If one had a tool that could help one sift through applicants until you find one that is a match interms of their habits to your top performer - would you use it?

Not a recruitment agent so this is an imagined guess.Upsides would be1. there's probably something in it 2. it might help if you're stuck for ideas (i.e. it might be a talking point from which other points flow)3. it might provide a benchmark of some sort (so it might rank closeness of fit etc.)4. other plus pointsDownsides would be1. people don't always function best with similarities (i.e. they're not challenged on a Tuesday morning by everyone being the same, but might go home on a Friday afternoon safe in the knowledge that they are not alone in their way of thinking!)2. habits can change 3. employer might not be looking for a clone 4. method of the tool might be wrong5. other flaws ...so I might use it as a tool if it was any good, but at best it would be incomplete.

If you're talking about a google style algorithm that checks key words in a cv to words in a job/habbit spec then this would add about 0% value.

If it was possible with sufficiently robust validity and effectiveness the answer might be yes, but only if you had a total disregard for group dynamics and wanted a workforce of clones.Sophisticated psychometric instruments exist that when used effectively are pretty good at predicting behaviour at work (OPQ, Wave etc). They've had literally millions of development hours and development pounds thrown at them over the years.Do you think the companies producing these would have bothered if it was possible with just a sift?Come on....

Oddly I already have such a tool; a brain.Any attempt to methodolgise/systematise selection is doomed to fail as it is the human element which makes a good candidate great.

Assuming that the question is another way of saying, if you could clone your best performer and form team containing these clones only, then I think the other regular teams would usually outperform them.

Why do you say that? Surely it's wholly dependant on the nature of the role?Some demand team work and a range of support functions, others don't.

Tools might save time, but then you get into the data mining game (and all the problems that can cause). In that game it's not about who is potentially the top performer but who uses phrases like 'team-player'. In version of 2 of said sifting tool it looks for synonyms.So if you put 'added £multi-million of value on project with New York and Singapore offices' you dont get an interview as you dont hit the 'team player' buzz words.Meanwhile Mars has sent along a candidate to the client who can make the client millions and its bumper bonuses all round. Why do you think large corporates often use headhunters to fill top roles still?Come on!

If it was burger flipping, then the clones.If it was solving other people's problems, the the diversity.