Ages ago I thought I’d start a series of psychometric testing. I got as far as an initial post talking about experiences and asking a question around why recruiters don’t use them as much as they could.
Very late as it is; here is a summary of the many interesting responses I got:
Overconfidence in their own abilities as a recruiter
Recruiters can overestimate how successfully they can predict job success using traditional methods. Research has shown that using CV’s to screen applicants for interview has a success rate not much greater than using the applicant’s horoscope (i.e. none at all). Studies show that using our psychometric instrument to screen applicants will dramatically increase the likelihood of selecting the right people, but I’ve found that many recruiters don’t seem to believe (or understand!) the figures.
Cost
One reason I’ve often struggled to get authorisation to use psychometric tools is that it is seen as an upfront cost that sits like an ugly troll on the balance sheet, whereas the impact of poor recruitment can often be hard to quantify. Followed up with… Companies that have worked out the cost of a poor recruitment decision have no problem justifying the use of decent quality tests. This is particularly true when used for sales recruitment as the cost of a poor recruitment decision is so obviously manifest in the subsequent below-par sales results.
Fear of losing a placement
As for the use of tests by agencies, there is an inherent conflict of interest therein. Agencies get rewarded on placement so why should they put any barrier between a marginal candidate and a placement fee (such as an adverse indicating test result)?
Lack of understanding of which product to use
There are many good reasons to be sceptical of tests. Many are not much better than a horoscope and many are misunderstood and badly used. For example, how many people know the difference between an ipsative and normative test? Answer, very few.
Apathy
It’s far easier NOT to implement a new system than to take the (even short amount of) time to look for something to improve your process.
If you have any other comments let me know….. and if you want to understand how YOU can use psychometric products in your (or your clients’) recruitment process I’m happy to have a chat!
The follow up article will be Why Recruiters Use Psyhometrics…
Louise,
This is an interesting point. I know in a lot of cases our clients use psychometric testing and therefore don’t want to pay twice. Therefore the cost argument does carry some weight. However, I now get everybody who we are speaking with as a potential candidate for a role to complete a psychometric profile.
The reason I have chosen to do this is to give us as much information as possible prior to us interviewing a candidate. The extra information allows us to probe further at interview and to gain a better understanding of the candidates competencies. This means we can put candidates forward to our clients that better suit their needs. We believe that adopting this approach makes our candidate assessment process more robust and takes away the need to rely solely upon a consultants gut feeling.
Louise, thank you for this. It’s very interesting and informative. Many of our clients in Australia are recruiters, and I think that the belief in their instincts is very strong.
However just a few weeks ago we had a call from a senior recruiter who told us that a low ability score had alerted him to a candidate’s false claim to a university degree. He was very pleased to have had access to the information the test provided him with, and wasn’t quite so convinced about intuition any more.
I think its a lack of understanding of how/when to use them, what they can tell you and a lack of understanding of a value add service and of course a risk of having the ‘consultant’ job title challenged by an algorithm (IMHO).
There are many assessment tools out there and many are misused (seen as a Holy Grail) and the decision of which ones to use are made on price rather than what you want to assess in the first place.
I don’t however think they are generally expensive to consume….they are generally relatively expensive to train people on (time & money) and thats not something the recruitment industry as a whole is very good at.
I personally use them for every assignment we run as standard and have ever only had 1 client who didn’t want to use them (they did however use their own).
In the recruitment process, I don’t use them as a hire/no hire decision tool but as a differentiator amongst the short listees….all of which, by definition, should be able to do the job and should be a good cultural fit for the organisation (or I have failed one of my primary tasks).
If the assessments can highlight differences, strengths and potential areas of concern/conflict/risk in the shortlistees, the question is….why wouldn’t you want to provide this additional data?
I think its a lack of understanding of how/when to use them, what they can tell you and a lack of understanding of a value add service and of course a risk of having the ‘consultant’ job title challenged by an algorithm (IMHO).
There are many assessment tools out there and many are misused (seen as a Holy Grail) and the decision of which ones to use are made on price rather than what you want to assess in the first place.
I don’t however think they are generally expensive to consume….they are generally relatively expensive to train people on (time & money) and thats not something the recruitment industry as a whole is very good at.
I personally use them for every assignment we run as standard and have ever only had 1 client who didn’t want to use them (they did however use their own).
In the recruitment process, I don’t use them as a hire/no hire decision tool but as a differentiator amongst the short listees….all of which, by definition, should be able to do the job and should be a good cultural fit for the organisation (or I have failed one of my primary tasks).
If the assessments can highlight differences, strengths and potential areas of concern/conflict/risk in the shortlistees, the question is….why wouldn’t you want to provide this additional data?