Emotional Intelligence in Recruitment: A Case Study

We often assist our clients with recruitment. In particular we are experts at evaluating potential applicants for senior executive positions and have critical tools for hiring sales expertise.

Recently, we worked with a client to recruit for their Contact Centre where the staff are expected to be able to meet sales targets. Our client did the initial steps in the recruitment process of advertising and evaluating resumes. We provided an advanced Sales Assessment Tool to determine which applicants would have the ability and mindset to be able to sell effectively within their particular environment. Candidates were screened out at this point if they would not or could not sell.

Once the client had undertaken first round interviews, we put the top candidates through an emotional intelligence assessment, which gave us an indication of the likely behaviour they would demonstrate in the workplace. The emotional intelligence assessment that we use, the EQ-i 2.0, is the first scientifically validated and most widely used Emotional Intelligence assessment in the world. One of the key benefits of this tool, and why we prefer it to other EI assessments, is that it focuses on behaviour.

An analysis of their preferred candidate’s responses proved interesting. The candidate, let’s call him Mark, would likely come across as likeable and genuine in the beginning. On the outside, he would seem direct, confident and assertive – attractive qualities for a team member.

However, Mark’s responses suggested that over time he would become frustrated with others. We should keep in mind that Mark assessed himself against the behaviours, and his answers told us that underneath his confidence was a certain amount of vulnerability despite his outward resilience.

Mark rated himself lower in empathy than in other areas. When we compared this with other EI subscales, the combination revealed that Mark was someone who would not be able to listen or show compassion for others readily. This raised serious concerns for Mark’s ability to cross sell effectively.

Although he demonstrated very high Problem Solving and Reality Testing skills, these were not balanced by other subscales, which suggested that under pressure he was likely to make rash decisions. Combined with a ‘self’ orientation, these rash decisions may not be the right decisions for the team or the customer.

His results also indicated that he liked to process his feelings about work by talking through them with his colleagues, rather than thinking about them internally. Whilst emotional expression is not a negative trait, if it is not balanced by something like Impulse Control, at work this can often take others on an emotional roller coaster, which would be disruptive and undermine the team dynamics.

Mark had a very high EQ for a person his age and this made him particularly compelling. However his combination of scales suggested certain workplace behaviours which belied his outward, personable nature.

With this information in front of them, the company hired Mark anyway. They felt he performed strongly in face-to-face interviews and that they could work around whatever negative traits that may show themselves over time.

Unfortunately, within four months Mark began to demonstrate some of the more undesirable behaviours that were stated in his EQ-I analysis. Luckily for the company, Mark resigned fairly soon after and they were able to rethink the behaviours that are required to support their role. They had also determined to be more vigilant when it comes to reviewing the EQ-i assessment provided to them and not hearing or seeing what they want to hear and see.

Had Mark not resigned, where would they be now? Probably with a lot of headaches and wishing they’d listened to the clairvoyant of recruitment and her EQ-i analysis. To some extent they got lucky, but it still cost them money to replace Mark and train someone new.

If you want to know how someone will behave in the workplace, ask us.