CareerJournal.com again with this article – Pre-Hire Tests Aim To Stop ‘Fakers’. I like to riff on this topic often. My comment – if we could simply keep the fakers off your payroll, we would be worth our weight in gold. Along those lines, I think the most accurate pricing model for our assessments would be $500 for determining a strong candidate and $1,000 for identifying a weak candidate. I doubt that would fly, but the logic is sound.

Some excerpts:

Despite the tests’ flaws, Dr. Griffith says pre-employment tests are generally more reliable predictors of performance than an interview alone.

Generally? An understatement in my opinion. Our primary focus is in the sales hiring arena and we have yet to encounter a hiring manager who has a perfectly tuned intuition. Every sales manager we have encountered has a sales hiring horror story.

Facing the perennial challenge of hiring the right applicant, more employers have adopted prehire tests in recent years, thanks in part to the Internet making distribution cheaper and easier. About 70% of entry and midlevel jobs at big companies now include testing, says Scott Erker, a senior vice president at Development Dimensions International, a Bridgeville, Pa., human-resources consultancy.

We have seen a significant increase in assessment usage over the past 2 years especially. We offer web-based assessments which are not proctored so fake answers are an issue. The author continues in this vein:

Employers and testing companies are aware that some applicants give misleading answers. So they include questions designed to weed out fakers.

Yes we do. Our assessments provide reliability scores and verification questions.

Sherri Merbach, senior director for organizational development for Orange Lake Resorts, which sells time shares in Florida, says prehire personality tests are especially helpful in hiring salespeople. Sales applicants are usually able to make a good impression — and thus interview well…

Welcome to our world. Most of the sales hiring horror stories we hear involve a smooth-talking sales candidate who appeared strong in the interview. Once they are on the payroll, the sales manager learns that their new salesperson couldn’t close a door.

In case you couldn’t tell, we are unabashed advocates of objective assessments used in conjunction with a structured hiring process.

Comments(0)

In a recent phone screen for a sales position, I asked a candidate to tell me how they believed their background fit the requirements of the position. Now mind you, the position required the candidates to listen effectively, build rapport, ask insightful questions and have excellent verbal communication skills. The candidate’s response:

Tell me what you’re looking for and I will tell you if I can do it.

Really, I didn’t need to go much further, but I did ask him a couple of other questions and received similar answers. So I ended the phone screen by stating, “That’s all the questions I have for you at this time. What questions do you have for me?” Here is the dialogue that followed:

Candidate: Is this a commission-only position or does it pay a base salary plus bonus or commission?

My Response: The position has a base salary.

Candidate: Does the position offer any benefits?

My Response: Yes, it has a full benefit package.

Candidate: Will this position work out of a corporate office or a home office?

My Response: A home office.

Candidate: Good, I like to make my own hours. I think that’s all my questions.

My Response: I want to thank you for your time today and have a nice evening.

Candidate: Thank you, you too.

The candidate was toast at this point.

Comments(0)

From CareerJournal.com’s mailbag article (emphasis mine):

Question: My son, a high-school student who has dyslexia and ADD, handles himself well in job interviews and on jobs bagging groceries or helping customers. But when he applies for part-time jobs at big store chains, he invariably flunks their online pre-employment tests. The tests take an hour or more and ask so many simple, repetitive questions that my son gets bored and just starts checking off answers randomly. Are these tests a legal way of discriminating?

— F.J., Irvine, Calif.

Answer: Such tests can be discriminatory, but proving it can be difficult. The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits employers from using screening tests that eliminate candidates because of a disability — unless the employer can prove that the test measures qualities that are essential to performing the job, says David Fram, a director of the National Employment Law Institute, a Denver nonprofit training and education concern. If challenged, the employer would have to show that the test is necessary for screening, Mr. Fram says. In a hypothetical example, the employer might want workers who can stay focused and concentrate well despite lots of repetition.

On the other hand, if the test is merely gauging applicants’ general aptitude and is screening out your son for questionable reasons, he might be eligible for accommodations. Several conditions would have to be met. He would have to put the employer on notice that he has a disability. He would have to demonstrate that his disability qualifies him for protection under the ADA; the law sets a relatively tough standard for this. Then, your son would have to apply for an accommodation, such as permission to take the exam orally.

This topic is a tough one to deal with in that it may be that the questioner’s son simply isn’t a good fit for the position. That statement sounds harsh, but it is a truth that must be addressed (and I think the author does a good job of it).

One item that is often overlooked is that the employer is looking for the right fit for the position. As an employee, you should be pleased that the company wants to match your abilities to the position’s requirements. This approach provides a better fit for both employer and employee.

Comments(0)

This Saturday, November 11th is Veteran’s Day and I hope you will observe this holiday by remembering the sacrifices of our military men & women including their families. I would like to share a little bit of history with you regarding this day of remembrance.

June 28, 1919 – Treaty of Versailles was signed, officially ended World War I. However, fighting ceased seven months earlier for that reason, November 11, 1918 , is generally regarded as the end of the war to end all wars.

November 11, 1919 – President Wilson proclaimed the first commemoration of Armistice Day.

June 4, 1926 – United States Congress officially recognized the end of World War I when it passed a concurrent resolution.

May 13, 1938 – An Act (52 Stat. 351; 5 U. S. Code, Sec. 87a) approved making the 11th of November in each year a legal holiday.

November 11, 1953 – instead of an Armistice Day program, there was a Veterans’ Day observance. Ed Rees, of Emporia, was so impressed that he introduced a bill into the House to change the name to Veterans’ Day. After this passed, Mr. Rees wrote to all state governors and asked for their approval and cooperation in observing the changed holiday.

May 24, 1954 – The name was changed to Veterans’ Day by Act of Congress.

October 8, 1954 – President Eisenhower called on all citizens to observe the day by remembering the sacrifices of all those who fought so gallantly, and through rededication to the task of promoting an enduring peace. The President referred to the change of name to Veterans’ Day in honor of the servicemen of all America’s wars.

June 28, 1968 – The Uniforms Holiday Bill was signed. The bill intended to insure three-day weekends for Federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day.

September 20th, 1975 – President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978.

Comments(0)