Our recent recruiting cycle has got me thinking about the relation between academic and work performance. This was also a point of discussions between my team-mates as a couple of us were responsible for recruitment. Academic performance is thought of by companies as the best indicator of work performance (for graduates). Why?
Academic performance = E * f(IQ,m)
where,
E = Amount of effort dedicated towards studying
f(IQ,m) = Mental capability of the individual which is a function of IQ and memory (retention power) ; The weight of IQ vs. m will depend on the educational system. For example in India, the educational system is highly memory focused. Hence the end result (Academic performance) will depend more on ‘m’ rather than IQ.
Now if we consider a non-technical job; on the face of it, the equation should be quite simple
Work performance = f(E, IQ) (Remember we are considering a non-technical job, where ‘m’ being average or high doesn’t make a significant difference, hence we ignore it, and rely on IQ itself to quantify the mental capability of a person)
From this, it would seem quite obvious that ‘academic performance’ and ‘work performance’ are highly related. These relations are also what companies use as a recruiting base (for graduates) where they use your academic performance as a very good indicator of how you will perform on the job, and throw in a couple of exercises which measure your IQ.
However, we all know from personal experience, that this relation seldom holds true. There are innumerable people in every workplace who are hired specifically because of their brilliant academic performance, but fail to repeat it in business. Alternatively, there are so many examples of individuals who fail in academics, but perform exceptionally well on the job. So where are we going wrong? Why is there so little correlation between academic and work performance, even though the variables required appear to be the same? You probably are already thinking of a reason, but there are many!
First of all, ‘E’ is very assignment-specific, and depends on the ‘interest level’ of the individual. This is also evident from the fact that people perform very differently in different subjects. That is, the subjects in which they develop an active interest in, they are able to dedicate a higher amount of effort, and hence perform better in them. Hence, the more the interest of the individual in the line of business, the more effort they will put in, and as a result, they better they will perform. If you are thinking that other factors than ‘interest’ (for example, monetary factors) can motivate a person to put in more effort, think on whether on that effort level will sustainable without interest.
How can this attribute be judged, best bet is a personal interview. Organizations also tend to check if the individual is a member of the relevant clubs, has an extra-curriculars in that area, etc. (I personally think these are pretty much meaningless). I think a much better way to assess the interest level would be to ask extremely open-ended questions on the subject, and check the individual thought process, and knowledge of the subject.
Secondly, today the workplace is much more dynamic than it used to be. Even entry-level employees are given much more responsibility and authority to take certain decisions. In this case, the variables on which ‘work performance’ depends increase dramatically. Moreover, these variables become very subjective. For example, if we consider business sense or creativity (or the now despicable term used in corporate lingo ‘out of the box thinking’), these variables are extremely difficult to measure.
So to balance the resources spent in recruiting, and the result achieved (measurable is the quality of new hires), companies rely heavily on academic performance. The goal is clear here, to achieve efficiency, rather than the highest effectiveness.
Business Basics 