Whether it is lack of intelligence, skill set, improvement, or engagement, many businesses find it challenging to find the right person for positions in a company to ensure its survival, must less thrive-ability. In today's growing corporate world, methods of hiring the right fit for the job are different than years ago. With looming deadlines and work demands, it can be challenging to find the most efficient way to hire new employees. However, the quick-fix methods that are being utilized more and more may be hindering a company from finding the right fit for important positions rather than help. There are many reasons pre-employment measures, specifically screening assessments, can be problematic, with the following being the top four.
1. Assessments lead applicants to lie
There are not many who would hesitate to lie when they believe the truth will not gain them what is wanted. This can be a major reason not to fully trust applicant screening techniques. We are more inclined to tell others what we believe they want to hear in order to increase social desirability when the truth makes us appear less favorable. As a result, applicants are studying ways to pass the tracking systems and pre-employment assessment rather than simply representing themselves authentically. Today, the challenge is not just having the appropriate skills deemed necessary for the position, but also the challenge of "beating" the system. So, just like in school, the goal switches from understanding the subject to passing the test. Applicants study how to beat the system and will often alter resume/behavior according to what is most favorable. Therefore, not only are we receiving an inaccurate representation of the potential employee, but we are indirectly supporting the message that one cannot be themselves and succeed. This belief hinders personal development and can increase stress, negatively influencing job performance overall.
2. Lack of reliability and validity
Like any exam, a personality or intelligence assessment is only as valid and reliable as it is created to be. So, if there is a lack of knowledge in understanding human thoughts and behavior, the measures will be inadequate in assessing what it is they are supposed to be designed for. This creates room for significant error when determining one's work skills and personality.
One of the major ways a test becomes invalid is through poorly designed assessment questions/statements.
For example, take this assessment statement from the Wonderlic test, which is an assessment designed to measure intelligence and problem-solving skills. A link to it can be found here.
1. The words ADOPT and ADAPT have _?_meanings.
A. similar B. contradictory C. unrelated
Answer: C
This is the reasoning the site gives for the correct answer…
The words in problem one are not related, even though they start with the same letters and are spelled similarly.
ADOPT: take up or start to use or follow (an idea, method, or course of action); legally take another’s child and bring it up as one’s own.
ADAPT: become adjusted to new conditions.
So, the statement instructs the test-taker to compare the meaning of the words, but then gives the reason they are unrelated is due to spelling. Come again? And how many chose A over C? I wonder. If I adopt a new method or course of action, is that not a good example of demonstrating adaptation? I can adopt a new mindset in relation to a change in career that leads me to become better adjusted (adapted) to new workplace conditions. This type of thinking relates the two concepts, so even if one argues that they are not exact, they are still relatable. The closest answer offered to relatable is similar.
And yet, the test makers would disagree? This is just one demonstration of how those skilled at finding concept correlations would be inaccurately assessed. This processing ability is not necessarily noted by the test makers because it goes beyond concrete understandings. The test makers were focused on the similarity in spelling which is a demonstration of shallow processing when comparing concepts and not deeper-level comprehension. Now, if the question was written in a way that did not emphasize comparing the meaning between the two words, but the spelling, then at least the clarity of the question could be improved along with the validity of what the test claims to measure.
Another way validity within an assessment decreases is through evoking confusion. We have all likely come into contact at one time or another with the brilliant disagree/agree survey statements that test our skill in disagreeing with a negative statement. Take the following example:
I do not enjoy having to tell other people what to do. Disagree or agree?
Pre-employment assessments are filled with similar questions that are often even more complex than this one. These questions can leave a person of average intelligence staring at the page in an attempt to decipher the answer, feeling as if they are solving a puzzle rather than just answering a question about their personality. Anyone that has ever filled out a political ballot has likely experienced the same confusion. This leaves us to question whether or not the test makers are attempting to confuse people on purpose (and sometimes they are). If that is the case, you are measuring one's confusion rather than their personality = unreliable and invalid data. You can't obtain an accurate assessment if an applicant doesn't understand the questions in the first place. Once the frustration sets in, the validity decreases even further, making it certain you will not gain an accurate understanding of an applicant's work behavior or ethic, much less their personality...other than their ability to win at the very game that has been designed for others to fail at.
3. Failure to consider the influence of context
To put it directly, people are not designed to reason as robots—meaning in a black or white manner. Many answers to the statements/questions on assessments often end up being "depends on the situation", except that, there is not a choice for that response. For example,
I put my full effort into the tasks I do.
Eh, depends on the task. My effort in cleaning the house may be entirely different than my effort on a work project.
I am happy to make speeches in public.
Again, depends on the topic. You may not be as happy making a speech about Astrophysics when you didn't understand anything about it.
Simply adding one or two words of clarification can improve the validity of the statement.
My effort at simple tasks often differs from my work on major projects.
I feel comfortable giving a speech on topics I am unfamiliar with.
Lack of specificity can lead people to choose "neutral" repeatedly on assessment statements (if provided as a choice), which does not provide a thorough understanding of the applicant, other than maybe they like to consider the context, such as the time of day, mood, etc., or maybe they simply don't enjoy answering non-specific or unclear questions.
4. Failure to consider cultural diversity
Where nervousness can be interpreted as excitability, flexibility can be interpreted as lack of ambition. Depending on one's background and culture, there is always room for misinterpretation when things are not clearly communicated, especially when considering appropriate leadership skills. In certain cultures, a strong leader is seen as logical and non-emotional, but that may not always be the case in others. Beyond that, if one leads with intuition and emotion (which are grouped together in many assessments), it doesn't mean they are likely unreasonable. Asking questions that consider logic and emotion in opposition to each other may be a fault in itself, reflecting inadequacy in understanding deeper processing skills and a healthy balanced personality.
So, the next step is, is what to do about it. Identifying issues may serve well for awareness, but it is always nice to talk about solutions also.
1. Use more than a machine to filter employee applications (or at least stop relying on it so much)
I know it is a huge task to find the right fit when there are thousands of applications, so interviewing in increments might be effective in certain cases. However, we must remember that machines are based on calculation and correct responses only in accordance with the input of what is considered appropriate. Therefore, if a job candidate possesses higher-level understanding in diverse areas, but the match rate of the ATS is low, interview them anyway. It could just mean that they are using different words to speak the same language. It could also mean that there are skills you are not considering in the job description, but are useful for the position.
2. Inform applicants that you utilize different assessment measures beyond just test responses (and then do as you claim)
Voluntarily offering information that lowers anxiety is always useful. The rate of applicants being authentic increases when the employee process doesn't involve utilizing their creative skill or talent on ways to beat the system. So, although applicants may have adopted new methods to gain the interview due to their ability to adapt to the new hiring strategies, these newfound techniques can also lead companies to adopt more problems than what they are looking for. The ones who refuse to play the game or possess the integrity to present themselves authentically, regardless of the system, will have a better chance at being seen also.
Comments