The Problem with Pre-Employment Testing

Submitted by Cindy Flanders on Fri, 09/28/2012 - 11:48am

More and more job applicants are being asked to take personality tests. I’d like to believe it’s one small arrow in a quiver of screening methods, but it’s likely to be the one the company weighs the most.  A recent WSJ article discusses some of the inherent biases in this kind of testing but what else is wrong with pre-hire testing?

 

Having been through almost every HR “hiring idea of the day”, including panel interviews (horrible), situational interview questions (not bad), IQ tests (really?), I will tell you that besides the potential bias the article describes, there are two major components missing in many of these methods.

1.     They’re not validated.  When was that the last time you tracked the performance of a new hire against the pre-employment tests or other new method you used? My guess is rarely or never.  Unless and until companies and managers start validating the tests, situation interviews, panel interviews, etc. you can never really gauge their effectiveness.

2.    They don’t measure likability and fit.  In my experience, the most successful hires are the ones that just “fit”. They fit well with the team, they’re a good cultural fit and they’re well liked.  Not sure how you can really assess that even in a personality test.  I know a lot of really smart people who did poorly on standardized tests in schools.  Isn’t it possible that really creepy, unlikable people could score well on a personality test if they know how it scores?

One on one interviews are not the best method for pre-hiring either.  You should use it as one of several tools that may include asking the applicant to complete a sample of what they will be asked to do on the job.  But one on one interviews will tell you one thing nothing else will- if you actually like the person.

Comments

Likeability - A valid hiring criteria?

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 09/30/2012 - 6:48pm.

While I agree with your assessment that pre-employment tests can be misused and overused, your comments about validity and likeability are off-base.

Yes, pre-employment  tests must be valid - testing for skills, attitudes, or behaviors the publishers say they test for. If an employer uses a valid test for the right reason, they are accurate and predictive.  But like you suggest, many employers select a valid test for the wrong reason. For instance, many employers use DISC or MBTI for selection.  While accurate for how an employee might approach the job, they are not valid for skills and competence. And yet many employers use them for that reason.  Condemning pre-employment tests because employers use them improperly is like saying xrays are irrelevant because they missed a symptoms of diabetes.

I agree - it is important that employees are liked.  But hiring people you like that don't have the skills to do the job is one reason that the traditional interview has a documented success rate of just over flipping a coin.

 

 

 

I very much appreciate your

Submitted by Cindy Flanders on Mon, 10/01/2012 - 9:09am.

I very much appreciate your comments and feedback.  I didn't mean to imply that testing should never be used. I feel any pre-hiring tool should be both validated and one part of several tools that could be used in the selection process.  My point on likability is not that this should be the only criteria, but if testing is weighted disproportionally with other meothds, you can often overlook the fact the person that scores the highest may be someone who does not embrace the culture of the organization or that as a manager you can't get past the fact that the person may rub everyone the wrong way. Again, I really appreciate your comments and think we both agree that any pre-employment tool should be validated and weighed appropriately.