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!

What came first, the chicken or the egg? (Personality...)

The age old question of whether personality is  predetermined in the womb, by genetics or can it be influenced by our environment? Well, one of my jobs is working with small children tutoring them, yesterday I accidentally made a 5 year old cry, not because I did any thing nasty, but simply because of an eraser. Yes an eraser, a rubber, something that eradicates lead pencils.

The child was working on his handwriting, writing the letter d, and he asked for an eraser. I couldn't find one and told him so, a few minutes later a crying 5 year old approached me. I asked him what was wrong and he said he needed an eraser and insisted that I find him one, i asked him what he so desperately needed one for, (whilst consoling the poor child) and he said it was because he wrote one of the letters wrong, (the letter looked perfectly fine to me). I managed to locate an eraser and then he was happy. I then began thinking about his personality, extremely smart, strong willed and very conscientious, with a perfectionist streak. Whilst I tried to let him realise that was doing his best and not being so hung up on the negatives, this is indeed his personality, very formed at the age of 5, he will probably end up being an engineer or some high powered business man.

It really made me think though that people's personalities can be changed but the essential essence of our personality is brought from or genetic make up and altered by our experiences.