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. 

Emailphobia

I'm going to confess something to you, something strange and something I thought was unusual. I have major work related EMAIL ANXIETY, yes e-mail anxiety. It starts before I get to work, where I envisage the number and type of emails I may have waiting for me in my inbox. The questions, requests and advice, the reports, unfinished work and other things, sometimes haunt me hours before I even get there. The fear or attaching the wrong document, or forgetting to attach the correct document to the e-mail, the repercussions can be utterly devastating.   The worst email anxiety episode may occur when returning from a few days off or holiday, there can be hundreds, even thousands of them lurking in your inbox.

I think that this form of communication in work places although convenient, quick and easy but I am sure too much of it is unhealthy. Hiding behind emails instead of picking up the phone or actually talking to the person next to you is sometimes a systematic trend of modern work environments.I encourage work places to rely less on the dreaded email, talk to colleagues face to face, pick up the telephone. Of course it is necessary to have a paper trail some times to save your bacon for proof if something dodgy does occur, but it shouldn't be relied upon.

So those of you that think that I am exaggerating, e-mail anxiety  is a REAL thing and work places should do every thing they can to minimise this.These things can be:

• Talking face to face?
• In meetings discussing as much as can be verbally and using emails to confirm and support prior information. 
• Picking up the phone for a short conversation

Following these tips may minimise the hundreds of emails that you may get. 

So what if i think that fat people are lazy?...

Everything we do, and how we behave is governed by our experiences, stereotypes and biases. Its a fact of life. In the workplace this is also the case, thoughts we have about blondes, or tall people are people with red hair, are all governed by our preconceptions.

Perception is a way that humans can make mental short cuts and put people into boxes. However, percpetions, stereotypes and biases affect a lot, especially the way we behave and react to people in the workplace. So if we have a preconception that all fat people are lazy, or all blonde people are students, we would have to adapt these feelings to ensuure that we don't wrongly judge people or behave badly to them in the workplace. An article in The Voice Newspaper looks at the prejuidice faced by people with dread locks conjures up images of drug use. This obviously is not the reality, not every person with dreadlocks is like this, however some times dreadlocked people are treated with more suspision.



Famous psychological experiements have looked at how perception affects group behaviour and decision making accuracy. Solomon Asch in 1958 designed a condition where a group of people had to solve a simple task of deciding which line was the same length as a sample line.

The groups of 8-10 people had to individually say the correct answer, that exhibit 1 is the same length as line A. Out of the 8-10 people, only one was being tested, everyone else in the team were actors. Asch wanted to test the power of group conformity, so all the people but the person being tested said the wrong answer, and the person being tested was monitered to observe how many times that person said the wrong answer (conformed) or said the correct answer.

Asch repeated the procedure with 18 sets of bars and the actors were instructed to offer wrong answers 12 out of 18 times. The findings were surprising to the experiementer, 74% of people conformed to the majority at least once.

Asch commented on this and stated that "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct."


The implications of this in the work place and society are great. Human beings are extremely sociable and essentially want to be liked. This explains how some bad policies can be made by policical parties, organisations or social groups. It shows the extent of how we may not always follow our thoughts and feelings about particular things, just to keep the peace.

Occupational psychology and other stories...

Right, after being successfully annoyed after any one asks me what I do, I have decided to set up this blog to try and explain my chosen profession, talk in a hopefully humorous way about by career escapades, and interesting things that I come across in every day life. I have worked everywhere, from retail to a gym, to a council to a student union, to hotels, I've practically worked in every industry for free and for money. 

Occupational Psychology, is what I like to call, glorified HR, and includes many of the things that HR functions in organisations  have.  For example: selection and assessment, producing selling and administering psychometric tests for selection purposes; career counselling, advising organisations on training and organisational change, and advising people on reducing stress in the work place. The occupational psychologists role is to help people in the work place to become more productive and happier. Lets face it, we all have to work and  people are spending more and more time in the work place every day so we might as well make sure people have a good time there.