By Dr. Charles
Handler
Reprinted
by Permission. This article originally appeared on the Electronic
Recruiting Exchangewww.erexchange.com.
As
assessment tools continue to become a more central part of the modern
hiring process, the interpretation and use of their results are
becoming animportant issue to those who are making hiring decisions.
The
overall issue is that people making hiring decisions have difficulty
clearly understanding how they should make use of assessment results
in their decision-making process. This is completely understandable,
as assessments represent a relatively new area for most folks, and
the interpretation of their results takes experience and training.
This
approach means that hiring should be viewed as a set of steps designed
to foster a two-way dialogue with candidates, for the purpose of
making informed predictions about the mutual fit between the candidate
and the organization. A process approach is built on the premise
that there are successive layers of information to be gathered via
a dialogue between job seeker and hiring personnel.
It
is important to understand that assessments are but one part of
this dialogue, and that, while assessments can provide a good deal
of information about a candidate at different stages of the process,
they are not designed to show the whole picture. Rather, assessment
results should be but one of many pieces of information that are
used by expert decision makers to help collect the data they need
to make good, accurate predictions.
1. WHEN SHOULD YOU "KNOCK OUT"
CANDIDATES BASED ON ASSESSMENT RESULTS?
Perhaps
the biggest challenge related to the use of assessment tools is
determining when to use assessment information to completely remove
an applicant from consideration. This is a big decision. While it
is relatively easy to justify based on above-the-surface stuff like
basic qualifications, it gets a bit more touchy when based on fuzzier
things, such as a set of personality test results. The bad news
here is that there is no one hard-fast rule for how to manage this
challenge. Rather, the solution is completely dependent upon the
situation in which the assessment is being used. The good news is
that there are several approaches that organizations can use to
manage this challenge. These approaches all require careful planning
in the development of the hiring system.
It
is critical that the organization take the time to clearly document
job requirements and the most critical factors that contribute to
the job. Any time you are removing an applicant from consideration,
this decision must be made based on job-related criteria only. Therefore,
you'd better be able to justify any knock outs made using assessment
results by tying them directly to job performance requirements.
2. HOW MUCH WEIGHT SHOULD BE PLACED ON TEST
SCORES?
Using
assessments in a non-compensatory manner -- that is, where there
is no mandate as to how a specific test score should impact a hiring
decision -- can often create real problems for an organization.
Perhaps the biggest one is helping those using the test results
to understand how to use the information to make good decisions
within the hiring process. This can be really difficult, because
most providers of assessments will clearly state that their test
should not be used as the sole criteria for making hiring decisions.
At the same time, if an applicant demonstrates a range of "unacceptable"
scores, it is often hard for hiring personnel to think of them as
an acceptable applicant. The most common situation I have come across
related to this issue is hiring managers who rely too heavily on
assessment results by automatically disqualifying an applicant based
solely on his or her test scores. Of course, the opposite situation,
completely ignoring test scores, is also a common problem.
3.
HOW DO I GET BUY-IN FROM MY HIRING PERSONNEL?
The
greatest hiring system in the world will not be effective if it
is not used properly. Lack of interest in using assessment tools
among hiring personnel is a common problem. This is often the case
when an assessment is "grafted on" to an existing hiring
process and creates confusion or extra work for those involved in
making hiring decisions. Of course this is a very frustrating situation
because it is not possible for organizations to reap the benefits
of a good process if the process is not used properly. Even more
frustrating is the fact that staffing personnel are often unaware
that those on the front lines are not on board with the process,
making it difficult to gain an understanding of why the system may
be lacking in effectiveness. This often leads to the blame being
placed on the assessment tool itself, resulting in push back for
its use.
Here
is my advice for avoiding this situation. First of all, any change
in a hiring process requires a champion whose opinion matters to
those making hiring decisions. The higher up the message originates,
the more weight it will have. Secondly, the message sent must be
one that focuses on the real value to be obtained via the use of
the process. Perhaps the most important way to ensure buy in for
assessment tools is to clearly document the results they can have
when used properly. This often requires a pilot study with a group,
in which a change is needed most and in which leadership is willing
to support a new approach. Time and time again I have seen situations
in which organizations build a legacy of data to show how effective
their hiring personnel can be when given the tools they need to
systematically make informed decisions.
While
there are many complexities associated with the use of assessment
tools, their basic purpose is very easy to understand. These tools
are nothing more than decision-making aids. The degree to which
they are useful as such depends entirely upon the way they are woven
into a process and the degree to which those making decisions rely
on this process to make effective decisions. Organizations seeking
to ensure assessments aid in the accuracy of hiring decisions should
work to ensure that the challenges outlined in this article are
addressed.