Recommendations For Standardized Testing In Hiring Processes At Multinational Corporations, Part 2

If you have not read Part 1, make sure to check it out before going into Part 2!

---

One form of standardized testing is personality testing. Personality testing can be used to identify specific characteristics and traits that enable an individual to excel in a particular job or in a particular industry. This is significant to hiring managers because it can allow companies to measure the intrinsic traits that go beyond a person’s knowledge, in turn saving time and money down the road. “Training can overcome lack of knowledge and experience, but nothing can easily overcome personality qualities.” (Randall & Randall, 2001). It is important not only to determine whether a candidate can accomplish the tasks assigned in a position, but also whether they are a good fit within a particular team setting and or under varying amounts of pressure. Once again, this is even more significant for global organizations that depend on employees with high levels of emotional intelligence and tolerance for cultural difference. A further strength of personality tests is that they measure and present important personality tests that could otherwise go undetected in an interview. For example, many businesses use some form of the Myers Briggs personality inventory, which measures the big five personality traits: originality, consolidation, extroversion, accommodation, and need for stability (“MBTI Basics,” n.d.). A personality test scoring high in originality may uncover a person’s ability to deal creatively with problematic situations. This may not always come to the surface in the interview process. So for companies where innovation is a core value and central to the company’s success, originality may be an essential trait to test.

Pixabay image source.

Not only have standardized tests proven to be the most valid predictors of success, but a further strength is that they are less expensive and time consuming than other hiring and selection practices. The technology and implementation of standardized testing may involve significant spend up front through the development and training required. However, once implemented, tests are fairly inexpensive to administer. Most importantly, the savings associated with hiring a quality and successful employee are enormous and surprisingly to many in the field, less expensive than other forms of selection (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).

Another type of standardized testing is honesty testing. Honesty is clearly very important to any position. Thought leaders in the field of talent acquisition have given much time and consideration to developing a way to test for honesty in the selection process. Nevertheless, honesty tests carry significant weaknesses in them. One such potential issue is misrepresenting and defaming innocent candidates. Honesty tests attempt to detect deviant tests (“Honesty Tests Flawed,” 1997). This type of testing is not recommended.

The most compelling argument for standardized testing may be their usefulness when combined with other selection processes. A literature review done for the past one hundred years of candidate selection by Frank L. Schmidt, In-Sue Oh, and Johnathan A. Shaffer claims the mix of a standardized test and a structured interview to be one of the best approaches to candidate selection. In their research, the specific test they discuss is the “GMA” or general mental ability test. General mental ability measures the ability of an individual to learn and problem-solve. This becomes an accurate prediction of the way an individual will assimilate into a new job environment, learn the new skills of the job, and problem solve in a new role. Combined with a structure interview, this test provides a solid overview of a candidates technical and soft skills. Furthermore, they claim that the validity of this combination holds for both entry level candidates as well as for experienced job applicants (Schmidt, 2016). In addition, standardized tests not only provide data that can assess candidates more equitably, but it can also be used to strengthen traditional recruitment techniques, such as the interview. Furthermore, the interview can be enhanced by the use of technology. Video recorded interviews can be enhanced by the use of machine learning software (Biel, Teijeiro-Mosquera, & Gatica-Perez, 2012). Algorithms run during a structured video interview can read the emotional responses and facial expressions of candidates to accurately measure their personality traits, specially for extroversion. Furthermore, video technologies are now being utilized for work sample tests (Chamorro-Premuzic, Winsborough, Sherman, & Hogan, 2016). Especially in the current environment where data privacy concerns run high among the public a significant weakness of such algorithms are privacy violations. Talent acquisition teams, especially those that operate globally, must consider how privacy concerns align with company values and regional laws and regulations.

As mentioned earlier, another problem with the traditional interview process was the bias of the interviewer. Further research suggests that the questions asked by interviewers do not actually portray hirability knowledge. Any hirability impressions that the interviewer develops from the candidate come from the interactions in the interview itself (Nguyen, Frauendorfer, Mast, & Gatica-Perez, n.d.). Once again, the need for structured interviews become clear. Furthermore, the algorithms used to analyze video interviewing, function to judge all candidates on the same basis, therefore eliminating the bias present between interviewers and interviewees.

To create a sturdy, robust hiring process, I believe personality tests can be useful in conjunction with other customized standardized testing and a monitored and balanced interview to find the successful candidate. A word of caution though, companies can spend significant amounts of money investing in talent acquisition professionals and standardized testing hiring techniques, only to have them fail without proper implementation. Potentially the most important step in the development of any standardized testing hiring process is to ensure that talent acquisition teams and hiring managers understand how to interpret candidates’ results correctly and the importance of cross-validation. Not only do hiring managers need to understand the meaning of results, but they must be able to match results with the profile that was built in the cross-validation stage. This requires extensive training (Chamorro-Premuzic, Akhtar, Winsborough, & Sherman, 2017).

In conclusion, before any selection processes are established and developed, a thorough job analysis must be conducted to identify the significant tasks performed in a position and the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform that job. This information is the foundation of the job description, the selection process, and the training need to properly on-board an employee. These core competencies identified in the job analysis must also be company and industry specific. Once these competencies are identified, talent acquisition teams can select the tools necessary to identify these traits and abilities in candidates. When using standardized tests, companies need to identify the differences in profiles that will indicate personality characteristics, skills, and traits that are associated with either success or failure within a job. Once this is completed, companies can profile applicants to determine who is most likely to succeed within the job and the company. Finally, the companies should not only use standardized testing, but a multiple selection of techniques which as discussed, provides the most effective and efficient method of selecting the best employee. It must be acknowledged that each selection technique has both strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, by combining several techniques, talent acquisition teams can ensure the most robust result. A varied and specific mix of selection processes that addresses the needs of the both the role and the company will achieve the most desirable results when selecting and hiring. However, this solution is never cheap, fast, or simple. Nevertheless the positive results of a finely developed selection process far outweigh the burden of cost and time spent. Furthermore, selecting the best candidate will provide cost and time savings to the company in the end by increasing productivity and ensuring that further time and money is not lost in hiring and rehiring to compensate for poor employees.

References:

• Avery, R. D. (1979). Unfair Discrimination in the Employment Interview: Legal and Physchological Aspects. Psychological Bulletin, 736–765.
• Bertrand, K. (1990). Hiring Tests: Sales Managers’ Dream or Nightmare? Business Marketing, 34–42.
• Biddle, J. E., & Hammermesh, D. S. (1998). Beauty, Productivity and Discrimination: Lawyers’ Look and Lucre. Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 172–201.
• Biel, J.-I., Teijeiro-Mosquera, L., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2012). FaceTube: predicting personality from facial expressions of emotion in online conversational video (p. 53). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2388676.2388689
• Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Akhtar, R., Winsborough, D., & Sherman, R. A. (2017). The datafication of talent: how technology is advancing the science of human potential at work. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.04.007
• Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Winsborough, D., Sherman, R. A., & Hogan, R. (2016). New Talent Signals: Shiny New Objects or a Brave New World? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(03), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.6
• Ford, N. M., Walker, O. C. J., Churchill, G. A. J., & Hartley, S. W. (1987). Selecting Successful Salespeople: A Meta-Analysis of Biographical and Psychological Selection Citeria. Review of Marketing, 90–131.
• Greenberg, J., & Greenberg, H. (1985). Avoid Costly Mistakes - Follow These Steps To Identify Good Salespeople. Marketing News.
• Honesty Tests Flawed. (1997). People Management, 3(2), 15.
• Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance. Psychological Bulletin, 73–96.
• Johnston, W. J., & Cooper, M. C. (1981). Industrial Sales Force Selection: Current Knowledge and Needed Research. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 45–55.
• Kerley, J. W. (1985). New England Life Takes Steps to Insure its Future. Sales and Marketing Management, 74–77.
• MBTI Basics. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2018, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/
• Nguyen, L. S., Frauendorfer, D., Mast, M. S., & Gatica-Perez, D. (n.d.). Hire me: Computational inference of hirability in employment interviews based on nonverbal behavior. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA, 14.
• Orpen, C. (1985). Patterned Behavior Description Interviews Versus Unstructured Interviews: A Comparative Validity Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 774–776.
• Plotkin, H. M. (1987). What Makes a Succesful Salesperson. Training and Development Journal, 54–56.
• Randall, E. J., & Randall, C. H. (2001). A Current Review of Hiring Techniques for Sales Personnel: The First Step in the Sales Management Process. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501892
• Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and Fairness of Some Alternative Employee Selection Procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35(1), 1–62.
• Schmidt, F. L. (2016). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 100 Years of Research Findings. Unpublished. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.18843.26400
• Sharer, B. (1986). Ten Mistakes to Avoid When Hiring a Sales Staff. Marketing News.
• Taylor, P. (1999). Providing Structure to Interviews and Reference Checks. Workforce, 7–10.

Best,

@capatazche