Do the classic trio of recruitment tools not work?
The classic trio of recruitment methods used by most companies are an application form, one or two interviews and references.
Our research would conclude that this is no longer an appropriate method process to employ talent when other methods are available.
Do psychometrics, assessment centres and other tools actually aid the decision process and increase the chances of employee success in a new job?
Psychometric tests ?Failing companies and candidates? Claims HR Consultant
As posted on the web 4 April 2005 at
http://cdaperform.co.uk.codecircus.co.uk/inthepress/newsreleases/psychtestfail.html
Established psychometric tests, used by many companies when assessing potential recruits, are no longer effective according to Caroline Dunk, principal at cda, the organisational development and change management consultancy. She also suggests that not only are the standard tests outmoded, but in response to the increasing demand for something new and relevant, the market has also seen an influx of poorly designed and validated personality tests.
?I believe that personality research is unable to deliver a sufficiently useful or comprehensive model for contemporary working styles,? states Dunk. ?There has been a dearth of well-researched new ideas since the advent of the ?Big 5? theory of personality in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the corporate world has moved on.
?Flatter hierarchies, the increase in remote working and project-based teams, and a focus on objectives such as empowerment, ongoing change, lateral development, innovation and continuous improvement have rendered the existing psychometric models obsolescent. To support these changes, we need personality tests that provide new perspectives on behaviour at work.
?To be useful, new tests must be carefully developed to high standards of validity and reliability. Unfortunately there is nothing to stop someone designing a test on the proverbial ‘back of an envelope’ and taking it to market without putting it through a rigorous (expensive and time-consuming) programme of validation.
?Poor quality tests trap the unwary and contribute to the growing concerns about the misuse of psychometric tests. The well-respected Steve Blinkhorn, chairman of Psychometric Research and Development, commented recently on ?the great underworld of psychometrics: shoddy personality tests and 10-minute quickies that tell you “everything you need to know”.
?Real damage is done to individuals and organisations by poor tests, which deliver inaccurate and misleading information. The companies and the candidates are being let down.
?Businesses need something innovative and reliable that that gets away from the traditional ‘tick box’ test format. I suggest the personality testing industry needs to look at using a more radical approach – such as speech patterns – to identify personality traits.
?The time is ripe for a change. It’s time the UK psychometrics industry delivered something new to meet the needs of today’s working world.” say the authors.
Contacts
Caroline Dunk, cda
Tel: 0113 235 1007 or
Alistair McLean, Acumen
Tel: 0131 624 1155
There are numerous published validity studies demonstrating how various tests correlate with meaningful performance measures. Simple ‘tests don’t work’ comments are typically made by those whose personal agenda leads them to just ignore the evidence.
Of course there are bad tests out there and these tests will not validate. But this does not mean that all tests are bad just as the existence of good tests does not mean that all tests are good. This would be a ludicrous argument.
Having worked in the sector for almost 20 years I have seen considerable innovation and improvement. A recent example is the growing body of research in item response theory (IRT). This is leading to many new test types that are shorter and more focused on the relevant constructs.
Richard Alberg
PSL – Psychometric Services Ltd
Hygeia Building
66-68 College Road
Harrow
HA1 1BE
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (20) 8585 2345
Fax: +44 (20) 8585 2346
Web: http://www.psl.com
My experience is in managing claims against companies and executives when things have gone wrong- such as being sued. This very often shows the weaknesses in the executives as being poor judgement, failure to appreciate the environment they are working in and being unable to integrate their own ideas into the paradigms they have inherited.
This does not address the question of whether psychometric tests are still relevant and effective but, if you think they are, it may offer some light on how to reposition the evaluation and coaching based upon what happens when the chips are down. Looking at the problem from the other end of the telescope.
A link to article featured in CEO magazine on Executive failure
http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/features/feature173/
CEOs are now lasting just 7.6 years in office on a global average, down from 9.5 years in 1995, according to consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. Two out of every five new CEOs fail in the first 18 months (HBR, January 2005).
This may not be as a result of recruitment failure and/or expectations that could not be realised no matter how good the CEO. Could it be that CEO’s are expected to deliver the same immediate success formula that we have come to expect from football club managers. (Three defeats and your out!)
My experience of Psychometrics are that too often the employer will attache too much emphasis and credence to them. One very well known test relies on under fifty questions (giving a choice of words) to determine a result. Those that work for the company have no idea how this is done just that they maintain that “The system works”. The test is completed in under fifteem minutes and jobs and careers are assessed on the results. The producers of such sell them as the answer to “a prayer” to get the right employee this time.
All too often employers will attach credence to psychmetric results because they have little ability to make a measured assessment in any other way.
This is often because the interviewing techniques are poorly understood and measured.
In reality the interview process is flawed in too many instances thus the reliance on tests
V. Smart
Too often psychometrics are used by managers to assess candidates because their interview skills are so poor that they have nothing else on which to base their selection.
I believe that such tests should be conducted after selection in order to determine if the correct candidate has been selected.
Perhaps it’s not surprising when reported statistics such as the following are part of the HR norm:
HR fails on stats
Few HR managers know their staff turnover and even less know level of employee satisfaction
Issue date: 10 August 2006
Source: People Management magazine
Page: 11
More than half of HR managers could not provide statistics on staff turnover or speed of recruitment even if they were given a week to do so, new research reveals.
Asked by recruitment consultancy Adecco whether they could produce such figures if there was an audit next week, 73 per cent of respondents said they could report on workforce diversity, and 68 per cent could produce absence data.
But only 49 per cent would know their staff turnover, 44 per cent could establish their spending against budget, while a minority could quote the average time taken to fill vacancies (29 per cent) or level of employee satisfaction (11 per cent).
The figures show that HR struggles to play a strategic role in many businesses, with 46 per cent of the 100 respondents saying that they did not feel close enough to the core business to help it to achieve strategic goals.
THE IMPENDING introduction of the Age Discrimination Act in the UK will force employers to rethink their job requirements if these include a university degree or ‘A’ levels.
Prof. John Rust, director of The Psychometrics Centre in Cambridge, said: “The demand of a degree from a job applicant may be discriminatory as middle-aged and older people are less likely to have this qualification. Five per cent of young people obtained a degree 40 years ago compared with about 40 per cent now. Also the stipulation that a degree must be in a specific subject may be a problem as today there are many more subjects to study at university. Where this is an issue psychometric tests present a much safer alternative, as competencies being tested can be tailored to the job.”
John Rust is the UK’s only professor of psychometrics, the science of psychological assessment. He advised that The Psychometrics Centre within Cambridge Assessment, a department of the University of Cambridge, would give independent advice to employers on which tests to choose.
He warned: “The implications of the legislation go much further than most employers realise, and their widespread lack of readiness is expected to prompt numerous claims.
“Even the requirement that candidates should have ‘A’ level qualifications may be open to challenge. Psychology, for example, is one of the most popular subjects today, but 20 years or so ago it didn’t exist. Many more students gain ‘A’ levels than hitherto. The possible reasons do not matter, because so long as “adverse impact” (over-representation of young candidates in the selected sample) is a consequence a case of discrimination could be claimed.”
Numerical, verbal or other tests that depend heavily on the sort of cognitive skills that decrease with age (such as memory) may be discriminatory.
Prof. Rust suggested: “It may be possible to balance these with tests that are more geared up towards things that increase with age, like wisdom.” He added that new research will be needed into the effects of age on many of the tests currently favoured by employers and HR departments. The Psychometric Centre is planning to carry out such studies.
Psychometric tests compare a candidate’s results with those of others in a norm group. If a sufficient number of older people were not included in the norm sample, then the tests might be biased against the older age groups. While norms constructed by publishers of tests for the past 50 years have ensured enough women and ethnic minority candidates were included in the groups to make the sample representative, not much attention has been paid to age as this was not a legal requirement and most job applicants are younger.
More and more in recruitment, testing is migrating from paper and pencil to the computer and the internet. But the young are much more familiar with computers than the old or middle-aged, and thus these IT techniques discriminate against older candidates. (It could equally be argued that written tests discriminate against young people as they are less used to having to write.)
Prof. Rust also referred to changes in personality with age, advising that organisations which use personality testing may find they need to take this into account. Scores on sociability, impulsiveness and agreeability go down with age (the Victor Meldrew effect), while scores on introversion, tough-mindedness, fortitude and fair-mindedness go up. He can provide advice on test design.
It is not only candidates for jobs who will be affected by the new law. With the abolition of compulsory retirement at age 65 there will be many issues surrounding the suitability of older people to continue working, be it in the same role or another. Prof. Rust explained: “Up to now people may have been allowed to ‘see out their time’ even if no longer fully efficient. Attitudes to this will change, not only for workers over 65 but for those approaching retirement and the effects could even kick back to the under 60s. Hence there will be a demand for clinical assessment and psychometric testing to clarify whether people in work remain suited to it and to identify other work to which they may be more suited”.
For further information contact
The Psychometrics Centre at Cambridge Assessment, University of Cambridge:
Rebecca Shilton Tel 01223 558307
In my opinion (of course!) psychometric tests have value during the hiring phase as one contributing factor in the decision making process. They should not be used as the sole basis for making a hiring decision.
Where they have more value alone is in the fulfilment of potential for existing staff. A battery of psychometric tests on a group of employees can provide revealing insight into the dynamics within teams as well as of individuals. They can also help with retaining and motivating staff as, all sniggering aside, most of us like talking about ourselves (“I’m a plant!” etc.). Getting a group together to talk about their own results can be motivating, stimulating, fun and result in positive outcomes for all. The important thing, from a corporate point of view, is to use the results of the tests! I know too many firms that have spent money on psychometrics and then filed away the results rather than analysing and making change where clear benefits exist.
Now, if you want to be really controversial, let’s talk about graphology!
Ian.
You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it.
louis vuitton outlet store locations…
Hello, your articles here Stephen Harvard Davis ยป Do the classic trio of recruitment tools not work? to write well, thanks for sharing!…