A few weeks ago, we posted an example application of the social learning sandbox (SLS) using a copywriting task. The emphasis in our example was on training employees. This week I want to use that example to show how this approach may be used to select job candidates.
To accomplish the goal of identifying the best candidate, the design emphasis of an SLS needs to shift from learning to selection and judgement. We call a design with this focus a social selection sandbox (SSS).
For the copywriting SLS to be repurposed for candidate selection, the first few steps may be used without adjustment. Briefly, they are:
Step 1: Present the challenge.
Step 2: Assign guiding resources.
Step 3: Define the customer via a checklist.
Step 4: Present all draft checklists for all participants to view.
Step 5 is where you would want to make an adjustment. Enabling participants to view all the results of Step 3 provides an opportunity to learn from what others have done before trying again. In the SLS design, they then proceed with a second attempt.
In the SSS design, an additional step is added that ask them to indicate which response is the best in the group. Instructions make it clear that if a participant selects their own as the best but few others agree, it is then assumed they are merely picking their own in an attempt to win points. On the other hand, if they pick the one most others select, a high point value is awarded because identifying what the group values measures participants’ discernment and judgement.
This same “voting” process is assigned for the second round of the customer definition checklist and also for the written draft assignment. There’s no need to insert another selection test for the final entry as the original Step 10 already does this:
Step 10: Assign a checklist that presents all entries alongside their corresponding customer definitions for all participants to view. State, “You’re now the manager. Pick the best ad. Pick the best customer definition. Explain why.”
As a last step, present the “winning” entry from Step 10 and ask, “How would you make this better?” Doing this will require a qualitative review of candidate responses, which would be unwieldy for assessment of a large numbers. If you have a large pool of applicants, this process may be used in a manner like a sports tournament, where semi-finalists proceed into subsequent rounds. You would then only include a step where you must evaluate responses in the final round.
This SSS design is just one example of how to identify superior candidates. It measures only a narrow band of skill and judgement. But by adding additional rounds with different tasks you may assess a broader range of talent at the same time as you whittle down large numbers of applicants. The sky’s the limit with the social selection sandbox concept.