iSmartNetwork Magazine The online magazine for you…
It’s been more than 50 years since companies started employing pre-employment experimenting. Despite some indication that personality is little is attributable to job performance, personality experiments are a multi-million dollar industry. Companies likewise use other types of tests like cognitive ability tests and skills appraisals which have helped corporations retain new hires.
All tests have their merits but “theyre about” far away from perfect. To help you decide whether to include them in your recruiting process, we’ve grouped together a comprehensive overview of pros and cons 😛 TAGEND The positive side Tests are more objective than other forms of assessment
Unstructured interviews, resume screenings and pre-interview calls are ineffective predictors of job performance. This is because recruiters and hiring administrators often judge nominees based on subjective, rather than job-related, criteria.
Tests operate differently. If they’re well-designed, they can help you attract more objective conclusions. Well-designed exams are valid( they measure what they are designed to measure) and reliable( they develop consistent answers ).
Tests “re the same” for everyone
Other assessment methods like screening calls and unstructured interviews can be unfair. Interviewers ask different questions to different candidates and there’s no consensus on how to rate candidates’ answers.
Tests, by compare, are standardized and administered under the same behavior to all candidates. If they’re crafted according to strictly job-related criteria, they pass everyone the same opportunity to succeed.
Experiment can save you hour on interviews
Assessing 20 peculiarities during an interview “wouldve been” hour consuming and depleting for both candidates and interviewers. You can assess some of these peculiarities through pre-employment testing instead.
It’s better to assess undertaking knowledge through experiments to avoid losing time interviewing candidates who can’t do the number of jobs. You can also assess certain abilities through experiments like typing accelerate, the ability to communicate in writing or problem-solving.
Experiment allow you to rely on quantifiable insight
Sometimes suffered hiring managers have a gut feeling about certain candidates. Unfortunately, this gut feeling isn’t ever a good ally. It might conduct them to the incorrect judgments if it takes the form of unconscious bias. It’s likewise not legally defensible. If candidates’ decide to file a lawsuit for discriminatory hiring rules, corporations will have difficulty defending their hiring managers’ vague assumptions.
Tests, much like structured interviews, give you something tangible to guide your hiring decisions. They help you to be specific about your the reasons why rejecting candidates, instead of relying exclusively on intuition.
Tests can be strictly chore related
Unless you’re using structured interviews, it’s easy to stray from job-related criteria when interviewing nominees. But, tests can be designed to focus solely on what really contents for the job.
That depends on the type of test, though. One of the most popular personality exams, the Myers-Briggs test, is unable to predict job performance( or personality, for that are important ). It’s better for companies to avoid it. Other experiments, like Gallup’s StrengthsFinder and 16PF, can be better options.
And the negative side Tests rarely give the whole picture
Each test generally assesses a handful of peculiarities. This means that they forget to assess important details. For example, task knowledge experiments are good at assessing occupation specific knowledge. But, they don’t take into account how willing( or capable) someone is to learn and improve. Candidates might have never use CRM systems before but they could learn speedily. Other nominees might have deep knowledge of such systems but could be unwilling to try new technologies. Test outcomes alone won’t inevitably tell you who’d be the best candidate for your company.
To assess more traits, you will have to use multiple exams. There’s a risk that this will annoy or exhaust nominees. They might stop trying to give honest or thoughtful answers if they’re tired of taking copious sums of tests.
Tests can be discriminatory
This seems to be a paradox, since experiments are relatively objective. But cognitive the skills and knowledge tests can disproportionately screen out non-white candidates. This can result in costly suits. One example is a 2012 discrimination case where a company had to pay $550,000 in back wages to minority employees it rejected through a pre-employment test.
Some personality and physical ability tests can transgress anti-discrimination statutes, if they’re trying to’ diagnose’ a mental or physical condition that’s unrelated to the job. For instance, in 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission( EEOC ), won a suit against a company that screened out female applicants through a’ strength’ exam.
Tests invite lies
Drug exams can’t be easily faked but that’s not necessarily true for all experiments. For instance, if you ask nominees to complete an integrity and work ethics test, then you can expect candidates to occasionally fake their answers. This doesn’t always happen consciously. People tend to present themselves in the best possible daylight( called social desirability bias ). We all do it. And we’re more likely to falsify ourselves when a task is at bet. For example, extraversion is typically highly valued in the workplace. If a personality experiment requests nominees to rate their social skills, you can expect that few nominees, if any, will rate themselves as anti-social.
Test( and their results) are often equivocal
Integrity exams are a good example. You might have come across one that asks you to indicate whether you agree or do not agree with proclamations like “morality is important.” But how can you be sure there will be consensus between candidates on what this sentence entails? Some people might think it signifies treating others moderately. But others might associate righteousnes with belief. This kind of ambiguity can give you unreliable results.
Tests result in longer time-to-fill
Giving one 20 -minute exam to all shortlisted nominees can slow down your recruitment process by several days. If you add various types of tests and an job( which is generally a good notion ), prepare yourself for a lengthy process. It’s still worth it though, since experiments can improve quality of hire.
Tests usurp unique people are made through molds
People have many things in common. But, there are also many things that shape us different. Tests can’t capture this variance. They presuppose we all answer the same route to situations and statements.
Companies generally look for culture fit and tests can help them hire people made from the same mold. But, this approach doesn’t ever project. It might be more beneficial for a corporation to hire people who complement their culture. Or people who have unique abilities and positions. Diverse teams grow better ensues, after all.
So, should pre-employment testing be part of a recruiting process?
Pre-employment testing can help to predict tone of hire, under some preconditions. Here are the three most important 😛 TAGEND
Exams should be legal. Discriminatory tests can injury companies. There are ways to monitor tests’ outcomes. For instance, you are able to calculate the yield ratios of the testing stage. If you find that you disproportionately reject protected groups, you should stop using the test. Likewise, if you want to use pre-employment medicine screening, you should know about any relevant legal guidelines.
Experiments should be job-related. Questions should evaluate strictly job-related peculiarities that companies have identified through task analysis. It’s better to assess only the’ must-haves’ for a position. It’s also best to employ separate tests for unrelated status. It wouldn’t stir much feel to test office salesclerks employing a case study for sales representatives.
Exams should be well-validated. The statute doesn’t prohibit companies from applying exams that hiring directors make up on the spot( as long as they’re not discriminatory ). But, tests are only worth the trouble if they can actually predict job performance.
The bottom line
Using well-designed pre-employment tests can add objectivity to your recruiting process. But, it’s still reasonable to be skeptical of them. Tests are created and completed by people after all, so they’re unlikely to ever was gonna be free of biases or misunderstandings.
There will always be false-hearted positives and false-hearted negatives. It’s better to use pre-employment exams in conjunction with other assessment methods. And it’s best to choose tests that researchers have checked for legality and reliability. They make for a longer hiring process, but they can result in better hiring decisions.
The post Pre-employment testing: pros and cons appeared firstly on Recruiting Resources: How to Recruit and Hire Better.
Read more: resources.workable.com
