feild (2010) write in their book "Human Resource Selection:"

If 100 percent of the applicants would be successful if hired, there is no added information provided by the predictor; one would simply randomly pick from the pool of superstar candidates.  Conversely, if every applicant in the selection pool would fail if hired, the predictor cannot help identify even one applicant who would be successful; none are successful.

We invest considerable time in our selection tools.  We apply certain assessment tests believing they provide added information that would help differentiate amongst qualified candidates.  We spend countless hours interviewing the "best" applicants hoping it will give they final impetus on who to choose.

How much better are these predictors than simply throwing darts or picking out of a hat?  Have you looked at your measures to see if they are providing you that edge?  How much would your company pay improved your ability to select by 3%? 5%? 10%?

So, my wife and I are expecting twins in the next couple of months.  Anxious times.

Of the hundreds of decisions that we are making, one is the choice of the pediatrician taking care of our children.  Choosing one shouldn't be any different than choosing an employee, right?  All, I assume, meet the basic qualifications of the position - knowledge, education, abilities, etc, or they wouldn't be already hired and hanging out their shingle.  So, it comes down to word-of-mouth referrals, and the interview.

We are going through a series of "meet and greets" to find the "right" one, much like a manager would interview a potential applicant.   We went through our first one yesterday.  Questions were posed, such as:

"How many years have you been at this clinic?"
"How many children have you served?"
"What's your perspective on medicating kids with behavioral problems?"
"Have you rejected any patients?"
"Have any patients rejected you?"
"At what age do you stop seeing the patient?"

For the most part, I tend to take a distant view of my health care employees.  They have the proper certification, education, knowledge, skills, and abilities, and are still employed.  In terms of cost, if they are in network, what's the difference?  One doctor is as good as the next.  So, the interview process really is a search for some piece of negative information that would turn us away.  For my wife, it does come down to "fit;" does the pediatrician make her feel "comfortable," and does he/she come across as a "know-it-all."

So, parents in the know....what am I missing?

Are you ready for a HR gameshow?

With unemployment hovering above 7%, and millions of people looking for a new opportunity, it was inevitable that someone would create a show focusing on the job search.  Premiering on CBS on Friday, February 8 at 8/7 Central,, Mark Burnett of "Survivor" fame and Michael Davies, the Executive Producer of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" have created "The Job," which centers on five qualified applicants who compete to land their dream job.

In the first episode, five individuals with varied restaurant experience vie for the Assistant Manager position at a legendary Palm Restaurant.  With a panel of three high-ranking Palm employees observing the candidates, a number of selection exercises are employed to cull the field:

• A work sample test - At a Palm Restaurant, the candidates are asked to carry several of the tasks that an Assistant Manager would be expected to perform
• A knowledge test - candidates are quizzed by the panel of three on their knowledge of the restaurant and the type of food served (for example, "Littleneck and Cherrystone are types of what food item?")
• Co-worker familiarity - Given the Palm's emphasis on a family work environment, 7-8 employees from the Palm are brought forward and the candidates are asked to give the name of three of the employees as well as their position at the Palm
• Final Interview - the panel asks the candidates typical questions about their fit for the job

Here is a simple selection scenario that sparked discussion at this weekend's North Central Region Student Conference: You have two candidates competing for a job.

One candidate is finishing up her undergraduate degree in a particular field, while the other is working on a Master's degree in the same field. You administer a work sample test for the job to both candidates. Holding all other things constant, on the test should

A) the two candidates be expected to answer the exact same questions, or
B) the candidate working on her Master's be asked significantly tougher questions?

What is your answer, and why?

I think the answer is obvious, but I want to hear what you have to say.

I watched the film Waiting for Superman with great expectations, and, not surprisingly, those expectations were not met.  Directed by Davis Guggenheim (director of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and husband of actress Elizabeth Shue) , the documentary focuses on the failing U.S. school system, placing the blame on teacher unions coddling poor performing teachers and a system of tracking that makes it impossible for lower performing students to ever catch up with their higher performing peers.   Interspersed with these attacks is a look at 5 children hoping to stake their claim on one of the coveted spots in a charter school, the alternative which Guggenheim appears to champion.  While the film is to be applauded for raising questions about the state of education, and its heartbreaking to watch dedicated students suffer, the film has a number of flaws, particularly from a human resource perspective.

First, the film never explores what exactly defines "good teaching."  Guggenheim never mentions what turns people into better teachers what is the superior content that they deliver, as well as how they teach.  We are presented with two excellent teachers who are frustrated with their current school, start up a charter, and suddenly everything was hunky-dory.  But, it never demonstrates how and why they are better, and what barriers existed that made being superior so difficult in their former school.

Second, the process of hiring teachers is never explored.  How are charter schools hiring "better" teachers?  Are they offering a better salary? Better benefits?  Greater autonomy?  I checked out US Charters: Staffing for Success to see what the recommended approach to recruitment and selection might be and they offer 10 steps:

1. Write a role description for each staff role.
2. Identify required and desired qualifications and characteristics.
3. Identify potential sources of staff.
4. Promote your school.
5. Recruit 
6. Determine how you will screen candidates.
7. Prepare materials and organize assistance. 
8. Make initial selections.
9. Notify all candidates of outcomes.  
10. Draw up the contract
    

So, where is the magic?  What are charter schools doing differently in hiring than their public and private school counterparts in identifying and selecting superior candidates?

Finally, the last 20 minutes focuses on the lotteries for the 5 families mentioned above.  For the charter schools those families, Guggenheim cites that the school has "x applicants for y slots" (i.e., 142 applicants for 40 slots).   You can feel the tension in the air as the ping pong ball exits the hopper, and the families await their fate.   However, the scene ultimately fails in that Guggenheim doesn't tell us how many applicants did NOT apply for the lottery.  What is the percent of applicants to the total pool of students?  

Given that each lottery applicant represents a dedicated parent or set of parents (they would not have applied if they did not care about their child's education), the untold reason for the success of charter schools may very well be the 85, 90, 95% plus of involved caring parents.  As a result, are teacher unions and tracking really to blame when public school educators  are dealing with students whose parents are too busy or indifferent?