Posted by EmployTest - on Wed, Jul 21, 2010 @ 03:13 PM
Like the seasonal monsoon, the flood of applicants arrive each time you post a job opening. What, you only get dozens of resumes for each position you post? Consider yourself lucky. Others have told us of hundreds of resumes and the highest number we've heard is 836 applicants. For a single position. And you might have experienced many more than that.
Well, brace yourself and don't expect it to change any time soon. Today, Fed Chairman Ben Bernancke testified to Congress that it would take "a significant amount of time" for the job market to absorb the 8.5 million jobs lost in the past two years alone.
What does this mean for you, the one tasked with navigating through such a flood?
It means that the easy times of 10 years ago aren't coming back any time soon. Remember when you had to struggle to find one keeper out of 3 applicants? Now, and for the foreseeable future, you will continue to have dozens of highly qualified applicants. And you will need a methodology to determine which applicant is the best fit for the job. And we think that methodology should include pre-employment tests (preferably ours, of course).
The bad news is that you'll need to keep your processes in place to deal with this continued flood. And if you don't have processes in place, by all means develop them. But the good news is that you'll continue to have your choice of the best job applicants of the last twenty years.
Posted by EmployTest - on Thu, Aug 20, 2009 @ 11:05 AM
Entrepreneurs aren't very adept at evaluating job candidates. They are too busy and too optimistic, says Jay Goltz in yesterday's NYTimes article "Updating the Peter Principle: How to Hire After the Recession." "They hear what they want to hear, don't ask the tough questions," and don't understand the job applicants "lie and are delusional". A bit harsh perhaps, but the essence of what he says is true.
In his quest to improve your hiring processes, Goltz also references the "Peter Principle", the theory that people are continually promoted until they reach their level of incompetence, which he modifies only half-jokingly, to say that, instead of being denied further promotions, these people are instead laid-off or downsized. And then suggests that those are the people that you are sorting through during your selection process--the incompetent ones.
Well, not exactly true. There are plenty of rock stars out there, ready to come aboard and land your next big client or provide excellent service so you can keep the clients you have.
Goltz's final point was this:
"Establishing a better hiring process will have a profound impact on your business. When you hire better people, not only does your business get better, but your life also gets easier. It's the ultimate win-win."
Couldn't agree more. But how should you do this? One piece of the puzzle is by using pre-employment tests (in our own humble opinion). Personality tests. Microsoft Office tests. Clerical tests. Customer Service tests. These skills assessments will give an accurate and objective snapshot of what the person knows, and more importantly, what they don't know. Remember that if you are not testing your applicants, you could be hiring the rejects that your competitors refused to hire.
Posted by EmployTest - on Wed, May 13, 2009 @ 03:01 PM
"Lots of research shows that people are very optimistic in their self-assessments. They believe that they are much better than they are."
"90% of people believe that they are in the top 10% of their organization."
--Claudio Fernandez-Araoz, co-author of the Harvard Business Review article "The Definitive Guide to Recruitment".
It's noteworthy that people (read: job applicants) are not intentionally misleading anyone (read: hiring managers). It's just that they (we) are unable to objectively measure their own skills and tendencies. During an interview process, the job candidate is trying to promote their own skill set (perhaps inaccurately) while trying to guess what skills the employer needs. It's natural that there might be some discrepancies in what the candidate says they can do and what the position requires. A toolkit of pre-employment assessments might help both parties (job candidate and hiring manager) determine if the job is a good fit for both.
Posted by EmployTest - on Wed, May 06, 2009 @ 01:34 PM
That's the goal, right? To make sure most applicants don't do well so you can easily spot the cream of the crop, right? Well, not exactly. But surprisingly, Test Administrators can often make it hard on job applicants, particularly during the pre-employment testing process. So here's our list of ways to help your applicants score poorly on pre-employment tests....
1. Surprise them with the test. Don't tell them beforehand that you will be giving a pre-employment test. Don't let them mentally prepare. Enjoy the look of horror when they realize that what they thought was a one hour interview is actually a 4 hour testing marathon.
2. Allow them to test in your noisy and crowded reception area. The phones ringing and constant visitors will show if they truly have the focus and determination to succeed in the job.
3. "Coach" the applicants you like with additional instructions and employment test answers. Ignore questions from the applicants that you don't like.
4. Advise the applicants to skip the test's warm up questions and tutorial. After all, they are here to show what they know. There's no warm up in the real world, right?
5. Have your most inexperienced employee (the one that started last week and is lowest on the totem pole) administer the tests, particularly if testing for a managerial position.
6. Give little thought to which tests are being administered. Pay no attention to the test questions as they relate to the job description. An applicant for a warehouse position should certainly take a Microsoft Excel skills test, even if the position doesn't require such skills, right?
7. Increase the applicants' test anxiety by sitting right beside them while they test.
7.5 Tell them you don't really use the scores anyway (even though you do)!
Far-fetched? Maybe. But we've heard some of the above methods before, although they weren't used expressly with the goal of lowering scores. Have you observed such practices (or different, yet equally effective ones)? Email us your thoughts.
Posted by EmployTest - on Wed, Apr 29, 2009 @ 03:16 PM
If you look into the corners of the Internet these days, you'll see much discussion among job applicants about pre-employment testing. Which companies are using which tests? What types of tests are being administered? And invariably the question is asked, "what is a good score?" Funny how applicants can spend so much time worry about such things when they would be better served to brush up on their skill set.
Similar questions, yet from a different viewpoint, come from our clients. "What is a good score on a computer skills test?" Or the dreaded, "Should I hire this person, based on their test score? Is 80% good enough, or is 50% too bad?"
First, hiring decisions should never be made solely on pre-employment test scores.
And the truth is, we don't know what should be considered a good (or bad) score. There is no universal answer that applies to each company's situation. Good scores or bad scores are dependent on many factors, including the job description and the company. A 75% score on an Excel skills test with Company A will provide acceptable candidates but that same score at Company B would not come close to the skill level needed.
So what is a manager to do? The best strategy to create such cut scores is by testing current employees to see where they stand. Develop scoring ranges based on their skill levels on each test topic. Test both star performers and underachievers (you'll need both to get a good range). But won't that cost extra time (and money)? Perhaps it will, but compare it to a new hire with the wrong skills set.