Online assessments for job interviews

[hamsterjill]

Does anyone else hate them as much as I do? They are hard. I freeze and don’t do very well on them. Standardized testing for adults.

I want to INTERVIEW for a job; not take some online quiz and be forced to conform to a certain type of box.

Have recruiters and hiring managers forgotten that the “H” in HR stands for “human”????

Someone commiserate with me, please!

[Bristlecone]

1. We do them annually at my company, not just as an entry

"Fit-ability" surveys.

I will say this for my company though. They are unbelievably inclusive and positively cultured.

[Shermann]

2. What kind of questions were on it?

I took one about 20 years ago which was for software engineering ability. It was difficult because I am somewhat specialized in my field and it was more of a generic test. I did well enough to get a few offers.

The tests are often given by recruiters, and they are ramping up the difficulty level in order to differentiate themselves. It's a way to filter down a wide field of candidates without wasting face-to-face time (especially important today).

[hamsterjill]

7. There are all kinds.

Some are specific to software like Quickbooks or Excel. The questions are varied and it’s hard (for me at least) because I learned the programs and learned ways for them to do what I need them to do. But I may NOT know every last key function of the program because it wasn’t needed for whatever use I had.

There are also personality tests like Culture Index, etc., where your whole personality is whittled down to which words you pick from a list.

[Moostache]

3. As a hiring manager that has seen several of these...

1) I generally ignore them completely.
2) I hire for qualifications and HR insists on these assessments for "fairness" and to avoid lawsuits
3) The tests themselves vary from down-right scary accurate to horoscope-level idiocy

In the end, I like to think of my company as a good place to be...and these are a small part of the overall evaluation process. I have used one to ask probing questions to a candidate to see if their interview preparation allowed for better answers to boiler-plate questions...in all honesty, my evaluations and hiring decisions have NEVER relied solely on any of these things...

[MANative]

4. From the other side...

I'm a VP of HR. 30+ years in HR roles. While I NEVER do full-blown standardized testing of applicants, I do insist on a few fairly detailed screening questions before moving to interviews. Why? A number of years ago, I posted a job on a large job board for a very specific financial function. My description was very detailed. I got more than 600 responses, the vast majority of which were completely unqualified for the role. Took me many, many hours to wade through to find the small handful of candidates that met my requirements. Those hours should have been spent doing exactly what you said... Interviewing good candidates. Since then, I learned my lesson and used short, but specific screening quizzes to ensure that I do get to spend quality time with viable prospects rather than people who barely read the job requirements.

[Siwsan]

5. IMHO, HR departments are getting more and more impersonal

I worked in one for a few years. I did a lot of the skills testing - typing tests, medical terminology, 10-key. I knew people were always nervous when testing, so for the typing test, I'd give them 2, timed practice sessions. If I found they scored higher on a practice test than the 'official' test, I'd use that one. The timing was the same - they just weren't stressing as much. Of course, this was in the 'olden days' when typing tests were done on an actual typewriter. If the applicant just couldn't quite make it, I'd let them come back, daily, to try again. AND, people were often given a chance on a position for which they might not have all of the 'qualifications' but definitely had the skills to learn. There was a probationary period, and if they just couldn't manage, they'd get their old position back, or something similar, in their skill set.

After I transferred out they started testing using computer programs and people were given one shot at the typing test, and if they didn't fit the qualifications to a "T", they weren't even given an interview.

And, by the old HR practices, we had one employee who went from the mail room, quite literally to the top. She picked up college classes, over the years, but her skills were so great, she was promoted to a Director position before she even got her BA. She retired as the CEO.

[NNadir]

6. For one job, I was told I was only one of two out of nearly 100 who "passed."

They flew both of us to Kansas to give a talk on separate days.

They hired the other guy.

Later I ran into one of the executives of the company at a meeting. He told me that he wished they'd hired me because the other guy, one of the "one in fifty" was totally unsuited for the job and lasted less than two months.

By that time, I had a much better job than that one.

I would never dream of using a tool like that to hire someone or to exclude someone.