Psychometric testing over kill?

Psychometric assessments are a common trend in the selection of new candidates and are said to be used by up to 70% of employers. Psychometrics are said to help select the best candidates for the job, individuals who fit into those organisations with ease. However. is there ever a time to reduce the use of psychometric assessments altogether?

The word psychometric is derived from the Greek word for mind (psycho) and the Latin for measure (metric). Combined the term conjures up images of a world of numerical tests and pages full of symbols. Personality assessments and ability tests make up the most common forms of assessment in organisations. Over the last twenty years there has been a large increase in the use of these work tests, but are they being over used?

Organisations use psychometrics as they are reported to have good levels of predictive validity (choosing the individual who will perform the best in the job). If an individual scores highly on a test, it is argued that they will perform the best out of all candidates if given the role.  With high levels of scientific validity and reliability psychometrics tend to add a more objective element to the selection and development process.  With an increased amount of individuals applying to roles, assessments can whittle down large numbers of applicants to a more manageable number to shortlist from. 

The use of psychometrics in organisations is not wrong; however their overuse can be damaging.  I once went to an assessment day and yes it was an assessment day in every sense of the word. After emerging a few minutes late (interview no no) and getting lost in Watford relying on my google maps, I burst into a room of very unimpressed group of HR professionals. Six or seven candidates were then read the riot act, a role play and no less than three separate psychometric tests! THREE- for what was an essentially an entry level consultant role. I sat through a general personality assessment, a numerical test and some sort of test which measures your attention to detail.

This was an example of psychometric test overkill! Not only did I as a candidate feel exhausted, fed up and BORED, I left feeling confused at the sheer volume of testing that I had to endure. This feeling was not made any better by the fact that I have a qualification and training in psychometric  testing.

To alleviate candidate stress, confusion and disaffection selection phases need to be transparent. HR professionals and hiring managers should communicate the reasons behind the use of tests and not just throw them in as a “nice to have”.  To evaluate their use organisations should:

• Read the job description carefully, or if you are writing the description, make sure you have what you want in a candidate there on the paper. Highlight the aspects of the job where the candidates need to be tested and consult with psychometrically trained individuals and a layman to see if it passes the common sense test.
• Will the use of psychometric assessments enhance the selection process? Will it allow you to hire the best candidate?
•  Make sure the tests compliment other selection techniques, e.g. if you are using a competency based interview in a technical role, complimenting this with a non verbal reasoning test or any other technical test would be a good pairing.
• Relying too much on these methods can reduce candidate experience turn it into a long winded rigmarole. To reduce the anxiety faced by candidates communicate the purpose of the use of the assessments; give them feedback regardless of whether it is requested in a non judgemental environment. Encourage them to apply to other roles; you never know when they can be useful.

In summary psychometric tests should assist the selection process, not overshadow or complicate it. Using these powerful tools in combination with other selection methods is best practice as they should never be used alone. As the HR professional or hiring manager, try and manage the candidate experience and work out if you are getting the best out of the individual in order to find the best individual for the job. 

How to handle job rejections

You have found a job you like,  you have read the description, perfect! You spend a few hours writing your covering letter and your CV. With a high level of anticipation you press send. A few days later you open the email, it begins:

“Thank you for applying to the [insert role]. Due to a large number of applications which closely fit the job description and experience required, we regret to inform you that you haven’t been successful for the current role. Due to the number of applications we cannot offer you individual feedback. We wish you every success in your future job search”.

WE WISH YOU VERY SUCCESS IN YOUR JOB SEARCH?! – when you refuse to give me feedback, how can I improve my job search?

Being a veteran job searcher, I am tired, tired of automated rejection emails, tired of the circus of job applications, tired of what seems like a 'waste of time' applications with rejections within mere hours.

How did things turn into this? Churning applications out like a machine, not an individual but just a jumble of key words and a list of qualifications. Forget the nuances and an individuals personality, it seems that all the employer is concerned about is the potential candidates ability to tick a myriad of dull boxes, or jump through awkwardly positioned hoops. I say, enough!- I'm through with the whole darn thing.

Employers, HR professionals and recruiters it doesn't have to be like this. I understand that you do get a vast amount of applications for each role (sometimes hundreds or thousands). However try and make the application process as easy and informative as possible. It doesn't have to be cheap, free and easy, it can be a meaningful encounter for all if managed correctly.

So HR departments:

•  Try and reach as many candidates as possible, go through agencies (if you have the budget), Tweet and Facebook your search, the wider your search, the bigger the potential pool of excellent candidates
• Be realistic in job descriptions make sure you include the actual day to day aspects of the job. Don't try and make the job sound more appealing to others by fabricating or exaggerating elements of the role
• Try and give feedback- even if its one line- I'm sure that there's software that exists that can do that for you? If not someone invent one!
• Ditch the automated email which sounds highly patronising and insulting, it usually translates to the candidate as, "we found better people than you so don't bother us by asking for feedback because we don't have time to hear your whining".

Candidates

• Tailor your CV as much as you can, so for each role. Edit your personal statement to mirror what's on the job description. If this means having several versions of your CV on your computer than so be it.
• Be as realistic as possible, get as many people as you can to view your CV/ just someone that you trust. In most cases each person will say completely different things, if you cannot deal with criticism or rejection than possible stay away from this step but it is very important
• Do not mispell company or individauls names, your CV will go straight in the bin
• Try and remain as positive as possible- this can be done with a support system of people who are familiar with the job climat when looking for a job. They will offer you the best support and guidance
• Most importantly- keep going- something will happen eventually!

Do workplaces focus too much on perfection?

During an episode of Celebrity Masterchef earlier on this year, I came across a curious phenomenon. The head chef said to the celebrity that each plate that he/she produce should be perfect, flawless and consistently the same. It then dawned on me, is this even possible in an environment that is hot, highly pressured and loud?   Having worked in probably too many organisations (I blame the recession), public, private and charities I have observed a trend, a trend that has really started to disturb me; this trend is the obsession of managers to expect their employees to be "perfect". To eliminate mistakes, to consistently produce the same winning formula, but to improve and to strive for better all of the time, but is this too much to ask? As unpredictable as humans are and a constantly changing working environment with goal posts moving, is it realistic to expect perfection everyday? Or is it more realistic to allow employees to make and learn from their mistakes so as to work in a comfortable environment?

I am no philosopher, but I don't think we can be perfect consistently and especially not in the work place. Insisting on this is unrealistic in often confined, restricted employment environments with rigid job descriptions and archaic management structures is probably not a good idea. Focusing on perfect work I believe is not only destructive, can be short sighted and highly counter productive. Insistence on perfection can increase mistakes, increase anxiety, reduce productivity, decrease motivation and overall job satisfaction.

Instead I feel that work places should endeavour to minimise and  embrace mistakes. Allow employees to  learn from and develop strategies to prevent mistakes harming the productivity of the organisation.  A theory of organisational learning by a couple of researchers Argyris and Schon (1978), double and single loop learning suggests that organisations should try and eliminate mistakes before they happen in order for them to grow and develop effectively. In eliminating mistakes before they happen, an organisation has to learn from previous mistakes that have been made, perhaps from individuals, groups and the organisation as a whole.

So I think organisations should:

• Create an environment that is open and allows employees to make mistakes but have a forum to learn from them 
• Empower staff and allow them to create new ideas and allow them to implement them
• Open communication channels to make it easier for employees to share concerns
• Make work environments less formal in order to make work less stressful
• Praise staff when needed and  have development points for staff in 1-1s and appraisals
• Give employees time to absorb tasks, new environments and new ways of doing things 

I think if these things are done I believe staff will naturally begin to reduce mistakes and become more productive and happy.